Well, quite. And a pile of random ribbons on the floor and an empty frame on the wall wouldn't work, visually, and wouldn't boost Banksy's market rating in the same way.

The installation has no provenance before the sale. Banksy claims that it was 'donated' to a 'friend' in 2006, and that the auto-shredder was built in at that time, but no batteries would last that long. And, in the video that shows Gunningham or one of his elves fitting the shredder, he is visibly using tools from the Oria Precision Screwdriver Set, sold on Amazon, which wasn't even available before 2016. The installation was created specifically for that Sotheby's sale, to produce exactly the effect that we've all seen. There was no 'donation', and the 'friend' is simply someone paid to pose as the seller. The actual seller was Banksy, who has successfully upped his profile. The principal medium of modern art is publicity, and Banksy is quite good at that game.

As the only person here to have gone as Bansky for Halloween my opinion is canon and he meant to half shred.

BTW I am genuinely perplexed at the idea Banksy could be in legal jeopardy. Do you think if the buyer says she doesn't want it he'd use the British legal system to go after her? Or do you think he would say "np fair enough" and still be in trouble?

He's a passable graphic designer, in the stencil-and-spray format, despite an obvious over-reliance on photographic sources. But he doesn't compare with the great British comic-strip artists, like Frank Hampson, Jim Holdaway, John Burns, Mike Noble, Ron Embleton or of course (above all) Frank Bellamy. He's just quite a good grifter.

If you offer for sale, at a million-dollar price, an item in which you have installed a self-destruct mechanism, and you activate that mechanism after the buyer has committed to the price, you could well be investigated for attempting to obtain money by deception. And when it's that much money, you could be inside for quite a spell. Banksy pretended that someone else was the seller, but a full-dress police investigation would probably reveal that the seller was Banksy and that the supposed provenance of the work was fraudulent (because, for instance, it didn't even exist in 2006, or at any time until shortly before the auction for which it was conceived and designed). By not actually destroying the work, but just pretending to try it and making the result look interesting, Banksy has avoided that type legal problem.

When I want a clear perspective on a contemporary graffiti artist's work I like to contrast it with a bunch of dead guys who drew British comic strips 60 years ago.

.

Yes, you have once again successfully quoted two posts of mine which don't really have anything to do with one another.

Given you're the only one who gets it, what'd you expect?

Do you find any value in art, cap? Contemporary art in particular? Because it seems to me like the not so thinly veiled subtext to a lot of the posting ITT is that all this art stuff is just a bunch of bull****. And I think that's a perfectly fine opinion. Lots of people have it and I don't think any less of them for it.

But I struggle to understand this need some people have to constantly attack and denigrate it. I mean, I don't really enjoy or understand opera, so I don't pay any attention to it or comment on it. But for whatever reason, the mere existence of contemporary visual arts seems to deeply offend people.

You're the top poster in this thread. Why?

Yes, I find value in art. I'm a Banksy fan. You don't have to take the stance that he's a radical anarchist who hates money, and wants the world to burn, to appreciate what he's done.


You've taken a ridiculous stance on art, the law, vandalism, and insurance, among others. That, combined with drugs, alcohol, and posts like these:


Plus I appreciate art.

I admire your skill at quoting posts you find objectionable without ever bothering to explain why.

I did, you didn't listen. I had a well respected attorney explain the law to you, you didn't listen. You win.

I did try to listen. The only thing that really came through loud and clear is that you don't believe Banksy is sincere in his anti-consumerism. I disagree, because I think it is possible to both loathe and lash out at our consumerist culture while simultaneously participating in it as a necessity for keeping food in the pantry and a roof over your head.

I rather imagine that if a single Banksy (pre-shred) is selling for a million bucks, then Banksy has zero trouble “keeping a roof over his head.”

I have to admit in this thread my rather deep ignorance in art. My first thought as I saw "Banksy" was that it has something to do with banks and that some banking documentation self-destructed itself.

But presence of this thread on first page of OOT made me curious enough to google and at least read the Wiki page to Banksy. I like what I read. I like the stuff he is producing and how.

'i am an anti-consumerist marxist anarchist'
'why are you trying to be famous'
'i want to be a rich anti consumerist-marxist anarchist'

I don't think that there is a necessary contradiction.

I live pretty much as I lived as a poor student and completely believe that with stuff is like with fat: you need some but majority in today's western world have more than is good for them. I still try to negotiate in my next salary round a raise because I am not gonna earn less than my male colleagues, I am not gonna be valued by society as something "less". And that money gives me something that is not directly consumerist: a luxury to deal only with people I like, freedom to work only where I like it.

but you're not marketing and trading on your anti-consumerist values

Why would he have to pay off so many people? I'm not saying there aren't some people out there who know who Banksy is, but if for example, I went out and did something like Banksy it's not like people I went to high school with would know it's me.

I would imagine that if anonymity was crucial to your entire income, you're probably not contacting old aquaintances and letting them know it's you, nor would you tell many people around you

Do you even read what you write?

Robin Gunningham is a rich man. He is the CEO of a media and entertainment business, and he's doing very nicely, thank you. Zikzak apparently thinks he's Robin Hood, but then zikzak is browsing brochures for secondhand bridges in the New York borough of Brooklyn at surprisingly reasonable prices.

So you're not interested in the development of British graphic art at all and you know nothing nothing about it. No, well, I didn't think so.

I do. People keep quoting my posts over and over again without providing any additional content for me to focus on.

This is correct. I do not know nor have I ever cared much about British graphic art. I would enjoy reading a paragraph or three of your thoughts on how it influenced graffiti and street art.

This is completely true.