5 ms·
If I was an art collector I would pay much more for the artwork now, for the simple reasons that 1. The girl with a balloon print was not the only one of its k
by jansan 8y ago
If I was an art collector I would pay much more for the artwork now, for the simple reasons that
1. The girl with a balloon print was not the only one of its kind. There are other variations. It was not so unique before.
2. This is the only one, the first one, even the first (prominent?) artwork that "destroyed itself"
3. It is still an artwork. It did not destroy itself completely, but stopped in the middle of the destruction process. Doesn't it look great now, sticking only half outside the frame? Any museum of contemporary art would die for having this. And only this, not a similar one or the next one that destroys itself.
- sealjam 8y agoIs there any guarantee it won't destroy more of itself later? Does anybody know how the shredder in the frame was controlled?
- jansan 8y agoEven better, if it was not a shredder, but something like a banknote printing device, the "destruction" would be reverseable.
- beaconstudios 8y ago> 2. This is the only one, the first one, even the first (prominent?) artwork that "destroyed itself" I don't know if you mean specifically Banksy work, but there's a whole discipline of auto-destructive art: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-destructive_art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-destructive_art A well known example is the poem Agrippa by William Gibson (yes, that one) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa_(A_Book_of_the_Dead) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa_(A_Book_of_the_Dead)
- jansan 8y agoDid not know this, thanks. Maybe we can agree that Bansky's auto-destructive artwork is the one with the best publicity.
- beaconstudios 8y agooh, for sure.
- Joeboy 8y agoAuto-destructive art is kind of misnamed though, I think. It's generally art created through destructive acts, rather than art that destroys itself.