• 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....

DevilsAdvocate said:
The original buyer (or the people hanging the work for the buyer) would likely have noticed something strange. Because the frame is not unique to the work, it would not be unusual for the buyer to have the work put in another frame.
Click to expand...
It has been described as having an "artist's frame" which means that Banksy framed it and that this would be known. Any buyer, seller or collector would not put it in another frame because it would be most original and valuable if it remains in the artist's frame. It would be crazy for anyone to remove an original Banksy artwork from its original Banksy frame.


Bansky would have to have someone monitoring all auctions of his work around the world for the past 12 years to make sure that if this one came up for auction he would have someone there to activate the shedder.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be difficult to learn that this piece was being offered for auction just from a quick Google search. It is quite valuable (Banksy knows this) and the seller would almost certainly choose a major fine art auction house such as Sotheby's or Christie's.

But then it's also possible that Banksy (or cohort) was already in communication with the seller and that this was a prank planned years ago. The seller would be part of the prank. Maybe the battery was fresh and installed (or replaced) only months ago right before Sotheby's took possession for the auction.


Sotheby’s surely would have carefully examined the work for authenticity and any damage. The oddities required to put a shedder in the frame would not have gone unnoticed.
Click to expand...
I would expect there to be a visible slot which allows the shredded work to slide out of the frame. That slot would be an oddity if anyone looked. There could instead be some form of long hinged door or flap which mechanically opens to allow the work to slide out. I think that it was just an open slot.

It seems like a highly risky prank if Banksy legitimately sells the work in 2006 and then it leaves his hands and the mechanism can then be discovered at any time. The risk is greatly reduced if the 2006 buyer knows that it is a self-destructing thing. Then the only risk is that Sotheby's discovers the mechanism.
 
I assume that everyone involved is in on it, and the whole thing is a bit of jump-the-shark publicity hounding. This is the moment where Banksy descends into self-parody, and ceases to be relevant.
 
Banksy somehow convinces Sotheby's to participate in his prank and you say that he is no longer "relevant"?

If that actually happened then his relevance has never been greater than now.
 
Time to reverse-engineer the "Bansky Mechanism".* Take that, Bansky! Hope you have a patent!





*which, according to the video I didn't watch, is a series of X-acto™ Knife blades set in a steel frame. Yawn.
 
One thing I haven't heard mentioned in this thread, Banksy operates a service which authenticates his works. I believe it's called "Pest Control". Prior to a sale, the auction house would have had to have them inspect the piece. They would then have been free to make sure the batteries and mechanism were operational.

Essentially Banksy himself would have had access to the piece right before the sale. Based on that, the mechanism itself might even have only been installed during that inspection. This makes any plausibility arguments about early discovery or batteries moot.

As for knowing about the auction, since they would need Banksy's team to authenticate, they wouldn't even need a Google alert. The Auction house came to them.

This isn't to say that it isn't possible that the seller was in on it, they might have been to make the plan foolproof. But it's certainly plausible without the auction house, buyer or seller being aware.

I'm doubtful that Sotheby's was in on it. Their reputation for security and honesty is worth a lot more to them than a publicity bump.
 
New York Times said:
...Acoris Andipa, an art dealer specializing in Banksy, based in the Knightsbridge district of London, who has sold about 15 other painted versions of Banksy’s “Girl With Balloon,” said he observed several oddities about the painting’s sale that made him wonder whether Sotheby’s had an inkling. (The dealer said that at least two of his clients had intended to bid on the painting, but he does not know if one became the buyer or underbidder.)

Mr. Andipa said that he viewed the painting at the pre-auction exhibition and pointed out to Sotheby’s staff members what he termed the “disproportionate” thickness of the frame (concealing the shredding device). How did the auction house respond to that observation?

“They didn’t say anything at all,” said Mr. Andipa. “Conversations were as usual.”

“The people I spoke to didn’t give any evidence of knowing something,” he added. “If the upper management knew, I can’t speculate.”

Mr. Andipa was also perplexed by the fact that this valuable painting, which he had never seen before, was tucked away on a wall near the back entrance of Sotheby’s during the pre-auction view.

“It was next to the catering,” said Mr. Andipa. “Access was challenging.” During the auction itself, the painting was hung next to the Sotheby’s staff members who take telephone bids, a favored subject for auction-house publicity shots.

In addition, Mr. Andipa was surprised — as were many others — by a $1.4 million Banksy being the 67th and last lot of the auction. By that point, many in the audience would have left the salesroom for dinner. “The running order of the sale was odd,” Mr. Andipa said...
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/arts/design/banksy-artwork-painting.html
 
I may not know what I like, but I know art!


That was actually uttered by a friend of mine in Montreal, and his job was to procure artwork for a quasi-government organization. His approach was to increase the value of the collection so that if they really wanted to hang great art in their hallways, they'd sell off the popular stuff at a huge profit and buy waifs with big eyes and dogs playing poker if that's what they liked.

(I just like that story and his buzz line.)


I had another friend who did street art and went around from Soho gallery to Noho gallery putting two inch circular certificates next to the title plate of various works of art. With varying percentages, they looked like a print-your-own-blue-ribbon and said, "Certified - 94.3% Pure Art". Gallery owners hated him. The artists loved him.

When is a piece of art a stunt and a stunt a piece of art? And why can't they be one and the same? I don't really need to separate them to appreciate the minor brilliance of this work. One of the purposes of art is to move the boundaries around.
 
Foolmewunz said:
...When is a piece of art a stunt and a stunt a piece of art? And why can't they be one and the same? I don't really need to separate them to appreciate the minor brilliance of this work. One of the purposes of art is to move the boundaries around.
Click to expand...

Keywords being minor brilliance. Also if the artwork didn't look like something from Trader Joe's Fearless Flyer.
 
Foolmewunz said:
One of the purposes of art is to move the boundaries around.
Click to expand...

Debatable. Many believe the purpose of art is to look beautiful and uplift the spirit, instead of making social statements. Ditto with literature: sometimes people just want to tell a story, not "enact social change". (I'm quoting one of my high school teachers, who believed every single piece of literature ever created was done for the main purpose of "enacting social change".)
 
TragicMonkey said:
Debatable. Many believe the purpose of art is to look beautiful and uplift the spirit, instead of making social statements. Ditto with literature: sometimes people just want to tell a story, not "enact social change". (I'm quoting one of my high school teachers, who believed every single piece of literature ever created was done for the main purpose of "enacting social change".)
Click to expand...

I smiled watching it, so I would say it succeeded in uplifting my normally morose spirit.

And reading all the debates/comments etc is beautiful.

Job done.
 
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?
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom