I disagree. It is pretty possible now to create a replica of a painting that would be indistinguishable to the human eye from a distance of, say, 2 feet.
Yes, the object could still be distinguished by other means, but presumably the only reason we enjoy art like paintings is for their visual effect - there is literally no other reason to appreciate it.
So my point is that the scarcity for the reason we value it in the first place is actually not an inescapable fact for something like a painting.
Arguably, however, someone wanting to own the original painting by a well regarded artist (say a van Gogh) you're stepping into Veblen goods territory[0] as its a display of wealth, status and prestige. This is what NFTs are trying to achieve
Artificial scarcity is merely a signal/status booster in a virtual world where post-abundance is present.
If you are in a VR world and want to mingle with other fellow “tribe members”, what signal do you go off of that’s hard to replicate?
The scarcity is not in the image itself, it is in a combination of image + canvas.
But when we’re talking about very expensive paintings, the physical scarcity of the raw materials plays essentially no role in the valuation. Provenance is everything. Sure, the canvas and paint is scarce, but the cost of canvas and paint is vanishingly small. Make no mistake, provenance is the reason people pay lots of money for original paintings.
For physical objects, scarcity is an unescapable fact. It would be great if we could right-click on some Michelin starred chef's food and have another copy of it, but we can't.
NFTs unnecessarily add artificial scarcity to something that didn't really need it.