21 ms·
An artwork by Banksy shredded itself after selling for $1.3M at Sotheby’s
- crooked-v 8y ago> Banksy’s iconic Girl With Balloon (2006) attracted feverish bidding in the room and on the phones, racing past its high estimate of £300,000 to hammer at £860,000, or just over £1 million ($1.3 million with fees). As the gavel slammed, a siren rang out through the salesroom and everyone stood stunned as the Banksy canvas slid through the frame that it was contained in and emerged underneath—but shredded. I'm impressed by whatever engineering went into the power source for that shredder lasting since 2006 while still being remotely triggerable with perfect timing.
- okket 8y ago> The spray painted work of the girl with a red balloon, acquired directly from the artist, came in what the catalogue called “the artist’s frame”—a frame that was oddly thick for such a small work of street art. I doubt the frame was from 2006. And even if, the batteries in it could be inserted/changed prior the auction.
- logotype 8y agoThere are lithium batteries which can last up to 40 years, for example Tadiran.
- Rebelgecko 8y agoHow long can they power a radio though?
- crooked-v 8y agoMaybe some kind of ultra-low-power accelerometer assembly to only power up the radio for X hours after movement?
- dwild 8y agoIt only need to power it every few minutes for it to works, hell if you consider any interesting auction would be announced at least one month before, you can power it every month with something stronger like 3G to get a more precise day to be active.
- nishitd 8y agoYou'd almost think this story is too good to be true. But we all know this is real.
- codeulike 8y agoThe implication is that the frame was a recent addition and that Banksy or an accomplice was in the room to trigger the shredder at the right time
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- codeulike 8y agoHaving thought about it a bit, a shredder is a complicated and unreliable machine for a stunt like this. I reckon there was a roller hidden in the frame with (half) a pre-shredded painting on it. The roller then rolls in the main painting while dispensing the shredded version. Much simpler, and easier to test.
- anigbrowl 8y agoThat's why it stuck half way, most likely. Shredders are unreliable but I wouldn't call them complicated. Small ones are expense and it only had to work once.
- Someone 8y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Electric_Bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Electric_Bell runs since 1840. This likely needs more power, though, making it harder. I would think the buyer of this piece might be happy with what happened, though. The shreds still are there, and likely are worth more than the original piece of paper.
- beerlord 8y agoIt looks like the battery ran out, it didn't completely shred.
- fileeditview 8y agoOr maybe that was intentional so it's still "in one piece" and you can still hang it at the wall? That at least was my first thought.
- dstick 8y agoYeah definitely, some thought went into this for sure ;-) If destruction was the intention, it would have happened.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- unstuckdev 8y agoThere appears to be a light inside. Compare the unshredded top to the bottom in one of the pictures from the front. https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-bristol-45770028 https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-bristol-45770028 It probably used that power source.
- spappal 8y agoThe light appears to not come from the inside: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Std3LfVx41c&t=33 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Std3LfVx41c&t=33
- unstuckdev 8y agoYou're right. Still photos can be deceiving...
- rajacombinator 8y agoPlot twist: the buyer can now probably keep the frame + shreds and resell it for several times what they paid.
- wmf 8y agoThe art isn't in the artifact.
- Dylan16807 8y agoA lot of it is, or nobody would have been buying to begin with.
- TeMPOraL 8y agoThe art isn't just in the artifact per se, it's in the causal history of it (and surrounding it), and the messages that can be interpreted from those histories. I wish we actually had two separate words for this - one for "art as in, I look at it and it looks moving", another for "art as in, the whole causal context of this work is interesting". Works are usually a mix of the two. Banksy's work was good in both categories, and just gained a lot in the latter. Compare to e.g. Mona Lisa, which is crap in the first category (both absolutely and relative to much better works that can be produced by anyone with a smartphone camera), and its whole value stems from the latter category - the history and context of the work.
- beautifulfreak 8y agoAntiques Roadshow calls it "provenance." Some works are worth more because of who has owned them.
- xevb3k 8y agoI assume they won’t actually have to pay? I’d guess whatever contract their is with the seller also requires that the art is delivered safely to the purchaser. I wonder what the message is here, or if there is a message beyond the publicity. I guess something about the art having no inherent value...
- nayuki 8y agoSome photos of the shredded art: https://hyperallergic.com/464419/1-3m-banksy-artwork-self-destructs-at-auction/ https://hyperallergic.com/464419/1-3m-banksy-artwork-self-de... ; https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/sotheby-s-banksy-ed-as-painting-self-destructs-live-at-auction https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/sotheby-s-banksy-ed-as-... ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Std3LfVx41c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Std3LfVx41c
- okket 8y agoIt stopped half way, to me it is more 'art' than before.
- ComputerGuru 8y agoI’m not clear on whether it stopped or was stopped?
- codeulike 8y agoYeah whoever bought that has probably made a profit already, its a lot more interesting now.
- mygo 8y agowhoever bought it also payed the same exact price as Banksy’s all-time auction record set 10 years ago, down to the pound.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- nevster 8y agoHas anyone been able to find video of the shredding happen? Finding videos on youtube is such a crapshoot nowadays with people uploading/copying the same videos or some lame commentary over static images.
- 8y ago
- Zaheer 8y agoSome more background on the iconic image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_Girl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_Girl
- raverbashing 8y agoLooks like the source website shredded itself
- saagarjha 8y agoYou might need to disable your adblocker.
- raverbashing 8y agoNope, it's returning 503
- saagarjha 8y agoWorked for me, so I don’t actually know what’s going on here.
- amingilani 8y agoIt's consistently returned a 503 since I started checking it a few hours ago.
- rapnie 8y agoBig art has been hijacked by big money. Art as an investment vehicle, something to preen yourself with, show others you are elite. This shows the hypocrisy. Unfortunately it will not change anything. The piece has just become more valuable, I predict. Go Banksy. Art for the masses.
- y4mi 8y agoHighjacked is a strange term considering it's always been like that...
- ohazi 8y agoBig money art is not just an investment vehicle, it allows collectors to do things that would be difficult or illegal with other assets. For example: You and a few of your rich buddies buy up as much artwork as you can from a famous but not too famous dead artist. Say, 10 pieces at a million a piece. I sell my friend one of them for 1.5 million and another for 1.7. I buy his for 2 and 3 million. Repeat a few times, and now you've established a pattern that this artist's work is becoming more valuable. After several years, you all sell your paintings for 5-10 million a piece.
- ispiansclsda 8y agoThe funniest part is that people would lose their minds if this happened to a Picasso.
- jypepin 8y agoI wonder if legally the buyer can retract the buy? Although I'm sure it's worth more with that. Funny how Banksy, who was anti commercial things before as a street artist, now is obviously very torn being selling out and not. He is still selling out with this sale, but couldn't stop himself from trolling the buyer. I feel like I'd feel in a similar way - hard not to sell when so much money is in play.
- midnitewarrior 8y agoIt's not trolling, the work was a performance piece.
- philliphaydon 8y ago> It's not trolling, the work was a performance piece. If the buyer wasn't aware of this prior to buying it then technically Banksy ruined the buyers art, or the buy can back out because he's not getting what he paid for.
- okket 8y agoBut the buyer would be stupid to do so. Also, transformation to the point of self-destruction is an accepted part of art, at least since Joseph Beuys' "Fettecke".
- philliphaydon 8y agoWhat if the buyer just loved the piece of art prior and now hates it? I liked the before. The new “art” to me is crap. Art is subjective right? Not all art is purchased for its value. But the emotional connection one has for it. And such.
- okket 8y agoIf you don't like it you can either return it and maybe get your money back, or sue, or whatever, or try selling it for much more. I am not even sure an assurance would cover this case, because it is obviously still there, and worth more, presumably.
- throw0101011 8y agoNot referring to this specific exhibit but other pieces by a similar artist. Thousands of people can create this kind of paintings for cheap. That it still sells for more than what many people can make in a decade or a career means a stratospheric concentration of wealth in society or a bubble in the commercial art world. If there is real scarcity because of climate change or other widespread disaster, how much can a piece of this ‘quality’ be sold for? A loaf of bread, or less? That millions of children still starve but a piece of simplistic art is worth more than the value of food a whole village consumes in a decade is a sorry effect of the financial system we use or the way our society assigns ‘coolness’ score to people and activity.
- TomMarius 8y agoIt is not artifact of any financial system, this would happen even if we had full communism, just illegally and with barter/favor payments. It is artifact of human nature.
- throw0101011 8y agoWith a different kind of accounting, people behaviors may change. The wealthy art consumers want status, prestige, and acceptance as one of the ‘cool’ crowd. Or when buying for investment, they expect some will buy from them for those effects. If we make it much more prestigious and ‘cool’ for people to show off their equivalent donations to starving children, fewer will bid for the drawings and more will donate.
- jacobwilliamroy 8y agoAs someone who makes most of his money from non-profit organizations, I can say that "competitive donating" is a sport which many of the older rich people will play. The ones who play hardest are typically near the end of their rope and worried that they won't be remembered fondly or won't get into heaven (see: the catholic church).
- kbenson 8y ago
- make3 8y agoso what, in effect Banksy chose to shred 1.3M$? I understand he has a message etc, just curious if he really sacrificed so much for it
- okket 8y agoBanksy will get his money, but his artwork is now probably worth much more. So it is debatable if he succeeded with his intentions to criticise the commercialisation of art.
- thomasz 8y agoThere is zero chance that he did not anticipate this.
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago“You could argue that the work is now more valuable,” Branczik said.
- asjo 8y agoSee also: The KLF burn a million ₤ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Quid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Qu...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- fileeditview 8y agoDiscovered Banksy many years ago and I have to say: if there is a true artist it's him. Or maybe it's them? Still think it's very plausible that Banksy is a collective. The creativity and ingenuity just seems too much for a single person.
- int0x80 8y agoI find the history behind it certanly interesting (and the art is amazing!). There was a documentary and a conspiracy theory too about the whole thing, just a movie, but good to watch IMO. "Art through the gift shop".
- twunde 8y agoI'm honestly struck by how _cheap_ this piece was sold for. Banksy is a household name unlike most contemporary artists. Pieces by Jeff Koons have sold for 50 million but Banksy struggles to cross the 1 million mark? I'm surprised that there are no tech millionaires or Wall Street Titans buying up the pieces.
- isostatic 8y ago> Banksy British > Jeff Koons American
- UncleEntity 8y ago> ...but Banksy struggles to cross the 1 million mark? Well, now you have to add in a "risk factor" that the work you buy doesn't survive intact. Which could go either way -- non-shredded Banksy original vs. Banksy shredded original print.
- orbifold 8y agoJeff Koons Art ist actually pretty good, I can’t say the same of Banksky. The value of Art is sometimes inversely related to how popular it is, because it then can be no longer used to signal that you „get“ it.
- therealdrag0 8y agoTo each their own. I google-imaged Jeff Koons, and I didn't find any appealing to look at or would want around my house (except maybe giant flower puppy :P)
- orbifold 8y agoWell you have to see the pieces in person, I think some of them look fantastic if you already own a completely ridiculous mansion or a semi-public space like a luxury resort in Dubai or something. They are definitely cool to look at in a museum context, I saw them at the Centre Pompidou two years ago.
- Geekette 8y ago
- rmason 8y agoSadly what happened to a Banksy in Detroit maybe gave him the idea. An artist group 'extricated' the work from the ruins of the Packard auto plant. The new owner of the building who was planning to use the Banksy as a centerpiece for a retail center was not pleased. They promised to not sell it, then they did. http://beltmag.com/the-fight-over-graffiti-banksy-in-detroit/ http://beltmag.com/the-fight-over-graffiti-banksy-in-detroit...
- majewsky 8y agoIn Germany, there is a second part of copyright law. The actual copyright can be sold as usual, but the Urheberpersönlichkeitsrecht (creator's personal right) cannot. It gives the creator the right to forbid public presentations of his work that misrepresent his artistic vision. The architect of Berlin Main Station (Norman Foster, if I'm not mistaken) used this law to (successfully) sue Deutsche Bahn (the German national railway company) for reparations when they changed the plans and used a cheaper ceiling construction than he designed.
- konschubert 8y agoWasn't it Marc & Gerkan?
- majewsky 8y agoYou're right, the architect in question was Meinhard von Gerkan.
- ericye16 8y agoThese are known generally as moral rights[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
- electic 8y agoAppraisers are saying the instant the artwork was shredded it became more of an artwork and is now worth a lot more.
- jeisc 8y agoan excellent work of art makes people think something new
- std_throwawayay 8y agoI assume that this stunt works exactly once per lifetime.* *: It might have been done before but must have been on a much smaller scale or so long ago that everybody forgot already.
- paulie_a 8y agoI've never understood the art community's love for banksy. It's mind numbing drivel. South Park has far more depth and creativity.
- presscast 8y agohttp://theday.co.uk/opinion/why-i-believe-that-banksy-is-a-bad-artist http://theday.co.uk/opinion/why-i-believe-that-banksy-is-a-b... Hear, hear.
- platinium 8y agoFirst time I heard about this thing. I don’t get it either. It just seems to be somewhat witty but ultimately trite artistic “punnery” - somewhat akin to those Reddit meme gifs with the witty but stupid captions.. just done more artistically.
- acomjean 8y agoBanksy is an artist that mocks the art world. He or she kinda makes fun of it. The art is decent, and its fun (sometimes undervalued in art circles). Banksy said in the forward of one of his book collections : art is controlled by just one group, the museum curators and rails against that. Who else would set up a pop up shop outside the MET museum in NYC and sell original pieces and then report that they've sold only 6? http://gothamist.com/2013/10/13/video_banksy_set_up_a_pop_up_booth.php http://gothamist.com/2013/10/13/video_banksy_set_up_a_pop_up... "The street prank gave Gothamist graffiti guru Jake Dobkin lots to mull over: Who's the joke about here, though? Is it that Banksy's work kind of sucks, from an empirical point, in that no one would buy it unless they knew who it was by? Or is the joke on everyone for not being smart enough to be there and recognize how valuable the stuff on sale was? As with all Banksy, there's kind of an edge to it that makes you feel a little annoyed—like he's having a joke at your expense. "
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- vidarh 8y agoI don't agree with you that it is mind numbing drivel. A lot of his works are cute or fun or provocative in their original settings. Often a light mix that really shouldn't be taken so very seriously. But overrated, sure. In that what is fun to walk past painted on a wall somewhere easily loses something significant when it is detached from that context and elevated to the point much of his work is. I live in a part of South London with lots of walls where street art is sanctioned, and I walk past a lot of it that I love where it is, but that I'd never consider putting on my wall at home. Banksy is a bit like that, in that I love that his work is out there on walls, but that doesn't mean it'd mean anything on my wall.
- rurban 8y agoThanksfully the original Banksy Girl with a balloon is still on some street in Amsterdam, visible to everyone. This frame was just an elaborate prank, as usual, to invalidate the "art market" scheme. From time to time forked Banksys are put on the commercial market. This was wonderful.
- JumpCrisscross 8y agoStrip shredding implies a desire not to destroy the piece, but instead, to recognisably transform it.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Farradfahren 8y agoThis destruction of the worthless, a anti-capitalistic act of first order, reminds me of the potlatch tradition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch
- Luc 8y agoArt made specifically to get media attention and keep the Banksy brand alive. A bit shallow, though.
- nns 8y agoThis is a well orchestrated publicity stunt. A reputed auction house like Sotheby's would never put an item up before thoroughly checking and documenting it. Post this stunt, the artwork will now be valued much higher than what it sold for at this auction. Banksy has been known for such ingenious and clever marketing stunts.
- spuz 8y agoPlease tell me which other ingenious and clever marketing stunts Banksy, the anti-capitalist artist who refuses to allow his work or even prints (with rare exceptions) to be sold is known for?
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> Banksy, the anti-capitalist artist (Alleged) anti-capitalism and marketing are not mutually exclusive. Banksy has an eye for publicity, from selling his art for $60 on New York’s streets [1] to parading a painted packiderm [2]. Whether it’s to sell his art (which it does), sell his name (which it also does) or sell his ideas (which it does, too) is orthogonal to it being clever and effective marketing. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/jun/12/banskey-prints-new-york-stall-fortune-bonhams https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/artanddesig... [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5355638.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5355638.stm
- spuz 8y agoYes, in this case Banksy is clearly trying sell his name and idea, I can't dispute that. But the comment I replied to implied it was done in partnership with Sothebys in order to increase the value of his art and therefore make more money from it. At least, that is how I read it. That kind of 'marketing stunt' is one that just doesn't fit into his MO which makes it hard to believe.
- irishcoffee 8y agoIt was the very last peice sold. If it had been sold at the beginning or middle, odds are the whole auction shuts down, at best the tone changes. This was calculated.
- zaroth 8y agoThis is just so impressive to me. That this was set in motion in 2006 with the engineering and frame design and executed perfectly 12 years later is just so magnificent I’m almost tearing up. The way the it was shredded and stopping halfway allows the piece to still be hung, and in my mind, this massively increases the notoriety and value of the piece. To prank Sotheby’s like this at the moment that the auctioneers gavel falls, is truly epic. Truly a great and well executed piece of performance art. I want video!
- spuz 8y agoIt's unlikely this was planned in 2006. That's a pretty big assumption to make.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- weavejester 8y agoThe Sotheby's auction page says the piece was "Acquired directly from the artist by the present owner in 2006", so either the owner or Soethby's collaborated with Banksy, or Banksy built the shredder into the frame in 2006. Or, I guess, Banksy could have offered the owner the frame prior to the auction, without the owner being aware of what it did.
- cptskippy 8y ago> Banksy could have offered the owner the frame prior to the auction, without the owner being aware of what it did. That's very unlikely as it would take special care to mount the print in such a way that I would fall downward. Typically framed works are held in place.
- docbrown 8y agoBanksy is not typical, though. As noted in other articles, the auction house stated that the artist gave them the frame as it was an integral part of the artwork. This has been planned for some time it seems.
- Jenz 8y agoAbsolutely brilliant!
- m3kw9 8y agoI bet it continues to shred after it being sold for 10 million.
- jakecodes 8y agoAs a magic aficionado my bet is that the picture was rolled into the frame and a pre torn version popped out the bottom. Like the old dollar bill trick. Still impressive.
- maym86 8y agoI highly doubt it. I don't think Banksey is worried about a print being damaged.
- zseck 8y agoFrom the video that Banksy posted, the shredding mechanism just doesn’t make any sense. X-acto blades at that angle wouldn’t shred in the way it come out of the frame. There’s clearly something else happening here. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-45770028 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-45770028
- wrycoder 8y agoAbsolutely. It would not work. See the other comment suggesting the shredded version was stored in the frame.
- jeffalyanak 8y agoThat was my initial thought, too, because it would be very difficult to store the required power for a high torque shredder for that many years. Then I realized there must have been a big ass slot in the bottom of the frame, something no art inspector would miss. If the auction house had known about it and then it really could have been done any number of ways. It's hard to be absolutely certain given the limited photographic evidence, but I think in light of those concerns it's the most likely option.
- tootie 8y agoReminds me of this classic Ai Weiwei photo where he just destroys a Han Dynasty vase for no good reason. I honestly love this photo. It really speaks to the breaking of tradition and not being bound to the past. https://i0.wp.com/www.guggenheim.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/art-ai-weiwei-dropping-a-han-dynasty-urn-X.2016.10601.jpg?w=870 https://i0.wp.com/www.guggenheim.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...
- chasing 8y agoThe KLF did it better. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Quid https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_...
- zaat 8y agoWhat a depressing story. Banksy stunt is uplifting, that story really made me sad.
- anonu 8y agoFrom the pictures it appears to only have "half shredded" itself... There is a certain aesthetic to that as well... a full shred may have rendered it worthless. But a half shred...thats art...
- StavrosK 8y agoI'm getting 503s, so here's an IPFS mirror: https://www.eternum.io/ipfs/QmTi3JeC9k1zQy9PFS4ZTf5wZDzP7gyYNFD3mzmUJNsdAk/ https://www.eternum.io/ipfs/QmTi3JeC9k1zQy9PFS4ZTf5wZDzP7gyY...
- severak 8y agoI wonder why nobody mentioned Agrippa (A Book of the Dead) by William Gibson. It was a poem on floppy disc that was programmed to encrypt itself after a single use. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa_(A_Book_of_the_Dead) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa_(A_Book_of_the_Dead)
- vidarh 8y agoThat was my first thought too. I remember the attention it got. And of course it was not so ephemeral, as people ensured the poem was captured, since in that case people knew it advance it would self-destruct. It's an interesting poem, and one that probably was read far more because it was published the way it did than if it had been published the normal way. While I enjoyed poetry, it is the first and only time I've rushed to read a newly published lyrical work. It's beautifully constructed in that it is about the distinction between memory and reproduction, and where the poem represents a reproduction of Gibsons own memories, the self-destruction served to make the book itself an event and creation of memories about the reproduction of the poem even in many cases in people who never got around to reading it, but just read about it. It's also interesting because one of Gibsons own comments about it is about how we tend to remember the past in light of the present, not the way it actually was, and thinking about how I remember the work, I realise I have memories of text fading, but 1) my memories don't match how it was presented, 2) I never saw the original anyway. I have distinct images of reading it in light blue on darker blue, but I would have read it on my Amiga. Those are not the Workbench colours, and the offline readers I used did not use that colour scheme - it's more likely that I'm confusing it with reading texts shared on floppy on my C64, years before. So our memories of Agrippa are themselves now an example of the theme of the poem itself. Ironically, it is a cooperative project with Dennis Ashbaugh who designed the book as an art piece, and came up with the concept of the self-destruction, but whose part of the work has remained the lesser known part of the "package" despite (or because) not being the part to self-destruct.
- sparrish 8y agoThe real piece of art here is the engineering of the frame.
- foxhop 8y agoThe girl is dead. Her hope lives on.
- Geekette 8y agoGreat performance art. I've always thought about ridiculously expensive art self-destructing at point of sale, which is often auctions. I don't think art should be that inaccessible and I'm not asserting a specific threshold is but beyond a certain pricing level, art does become ridiculous. It would be interesting to see this incident repeat itself but with complete destruction - would the auctioneers argue that ashes or molten remains are still art?
- MisterTea 8y agoTwo possibilities, and by god I hope my first is right: It's a super clever two-stage prank. At auction the picture is supposed to shred but it stops half way. Did it break? Was that the intention? Who knows! That's the mystery behind it. Now it's more than just a simple painting, it's a performance piece and worth significantly more! The half shredded portrait is hung up somewhere and weeks or months from now the shredder comes back to life for the finale of complete destruction. "Going... Going... Gone" became "Going up up and away!" Ha! Take that Banksy! Then full circle back to gone, Banksy has the last laugh. Bonus points if it does this in the middle of the night and the owner is greeted by a pile of shreds on the floor the following morning. Second and more boring possibility: the shredder was supposed to fully destroy the picture at auction but unfortunately failed. I believe Banksy intended the piece to fully self destruct in full view of the auction house as a big "fuck you" to art hoarding and monetizing.
- analog31 8y agoGoogling "self destructing art" yields some interesting finds, many centered around the Dada movement.
- expertentipp 8y agoAn obvious set up performance. See the artwork - a baloon hijacked by the wind from a girl. Lifes of rich people must be really boring.
- corodra 8y agoSo, I can’t access the site, guessing it’s overloaded. But a few things I’ve picked up from the discussions. First off, a product that destroys itself immediately when purchased. I understand the art world now sees it as more valuable. Whatever. Idiots. But what if you bought a car and the moment you drove off the lot the wheels fell off? That’s some fraudulent ass shit right there. Now, don’t get me wrong. A mil+ for any type of “art” is a stupid in my eyes. But I’m also into collecting antique wood working tools. So, to each their own. But I understand the anger someone would feel for paying a lot for something that is trash. Plus as a seller. As Sotheby’s, I’d raise some unholy hell... unless I was in on it to. The anti-capitalist committed the biggest sin in capitalism for his own greed. He profited from an exchange that inherently does not satisfy a customer’s need, even though advertised otherwise. And yes, I say greed. He, or they if it’s a group of artists, are part of it as a money making scam. Famous anti-capitalists are not anti-capitalists. They’re always sellin’ somethin’. Maybe not today, but at some point, they cash in for their audience, eyeball investment. Oh well, no one cares because it’s the art market. The most prolific way to launder and transfer dirty narco and terrorist money because, no one in the public cares. The old white people market as people like to whine about. That market needs to be regulated more hardcore than the stock market. Maybe that’s the point? Damn I hope so, then I’d give them more credit. But most folks ain’t that clever.
- ljm 8y agoPart of me feels like this stunt is clever because the nature of the performance improves the value of the work. So it's self-destructive in the technical sense of the term but it was designed in such a way to essentially transform the piece. While shocking in the moment, as the pictures of the scene show, the work has three separate qualities: the original significance of the piece, the new meaning it attains after partial shredding, and its role in the historical documentation of the scene that played out. A bunch of moneyed folk at an auction recoiling in horror - either because of the money they initially thought was wasted, or more charitably because they genuinely cared about the work. What would your own assumption there tell you? However, in my mind I also imagined something entirely different. What would it say for a similar work of art to self destruct at a very glacial pace, and the only way to prevent degradation was to pay attention to it? What would it say about the nature of art and wealth if the owner did not notice the piece had destroyed itself until it was too late, presumably because they bought it and left it in storage or on a wall they never looked at? This is what plenty of art will already do over the course of centuries, without maintenance or restoration, so I'm thinking about something more accelerated and deliberate. And on an extra level, I have started to wonder how such a piece could be represented through programming. The website that rots, pixel by pixel, when it isn't viewed; or the application that subtly corrupts itself over time.
- mossity 8y agoNot exactly what you're getting at but the artist Thijs Rijkers did a series of pieces similar to this, called Suicide Machines: https://vimeo.com/56871178 https://vimeo.com/56871178
- code_duck 8y ago“The website that rots, pixel by pixel, when it isn't viewed; or the application that subtly corrupts itself over time.” Just publish in a slightly obscure file format on physical media, and this is taken care of. Nobody will be able to access your art work in 20-40 years.
- wlesieutre 8y agoIt'll make it eventually unusable, yeah, but that's not a public spectacle anymore. It feels more along the lines of shoving a painting into a cardboard box in a damp basement where nobody goes and letting it rot.
- qwerty456127 8y agoJust a huge disappointment (not for the investor, of course). It would be cool if it would actually shred itself into small pieces so the investor would lose $1.3M but in fact it just changed its style.
- baron816 8y agoHow much more do you think it's worth now? 2x? 10x? All this media attention is definitely having a huge impact.
- newnewpdro 8y agoThis reminds me of the novel Bluebeard by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebeard_(Vonnegut_novel)#Paintings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebeard_(Vonnegut_novel)#Pai...
- Nomentatus 8y agoThere probably was no shredding at the auction - there are likely two images in the frame, one pre-shredded to a certain point. Look at the color of the "shredded" print. It's not the same - it's darker, probably didn't age as well 'cause it was cheaper paper. Not to mention that using two images is vastly simpler mechanically and economically than actually shredding it. You just have to roll up half of one image while rolling out half of another (shredded) image. Making a shredding noise is a lot simpler than shredding (and fits in a smaller frame.) There are so many magic tricks that exploit our expectation in just this way (such as sawing a lady in half.) Of course, it's not in Banksy's interest to reveal the trick immediately. Let the publicity build.
- colbyaley 8y agoThe change in color likely has to do with the lighting. When it's removed from the wall you can see the square of light placed on the frame. https://youtu.be/5-RFj1Slcws?t=22 https://youtu.be/5-RFj1Slcws?t=22
- snissn 8y agoIs Banksy a sell out now?
- dmix 8y agoOddly, $1.4m is exactly the amount Bristol libraries are short in their budgets, which Banksy offered to help. If only he had sold the art. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/04/banksy-offers-to-help-save-bristols-under-threat-libraries https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018...
- Animats 8y ago“This is now part of art history in its shredded state and we’d estimate Banksy has added at a minimum 50% to its value, possibly as high as being worth £2m plus.” - MyArtBroker.com
- ultrabenos 8y agoI honestly don't know why anyone at the auction, who was interested in that piece, thought there would be no trick or strings attached, or why Sotheby's didn't suspect anything after investigating Banksy. The wiki excerpt shown by Google says "Banksy is an anonymous England-based street artist, vandal, political activist, and film director." It then goes on to call his works satirical and focused on dark humour. Anyone willing to spend £1,000,000 on a piece of art by Banksy should know enough about him to imagine that he'd hate auctioning his work to the rich at an elite establishment like Sotheby's.
- ridgeguy 8y agoIt was only at the moment of shredding that Banksy finished his work. I won't be surprised to see its estimated value double within a week.
- fallingfrog 8y agoGood for him! That's one way to keep your work from being locked up in the private estates of the beautiful people. At least it won't be somebody's tax shelter now.
- amai 8y agoA video of Banksy himself showing how he built the shredder: https://www.instagram.com/p/BomXijJhArX/ https://www.instagram.com/p/BomXijJhArX/