Obviously!
What we need to keep in mind in topic of NFTs (or by extension tokens) is that there has never been any connection between the token and the underlying object whatsoever. For example in case of artwork (digital or physical) it is an arbitrary data (eg. a hash) that is stored in a blockchain and a non-existent link between that data and the art.
You are accurately describing how NFTs work today, however, NFT as a concept is something that could potentially translate into real-world use.
For example, the Los Angeles County Register of Deeds could issue NFTs to real estate owners representing ownership of their property. The owner of a property could transfer their property to another person by transferring their NFT to another person. In this example, the Los Angeles County Register would need to agree (probably via statute) to recognize an NFT as ownership of a property. If you are buying a NFT representing ownership of real estate property, you would need to make sure the LA County Register actually issued the NFT (which can be done via reviewing the blockchain), and you would need to trust the LA County Register of Deeds, however, you need to do the later anyway if you are buying property in LA County.
The above could reduce the costs associated with selling your property, as it would make things such as title searches much easier, and would nearly eliminate title insurance payouts, which should reduce the cost of title insurance.
I do agree that the concept of using NFTs to transfer "digital art" is more or less bogus. It is trivial for someone to create a similar image of something that already has an NFT with a different hash, and to alter the image in a way such that it is difficult to find the original image (if you don't know where it is).