Between Digitwins & PhygitalNFTs
Reflections around utility and shifting mindsets
It comes as no surprise that the editorial of the latest edition of The Burlington Magazine (March 2022) is dedicated to art in the age of digital reproduction. Taking the cue from Walter Benjamin’s seminal 1936 essay ‘The Work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction’, the editorial speaks about the dialectic between original and copy, also taking the conversation forward with regard to digital works of art. “The medium would seem to erode completely the distinction between original and copy” states the editorial “since any such work could, in theory, be reproduced a limitless number of times with perfect accuracy”.
One point raised by The Burlington Magazine editorial struck me as insightful. In choosing to describe digital assets as certified copies of original artworks the editorial makes one very pertinent observation “ … a screen does not look like the surface of a canvas” hence these should be considered as being, to all intents and purposes, copies. What The Burlington Magazine editorial is particularly keen on highlighting is the essence of a work of art and its materiality. I tend to look at this point from a user perspective, museum publics in particular.
My point is pretty straightforward. We tend to forget that our enjoyment of a work of art is to all intents and purposes a multisensorial experience. Rather than being a merely visual experience, our experience of physical art is multisensorial. Our first encounter with the essence of a work of art is, more often than not, visual but this takes us deeper to engage with sound caught within layers of paint. Other sensors follow suit. Smell and taste are evoked in our minds by the objects depicted or the abstraction that the artist has created. We feel our way visually all over the shape, form, and volume of the artwork we view. The same with texture.
The Burlington Magazine Editorial seemingly suggests that digital assets minted as NFTs may lack this potential of a multisensorial experience. Is it so, or is there more to it?
The conversations around the dialectic between the physical artwork and its digital version minted as NFTs by an ever-increasing number of museums over the past months are generally informed by the idea of the digital twin. The concept has been around for quite some time. The industry describes it as a digital program or a virtual representation. An appropriate definition would read on these lines
“…a virtual representation of an object or system that spans its lifecycle, is updated from real-time data, and uses simulation, machine learning, and reasoning to help decision-making.”
Going by this definition, a digital twin would be an asset with a purpose, in support of the physical, and from which it is drawn rather. It is much less of an identical digital version having one and the same aura as the original with which it shares an existence.
It may well be the case that the idea of a digital twin in itself can inform new thinking for NFTs although this may also be informed by phygital.
Let’s unpack this further.
Linguistically, the word phygital is a combination of the words “ physical” and “digital” to signify the ever-growing experiential cross-referencing and amalgamation of these two worlds. In other words, the term refers to the ways and means how these two realms — physical and digital — have melted into each other and hence increasingly difficult to inhabit them separately.
We can think of a phygital NFT as being a work of art that can shift from a physical to a digital state or vice versa, and which can also be experienced separately or alternatively. It might also be a combination of two states, physical and digital, whereby Benjamin’s aura of the original is shared between the two states.
This thinking is already taking shape. We can mention the Phygi platform as a good example of this thinking. On this platform, NFTs can change matter from digital to physical, be it posters, wearable items, or any other tangible form. Another example to mention would be the Milan-based Asthetes platform.
This thinking is relatively easier to apply in the case of contemporary art practice but much more complex to inform the concept behind phygital NFTs for old masters. This is where a shift in mindset might be necessary and welcome. Rather than consider the aura as a point of departure, the user experience might be the element around which to develop the right measure of utility. In the case of museums, the phygital might point to a combination of states that is much more informed by the multi-sensorial experience of a work of art. This thinking around the multisensorial has been around for quite some time. Art Sensorium developed by Tate way back in 2015 is a good example out of many more that might inform the phygital NFT experience of digital twins minted for works of art in museum collections.
The question beckons. Can we actually extract the soundscape of a painting, a multiplicity of viewpoints from within the painting itself that can expand the user experience of a work of art and minted as NFT to be considered as one and the same phygital artwork?
We can also take this idea much further. The experience of a work of art is usually a subjective one, personalised, and rarely shared beyond an entourage or social media platforms. What if phygital NFTs document the multiplicity of subjective experiences by museum publics, including coordinates and dates when that subjective memory has been registered? Imagine being able to pass on the subjective memory of an encounter with a work of art and layer each memory into what can by time become a public art history thanks to a special smart contract enabled by chips or QR codes that can access NFT data and memories?
In short …
Rather than considering the ambition to monetize as their point of departure, museums might do well to look into user experience instead. Rather than look at the trends informed by what has happened, museums might have much more to gain by looking into the possibilities in their search for a significant utility and purpose.
A word of caution. There is no doubt, indeed, that the possibilities ahead for museums and phygital NFTs are next to infinite. The question, however, beckons. Would it be a case of innovation adapting to museum practice or might we be looking into new museological thinking radically shifting the status quo in directions that are yet to be understood let alone considered?
Exciting times ahead, indeed.
