The medium that is changing with NFT is one of credit and incentives, not aesthetics. NFT art isn't differently made art, it's differently positioned art. It's like jumping from movies to television. And it's similar in a nominal sense with respect to current platforms, but there's a definite sense of "we have not really done everything this medium can offer yet". The phase where it's a gimmick will pass.

and similar to NFTs the artists involved in early computer art also faced harassment

"Indifferent as many critics and curators were, there were some responses to computer art that were considerably more severe. In fact, computer art has aroused the kind of extreme resentment that characterized many of the idolatry controversies scattered through the history of art. Beyond the sabotaging of computers, physical attacks have been made on artists for their involvement with such devices, and the careers of art curators have been significantly damaged by their participation in computer art exhibitions. Though it is commonly accepted that computer art was unpopular upon its arrival, many are unaware of the level of vitriol directed toward computer artists. In a case reaching the levels of harassment and personal attack, Grace Hertlein reported that she was called a “***” and “traitor” by a fellow artist, who saw her choice of medium as morally questionable and as a complete rejection of authentic artistic traditions"[1]

All sounds very similar to whats happening to a lot of artists thanks to Memo Akten's cryptoart.wtf name and shame site.

[1]: https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/when-the-machine-...

I guess I don't see how that's the case. In principle you could have had NFTs as soon as the printing press was invented; just sell thousands of prints while also selling the right to own all of them by writing names in a book. The critique is of computer generated art, not art that happens to pop up in the same paragraph as "computer".

NFT = Non-Fungible Token