In the sphere of digital fashion, items are sometimes being sold as NFTs, providing a sense of ownership and authenticity in the digital space. Buyers can use these NFTs to showcase and trade their virtual fashion items within specific platforms. This is especially interesting because it brings up discussions around the value of digital products in general, the merit of owning a purely virtual item and the relationship to the analogue equivalent of attributing value to fashion items. An interesting point of discussion for this topic is also the relationship between original fashion pieces and fake products or counterfeit items in the real world and in digital space.
The blockchain technology that forms the basis for NFTs (Nonfungible tokens) has apparently solved an issue which many purely digital products faced before – the assertion and definition of exclusive ownership. Although there is still room for debate on this issue – which might reach back to fundamental questions on reproducibility of artworks raised as far back as Walter Benjamin’s seminal text „The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility” – blockchain technology has, at least in concept, provided a means of determining digital ownership. In consequence, this has enabled the creators of digital products to transfer a quality into digital space which is essential to the fashion market – exclusivity. The merit and necessity of this quality can and should debated, not only in digital, but also in traditional fashion. While the basis for exclusivity in traditional fashion was once rooted in the craftswomanship and quality of materials that went into producing a garment, an even superficial examination of current fashion practices shows that exclusivity today is much more linked to intangible – one might even say, imaginary – values such as brand names. And so the question of what gives a fashion item its ultimate value remains relevant for both traditional and digital fashion.
While there can be debate about the organic rarity of source materials and the limited availability that lead to real life fashion items’ exclusivity due to fabric or craftswomanship limitations, the limitations on producibility in the digital space are debatably always artificially imposed. Nothing stops a fashion brand from rendering a million models of the same item as opposed to only one. And even in the case of only producing one original digital piece, we must enter into the long running discussion of what constitutes the digital original and what it means to have a unique and original piece that is purely digitally produced. The definition of the term “original” according to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary reads “a document, work of art, etc. produced for the first time, from which copies are later made”.1
In the digital world however, it is often impossible to determine where and when an artwork or digital product was first created or published. Metadata can be altered and digital copies can be made without much skill or effort by people looking to use or profit from other creator’s digital products as their property.
Further research and writing into this aspect of digital fashion, as demonstrated in the above text, therefore has many routes and paths it could follow. Questions of ownership, exclusivity and originality all warrant their own explorations and provide ample material for further discussion. Additionally, technical and legal aspects can be investigated in more detail to further discuss the use of NFT and blockchain technology in digital fashion.
References:
1 The Oxford Learner’s Dictionary. “Original” (Noun). https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/original_2
Further reading:
Bethan Alexander & Niccolò Bellandi (2022) Limited or Limitless? Exploring the Potential of NFTs on Value Creation in Luxury Fashion, Fashion Practice, 14:3, 376-400. DOI: 10.1080/17569370.2022.2118969
Joy, A., Zhu, Y., Peña, C., & Brouard, M. (2022). Digital future of luxury brands: Metaverse, digital fashion, and non-fungible tokens. Strategic Change, 31(3), 337–343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2502
