• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Banksy strikes again....

Thermal said:
I'm a little confused here.

If I am reading this right, the print was sold by Banksy to a private collector in 2015.
Click to expand...
No, in 2006. We don't know who it was sold to or if they are a private collector or what.

But Banksy has some objection to it being auctioned, even though he sold it.
Click to expand...
I don't think he has objection to auctioning or selling art (though he does say that his street art should never be sold). He thinks that people are out of their minds to pay extraordinary amounts for art.

If it was Banksy's 'comment' that art auction values are excessive and obscene...well, they have been reinforced by the stunt, so is the real message that Banksy has formally sold out?
Click to expand...
No, not "sold out" and instead the opposite. He destroyed his own artwork right after it sold for a record amount.
 
Thermal said:
I'm a little confused here.

If I am reading this right, the print was sold by Banksy to a private collector in 2015. But Banksy has some objection to it being auctioned, even though he sold it. Was a no-auction clause part of the sale terms? Was the owner notified of this term?

Selling this one last does seem to have been designed as a show stopper. If it was Banksy's 'comment' that art auction values are excessive and obscene...well, they have been reinforced by the stunt, so is the real message that Banksy has formally sold out?
Click to expand...

What does that even mean, he's a very successful, commercially astute artist and business man with a very good marketing gimmick.
 
Reactor drone said:
So how do exacto knife blades, mounted on their sides, cut a canvas into neat strips?
Click to expand...
That isn't the only oddness. I'm not an engineer but I can't figure out how it works - even if the blades were mounted "correctly".

In the video we get to see the internal components. I think I see a couple motors and a big battery pack and some other module thing. But I can't figure out how the artwork is cut by the blades. Is it pulled across the blades, or pushed, or what? Then he puts a cover panel over the whole thing like it's done. But where is the artwork or where is it supposed to go in relation to these components?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=ynHl7bU_aPU
 
Camillus said:
My initial thought when I saw it was it a roller that pulled the painting in on one side and dumped some pre-shredded paper out the bottom. No damage done but point made, and simpler to set up and more reliable than a real made at home shredder. i also couldn't work out the knives on sides bit.
Click to expand...
That might be right. If so, we aren't seeing a shredder but instead it's some roller-conveyor thing. But I don't see any rollers - are they underneath a panel? And if so, what are the blades for? Are they just there as a "magician's misdirection"?


No damage done but point made
Click to expand...
That would seem to be against Banksy's own constitution. He seems to appreciate artwork being destroyed and no "point" is made if the artwork isn't actually destroyed.
 
Which is why I think the whole thing was a stunt from the beginning.

It's Chekov's Gun, basically. Any work that comes encumbered with a "no resale" clause, and attached to an art-destroying frame, is inevitably going to get resold and destroyed. The actual artistic piece isn't the print, but the resale and destruction performance.
 
William Parcher said:
Modern art is bankrupt.
Why?
Because I said so.
Click to expand...

Because it isn't about making beautiful things anymore. Or even putting in the effort to learn the craft. Hasn't been for a long time.

It's all about shock value and upping the other 'artists' in creating a controversy.
Just like this Banksy in pretending he planned this all along.
 
erwinl said:
Because it isn't about making beautiful things anymore. Or even putting in the effort to learn the craft. Hasn't been for a long time.

It's all about shock value and upping the other 'artists' in creating a controversy.
Just like this Banksy in pretending he planned this all along.
Click to expand...
These are of course your own opinions and I think you may also be applying confirmation bias.

Modern art includes a whole range of genres and medias. Lots of it has "beauty" and the "craft" can be as good as it ever was. But those things can be subjective.

I don't see all of modern art as being created specifically for shock, controversy, or upping other artists. But then you could create your own definition whereby any modern art that isn't those things isn't modern art. That would be confirmation bias or moving goalposts or something.
 
A truly subversive artist would have had himself shredded by machinery, rather than a canvas. Or better yet, put a canvas down first, shredded himself, then have the stained canvas sold as a posthumous work. I think such a piece might sell very well indeed.
 
theprestige said:
Which is breathtaking in its arrogance and its ignorance.
Click to expand...
It could be the opposite of arrogance. He might be telling his true feeling about what he does without arrogance.

He might say: You know it took me less than an hour to make that and you are now going to pay a million bucks for it? That's crazy!
 
William Parcher said:
It could be the opposite of arrogance. He might be telling his true feeling about what he does without arrogance.

He might say: You know it took me less than an hour to make that and you are now going to pay a million bucks for it? That's crazy!
Click to expand...

Still arrogant. It's not his place to disparage people for the value they put on his art.
 
William Parcher said:
It could be the opposite of arrogance. He might be telling his true feeling about what he does without arrogance.

He might say: You know it took me less than an hour to make that and you are now going to pay a million bucks for it? That's crazy!
Click to expand...

It's only crazy if you imagine people care about the art. It's all about economics and art like this is a safe, lucrative investment. This shredded pile of **** is now estimated to have doubled in value. What other investment will double in value 30 seconds after buying it?
 
Someone's trying a little too hard to be this generation Andy Kaufman.

That being said I think this is a non-issue. If this had just been a Banksy work that had sold at auction nobody would who's caring about it being destroyed would have even known about it.
 
Last edited:
Heh. I bet Sotheby's is regretting getting involved in the first place. Incognito artist. Anonymous buyer. Anonymous seller. Sotheby's exploited as an unwitting venue for performance art.

Assuming they weren't in on it from the beginning.
 
theprestige said:
Heh. I bet Sotheby's is regretting getting involved in the first place. Incognito artist. Anonymous buyer. Anonymous seller. Sotheby's exploited as an unwitting venue for performance art.

Assuming they weren't in on it from the beginning.
Click to expand...
If Sotheby's really did get punked their regret wouldn't be for selling Banksy art it would be for overlooking significant intricacies in the objects that they sell.

The seller and buyer are not anonymous to Sotheby's. They just didn't announce it because of a standard privacy policy. The seller could be Banksy or a cohort. The buyer could be Banksy or a cohort.
 
I know zero about the art world but wouldn't a high end auction house remove a painting from its frame to inspect it before selling it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom