Banksy strikes again....

[theprestige]

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.

Seems like a major misstep for "the premiere auction house for fine art".

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.

That makes sense, thanks.

As for getting punked, there's a middle road: Banksy arranges with Sotheby's to be both the buyer and the seller anonymously, and then uses the occasion to stage a peformance art piece. Sotheby's knows there's something silly going on, but are not informed of the details of the performance.

 

[erwinl]

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.

Let me put it in another way.

Last summer we were in the Vatican Museums. Truly stunning art there, where you can easily stay for the entire day and do the entire round trip two or three times, just to take it all in you.

Every room has at least one guard to keep an eye on things. And so they should. It's absolutely priceless art they have there.

Everywhere, except for where they show the modern art.
There are about 12 of these rooms and these warrant just a single guard.

What does this tell you about the value of modern art? I think the curators of that museum know.

 

[William Parcher]

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?

Almost certainly not, and especially if it's in an artist's frame which might be altered by opening it up. In general, you want to avoid disassembling anything unless you absolutely must for some very good reason.

I did post a quote upthread from an attendee who pointed out to Sotheby's staff that the frame was disproportionate and therefore unusual. The auction house has access to X-ray and maybe other ways to "see inside" without disassembly. They either didn't notice or didn't care, or they already knew what was inside.

 

[William Parcher]

Seems like a major misstep for "the premiere auction house for fine art".

It does.

Banksy arranges with Sotheby's to be both the buyer and the seller anonymously, and then uses the occasion to stage a peformance art piece. Sotheby's knows there's something silly going on, but are not informed of the details of the performance.

Banksy can't "arrange to be the buyer". If he intends to buy it then he must be the highest bidder among other people who want that thing and don't know that it will self-destruct.

 

[William Parcher]

Let me put it in another way.

Last summer we were in the Vatican Museums. Truly stunning art there, where you can easily stay for the entire day and do the entire round trip two or three times, just to take it all in you.

Every room has at least one guard to keep an eye on things. And so they should. It's absolutely priceless art they have there.

Everywhere, except for where they show the modern art.
There are about 12 of these rooms and these warrant just a single guard.

What does this tell you about the value of modern art? I think the curators of that museum know.

"Only one guard around" doesn't really inform you that their modern art isn't beautiful; that it is controversial; that it isn't good "craft"; or that it isn't valuable.

Everything in there is insured for theft or damage.

 

[Elagabalus]

It does.


Banksy can't "arrange to be the buyer". If he intends to buy it then he must be the highest bidder among other people who want that thing and don't know that it will self-destruct.

What's Sotheby's cut of the sale? Banksy would have to pay that to Sotheby's even if he sold it to himself.

 

[William Parcher]

What's Sotheby's cut of the sale? Banksy would have to pay that to Sotheby's even if he sold it to himself.

From the seller, Sotheby's would take about 14% of the hammer price (what it sells for). From the buyer, Sotheby's would take about 20% added on to the hammer price.

An example using an object that sells for $1 million....

Sotheby's pays the seller $860,000 after the sale.
The buyer pays Sotheby's $1,200,000 before taking possession of the object.

So, Sotheby's gets $340,000 (profit) before their own expenses.

 

[Elagabalus]

From the seller, Sotheby's would take about 14% of the hammer price (what it sells for). From the buyer, Sotheby's would take about 20% added on to the hammer price.

An example using an object that sells for $1 million....

Sotheby's pays the seller $860,000 after the sale.
The buyer pays Sotheby's $1,200,000 before taking possession of the object.

So, Sotheby's gets $340,000 (profit) before their own expenses.

No way that a street urchin like Bansky is paying that even if he could afford it. Sotheby's is in on it, sez I!

 

[William Parcher]

No way that a street urchin like Bansky is paying that even if he could afford it. Sotheby's is in on it, sez I!

If Sotheby's really was in on it, and had communication with the seller about the upcoming prank, and thought that it was all a great idea... they could offer a lower fee. They could cut deals with Banksy himself if he were the seller and/or the buyer.

IOW, if Banksy was involved he may not have had to pay full price, so to speak.

 

[William Parcher]

In a statement, Sotheby's said, "It is increasingly common in the Contemporary art world for artists to deem their frames integral to the artwork, as was the case in this instance. The certificate from the artist's studio for the present work states that the frame is 'integral to the piece.'

"When Sotheby's asked the studio about removing the work from its frame during the cataloguing process, we were expressly told not to remove the frame. This is not unusual -- consider Lucio Fontana's lacquer frames, or George Condo's frames that include labels on the back saying do not remove from frame. In many cases, if you remove the frame you violate the artist's wishes and destroy the artwork," the statement added.

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/banksy-painting-questions-intl/index.html

There is still going to be a weird thing if you look - a slot or a flap or door for the artwork to pass through.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

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.

For all we know, Bansky may have found an old stencil laying around a few weeks ago a made the artwork and the shredder frame. Then he mocks up some documents about a sale in 2006 to a fictitious buyer. He has the work authenticated by his own service. He sends someone representing the fictitious seller to set up a sale through Sotheby’s. He then creates a fictitious buyer and has someone represent that fictitious buyer, and buys the artwork.

He could bid essentially any price to make sure he is the highest bidder. He would be buying the work from himself. He would only be out the commission to Sotheby’s. I imagine he can afford it. Of course he would then have the artwork. He could resell the shredded work. Or he could donate it to a museum for a tax write-off to cover the commission cost (the actual value of the work would have been established by the bid prior to his final bid).

The “seller” could have had specific conditions for the sale. He may have said that he had a report on authenticity and condition from Bansky’s service and didn’t want any inspection by Sotheby’s. He may have insisted that it be the last in the lot. Or maybe that was a coincidence. Or maybe it was because of the odd location. Maybe the “seller” insisted that it be hung on a wall rather than on an easel. Or even hung in a specific spot. The “seller” may even have insisted have having his own people hang the work. I expect that from time to time Sotheby’s deals with some rather eccentric characters with slightly unusual demands.

Sotheby’s may or may not have been in on it. Bansky could have sold the idea as generating a lot of publicity for Sotheby’s. My guess is that Sotheby’s doesn’t need publicity and that this isn’t the type they would want. The stunt has a message against the commodification of art, which is exactly what Sotheby’s does. Plus, it creates a sense of distrust. Buyers might start wondering whether things they buy from Sotheby’s might destroy themselves, or at the very least consider the possibility of artworks deteriorating or otherwise losing value. Of course it is possible that some people at Sotheby’s were in on it even though Sotheby’s itself was not aware.

It’s like a magic trick. There are all kinds of ways the stunt could have been pulled off.

 

[Matthew Best]

Or, just maybe, everything happened the way he and Sotheby's said it did.

 

[fagin]

Whatever, people are talking, interest is raised.

If you see art as more than just a pretty picture, job done.

 

[theprestige]

Or, just maybe, everything happened the way he and Sotheby's said it did.

Anything is possible, but the more I think about it, the less likely it seems. That frame is too much of a Chekov's Gun.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

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

The video is certainly baffling.

It seems like it would be possible to create a functional shredder. It is not clear what the painting was one: canvas, paper, matte board? Some news articles say canvas, but I wouldn’t trust journalists to be accurate.

Prior to shredding the girl’s feet are right at the bottom of the frame. When the shredded pieces come out, the canvas (or whatever it is) is bent back like it had been around a roller. That gives some credence to the idea that it had been in the frame for some time. But the video doesn’t appear to show any such roller.

The shredder set up in the video does not seem to make any sense. The blades are lined up like a saw blade. I don’t see how that could possibly result in shredding. When he puts on the back panel, the blades are not even near the painting or anything. There doesn’t seem to be a mechanism to push the painting through the blades (even if they were facing the right way). I don’t see a slot for the shredded pieces to come out.

It is almost like an artistic interpretation of a shredder rather than a functional one.

But, why? Obviously the frame did shred the painting (or at least gave the appearance that it did). Why would he make a video that shows some impossible shredder set up?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Anything is possible, but the more I think about it, the less likely it seems. That frame is too much of a Chekov's Gun.

Even Chekov wouldn't demand the gun shoot itself.

 

[erwinl]

"Only one guard around" doesn't really inform you that their modern art isn't beautiful; that it is controversial; that it isn't good "craft"; or that it isn't valuable.

Everything in there is insured for theft or damage.

Of course it is insured for theft or damage.

But still. They choose to guard their older art much more than they do the modern stuff. If that modern art would truly be on the same level as, say a work from Michelangelo, it would be guarded the same way as Michelangelo's.

But they don't. So you see their priorities very clearly.

 

[Lothian]

Let me put it in another way.

Last summer we were in the Vatican Museums. Truly stunning art there, where you can easily stay for the entire day and do the entire round trip two or three times, just to take it all in you.

Every room has at least one guard to keep an eye on things. And so they should. It's absolutely priceless art they have there.

Everywhere, except for where they show the modern art.
There are about 12 of these rooms and these warrant just a single guard.

What does this tell you about the value of modern art?

It tells you that the Vatican are far more interested in protecting the old at the expense of the young. Plus ca change....

 

[Foolmewunz]

Of course it is insured for theft or damage.

But still. They choose to guard their older art much more than they do the modern stuff. If that modern art would truly be on the same level as, say a work from Michelangelo, it would be guarded the same way as Michelangelo's.

But they don't. So you see their priorities very clearly.

Let me put it the actual way.

What do you know about Gaetano Previati, Gerardo Dottori, Giulio Aristide Sartorio, Giuseppe Santagata and Felice Carena.

Those are the "contemporary" artists collected in the Vatican collection. If they had a few Cezannes, Picassos, Modiglianis, Turners, etc.... you have a valid comparison. But you compare contemporary religious painting to Michaelangelo, DaVinci, Raphael, Caravaggio,....? Not so much. Isn't the Pieta in the Vatican? It's one of the "most priceless" pieces in the world.

 

[erwinl]

Let me put it the actual way.

What do you know about Gaetano Previati, Gerardo Dottori, Giulio Aristide Sartorio, Giuseppe Santagata and Felice Carena.

Those are the "contemporary" artists collected in the Vatican collection. If they had a few Cezannes, Picassos, Modiglianis, Turners, etc.... you have a valid comparison. But you compare contemporary religious painting to Michaelangelo, DaVinci, Raphael, Caravaggio,....? Not so much. Isn't the Pieta in the Vatican? It's one of the "most priceless" pieces in the world.

The Pieta is in the St. Pieter Cathedral, yes.
Absolutely stunning piece of art.

A painting like Catrame II by alberto Burri? Not so much.
Or Chagall, or this painting by James Ensor