<h2 class=" eplus-wrapper" id="crosshead">Playing with fire</h2>

Damien Hirst has made millions¹ from shocking the public. The British artist rose to fame in the 1990s by smashing all the norms of art.

He paid a hunter to catch a giant tiger shark and suspended it in formaldehydeA colourless chemical used in many building materials.. He cut a cow and a calf in half so that you could walk through their bodies. And he glued down thousands of butterflies.

Yet his latest work might be his most controversial yet. The Currency comprises 10,000 small paintings. Hirst sold each one for $2,000 (£1,767). Each buyer had to choose whether to keep the work, or have it burnt and replaced by a non-fungibleReplaceable or interchangeable. token (NFT) - a digital file that certifies ownership of the artwork.

Critics have poured scorn on Hirst's new project. As Time Out's Eddy Frankel wrote: "A lot of art is stupid. A lot of art is lazy. A lot is arrogant... But very, very little art manages to be all of those things at once." Frankel thinks The Currency fits the bill.

Hirst disagrees. Interviewed while lifting paintings into the fire, the artist said: "I believe that NFTs are as important as physical art."

NFTs have been the subject of fierce debate. For some they represent the next frontierThe most advanced achievement in a particular area. of art-making. The past century has seen art expand beyond painting and sculpture to include collage, found objects, film, animation and much else. NFTs are simply another new medium.

They have already sold for eye-watering sums. In March 2021, the digital artist Beeple² auctioned an NFT for a record-breaking $69m (£61m). By the end of the year, nearly £36bn had been spent on NFTs worldwide - almost as much as the entire art market.

Yet NFTs have many doubters. Some think that they are a con. As Sunday Times critic Waldemar Januszczak puts it: "Non-fungible tokens were invented by the Devil to lure fools into the art world and persuade them to spend their money on nothing."

By buying an NFT, you are not buying an artwork but a file recording that artwork. It is as if you have entered a supermarket and bought not a tin of tomato soup³ but the phrase "a tin of tomato soup". You own the ownership, but not the tin itself. No-one yet knows exactly what rights an NFT owner has.

Yes: The art market has long been money-grubbing. But NFTs are a new low: a wheezeA clever trick. whereby people are charmed into spending money on nothing. The bubble will burst - and the buyers will lose out.

No: From Marcel DuchampFrench artist (1887 - 1968) whose works challenged artistic norms. His piece L.H.O.O.Q. (1919) involved drawing a moustache and beard on a picture of the Mona Lisa.'s urinal to Carl Andre's piles of bricks, art has always surprised, shocked and challenged conventional ideas of value. The NFTs are just the latest edition.

Or... Only time will tell. Innovative new things are often greeted with suspicion. If NFTs continue to trade successfully and bring value to their artists and owners, who can say they are a con? 

Formaldehyde - A colourless chemical used in many building materials.

Fungible - Replaceable or interchangeable.

Frontier - The most advanced achievement in a particular area.

Wheeze - A clever trick.

Marcel Duchamp - French artist (1887 - 1968) whose works challenged artistic norms. His piece L.H.O.O.Q. (1919) involved drawing a moustache and beard on a picture of the Mona Lisa.