Occam's Razor in this case would probably involve the known rule of self-interest, and the unlikelihood that the prominent and notionally pseudonymous artist would put himself so provably on the wrong side of the law. (Up to obtaining money by deception, which could land you inside.) To suggest otherwise, on some fancy theory or other, would be to 'multiply propositions needlessly,' which Occam's Razor forbids. It is reasonable to assume that the shredding was intended to stop halfway, as actually happened to the great benefit of all concerned.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BpDMo26h3Cu/

If it is designed that way, yes. Your TV was designed by a team of engineers, is tested for reliability, and is mass produced. The Banksy device was not. There are some difficulties with using the same signal to turn on and to turn off. These are not such a big deal with a TV, but might be when wanting to half-shred a 1.4 million dollar painting.

Note, that when you unlock your car with a key fob, you lock it with a different button. And that radio frequency technology was likely used, because it does not require line of sight like an infrared remote. The second Banksy video shows someone pushing a button on a concealed remote. This was most likely staged later, even if the actual remote was shown.

This whole thing reminds me of the Breaking Bad finale, and the Mythbusters episode about that. Please watch that to get an idea of some of the difficulty in pulling off this kind of remote control stunt reliably.

Can anyone on team full shred offer me a plausible explanation of why the painting was only half shredded, if the intention was to fully shred? Note that I have a degree in electrical engineering, and I also fix electro-mechanical equipment on the side, so I can judge the plausibility pretty well. Now to me, the most likely failure mode of the device is that you push the button on the remote, and nothing happens. But the shred did start, and it also appeared to stop suddenly, not as if the shredder was jammed and laboring to continue the shred, or that the shredder motor was still running but failing to grab the painting. Moving the painting in this case could even cause it to start shredding again.

I agree with this. You guys can put me on team half shred. Banksy is trolling with his recent video showing a full shred.

Part 2

You totally have your finger on the pulse of this Banksy guy.

how did the shredder actually activate? had to be someone in the auction house right?

possible this was discussed and i skipped it

The buyer loses the canvas like the girl loses the balloon, right?

epic and then he keeps bringing more epic.

Seems like Occam's Razor forbids concluding Banksy wouldn't do something with his art that would put him on the wrong side of the law.

Teammeanttoshredthewholething.hashtag

team full shred: all of you please pm me, i have multiple bridges for sale at discount prices

Fact: Shredding it halfway doesn't make sense.

Are they...

Team Update: Fierce Battle Continuing To Rage!

Team Worth Less
de captain
Alobar
Howard Treesong

Team Worth Close
El Diablo
madlex
patron

Team Banksy Meant To Half Shred
de captain
Alobar
grando
ligastar
57OnRed
TimM
BOIDS?

Team Banksy Meant To Fully Shred
27offsuit
cs3
Melkerson
patron
zikzak
Howard Treesong
lonely_but_rich

All this depends on whether one believes Banksy is actually a subversive anarchist radical who wants to burn it all down (team fully shred) or a cynical self-interested capitalist bent on maximizing his wealth and protecting himself from legal exposure (team half shred).

#Teamfullshredobv

i'm team "banksy didn't intend to shred it at all and this is all a big misunderstanding"

You also need to retroactively apply this belief to 2006 when the work was created, its value was a small fraction of what it is today, and the artist was just barely starting to be known outside the world of underground street art.

lol at thinking the shredder was installed in 2006

If thats the case, then why does team full shred think banksy opted to go for a method that doesnt actually destroy the art, as opposed to one that would have completely ruined it?

If the whole thing is a lie top to bottom then Banksy has severely damaged both his own credibility and that of his authentication agency, which should have a pretty big negative effect on the future value of his work and be a black mark on Sotheby's reputation as well. imo that would be a much more radical act than what he claims he did.

Well even Banksy's video says the shredder is only a couple years old, so even hes not claiming 2006.

Im going with dave from EEVblog cuz he knows his ****, that it was probably installed only a few months ago.

What other conclusion can one draw for a "subversive anarchist radical?"

I'm teamhalfshred.

After watching that YouTube video, I'm much more in team half shred. There was just way too much thought put into this, from various iterations to the misleading images. The preparation videoes are a performance art within themselves.

My main takeaway is that Bansky did all he could to ensure this wasn't going to **** up, thus the half-shred was the intended outcome.

Yes, I get the irony that I come to the opposite conclusion of the YouTube video.

Anarchy is a young man's game. Banksy is believed to be in his mid 40's. It's easy to be a radical anarchist as a poor teen, and even carry that into your 20's. It has to become increasingly difficult to hold those beliefs as you age, get wiser, and accumulate money. I'd imagine every million his net worth increases, and each year he ages, makes it increasingly difficult to want to burn it all down.

Of course if that's your schtick you kind of have to stick with it, whether your beliefs have matured or not, if you want your stock to go up. There's the rub.

If you look at his body of work it seems difficult to believe some of those pieces weren't created as a money grab.