Banksy work self-destructs after gavel falls on $#1.4M auction - Page 4 - Other Topics Forum - Discuss Pop Culture, Arts and Entertainment

Watched the video, and as the painting was removed from the wall, there was no power cord. So what was the power source for the shredder? Batteries installed in 2006? Would you rely on those? Something fishy there, I'm thinking the auction house knew. How was it initiated? If I were designing it in 2006 I'd consider a vehicle keyfob and receiver.

The painting was created in 2006 not the frame.

Quote

10-13-2018 , 07:26 AM

#77

Swwiinn

old hand

Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,752

I'd be pretty surprised if it's not considered destruction of property - especially if the shredding was remotely initiated. I would aliken it to a painting doused in a highly flammable liquid and then being lit on fire at the point of sale.

Of course, the art work will significantly increase in value, so the buyer probably doesn't care about pursuing any legal action.

Whether it deliberately stopped halfway or if it malfunctioned is something you'd probably have to ask Banksy. Either way, awesome stunt.

Quote

10-13-2018 , 08:29 AM

#78

Alobar

Born Ready

Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 42,368

If it was a cross cut shredder, id buy the "it jammed halfway".

Quote

10-13-2018 , 08:45 AM

#79

zikzak

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 22,199

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alobar

no way the half shred was an accident. No one is going to federal pound me in the ass prison to make an artistic statement.

He's been risking serious jail time his entire career doing things that would be far more likely to get him arrested and prosecuted than this. He's done huge, politically charged murals in the West Bank. He smuggled a dummy wearing an orange jumpsuit and black bag over its head into Disneyland and made it a part of one of the rides. And do you really think the UK would allow the extradition of the person or persons operating under the pseudonym "Banksy", true ID unknown, for the destruction of their own artwork?

Quote

10-13-2018 , 10:53 AM

#80

Howard Treesong

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 14,681

I watched the video. The auctioneer says “sold.” At that point, I think title passes from Banksy to the buyer, and Banksy at that point loses any right to materially change the condition of the piece.

Given that, i would think that the buyer no longer has the obligation to pay. Given the half-shredding, it may well be that the buyer still wants the art. Had it been fully shredded and the buyer doesn’t pay, I would think the buyer wouldn’t pay and that the auction house may have a damage case against Banksy for its commission.

I don’t think an as-is clause makes a difference here given that the shredding was an affirmative act of deception.

Quote

10-13-2018 , 12:53 PM

#81

zikzak

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 22,199

It's really weird that the thing this thread finds most worth discussion is potential civil and criminal charges which have not and will not be brought.

Quote

10-13-2018 , 01:05 PM

#82

augie_

missed out on bitcoin

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 21,627

seems unlikely that someone who paid 1.4M for a banksy is going to sue banksy for going all banksy on his piece

Quote

10-13-2018 , 01:14 PM

#83

lonely_but_rich

ɔarpal \ʇunnel

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 24,110

How much should I tip the auctioneer?

Quote

10-13-2018 , 01:39 PM

#84

TimM

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 9,767

The whole thing is fishy. The "shredder" looks to be made of exacto knife blades, but they are facing sideways. Not sure how they are making those cuts. It would not surprise me if the original were safely rolled up inside the frame, and the shredded part was already shredded, and just rolled out as the original was rolled down. I would think, to really shred it, that the canvas needed to be pulled through the blades, not pushed through.

Quote

10-13-2018 , 01:41 PM

#85

sumey

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 2,815

I thought the shredder jammed and was meant to completely shred the picture.

A small team of people would take no time to put the shredded pieces together.

Quote

10-13-2018 , 01:47 PM

#86

Alobar

Born Ready

Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 42,368

Quote:

Originally Posted by zikzak

It's really weird that the thing this thread finds most worth discussion is potential civil and criminal charges which have not and will not be brought.

what else is interesting about this?

Quote

10-13-2018 , 01:52 PM

#87

TimM

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 9,767

Quote

10-13-2018 , 02:17 PM

#88

Alobar

Born Ready

Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 42,368

as an EEVBlog subscriber, I change my vote to whatever it is he says

Quote

10-13-2018 , 02:37 PM

#89

cs3

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 13,677

Original owner got it directly from Banksy and then sold the painting anonymously through the auction house, right?
Maybe he knows Banksy and knew about the hidden shredder, (or just figured out about it on his own?) put it up for auction knowing the value would skyrocket after the stunt, and bought it himself via proxy to secure a huge profit.

Quote

10-13-2018 , 02:52 PM

#90

zikzak

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 22,199

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alobar

what else is interesting about this?

The artistic merit of the act comes to mind.

Quote

10-13-2018 , 02:55 PM

#91

TimM

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 9,767

Quote:

Originally Posted by zikzak

The artistic merit of the act comes to mind.

That's so obvious it doesn't require much discussion.

Quote

10-13-2018 , 03:16 PM

#92

zikzak

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 22,199

Really? Because I can't decide if this was meaningful or a dumb stunt, and I'm never sure to what degree he's being subversive or just twee. Or if the ambiguity itself is the main point.

Quote

10-13-2018 , 03:32 PM

#93

DrChesspain

Guest

Posts: n/a

Everything you ever wanted to know about auction law:

https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/law-auctions

Quote

10-13-2018 , 07:53 PM

#94

TimM

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 9,767

Quote:

Originally Posted by zikzak

Really? Because I can't decide if this was meaningful or a dumb stunt, and I'm never sure to what degree he's being subversive or just twee. Or if the ambiguity itself is the main point.

A lot of that may depend on what we've been discussing. Who was in on it? Was the real painting actually shredded or was that part faked? (EEVBlog guy says that would be lame, and he doesn't think Banksy is lame) Was it intention to only shred half the painting? Was the winning bidder in on it? Was Banksy responsible for destroying his own art, or was the destruction part of the art? Etc.

Quote

10-13-2018 , 08:05 PM

#95

TimM

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 9,767

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrChesspain

Everything you ever wanted to know about auction law:

https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/law-auctions

Wrong country, but this would be relevant in the U.S.

Quote:

Risk of Loss:

A sale by auction is complete when a property is sold to the highest bidder. The successful buyer has to pay and take the property after auction. At the purchaser’s request, the auction property can be held by the seller after sale. The general rule regarding the risk of loss of property after auction is that a seller cannot transfer risk of loss and the risk remains upon the seller until actual physical possession by the buyer. The risk of loss will pass to the buyer on his receipt of the property or on tender of delivery.

According to Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, the ownership or title of goods is irrelevant in determining which party bears the risk of loss. Risk of loss is on the party who has control over the goods and is determined by the manner in which delivery is to be made. A seller who is to make physical delivery at his or her own locale continues to control the goods. The buyer, who has no control over the goods, will not carry insurance on goods not in his possession. Uniform Commercial Code, § 2-509, Comment 3.

Parties to an auction can alter the liability for loss of property by an agreement to that effect. Silver v. Wycombe, Meyer & Co., 124 Misc. 2d 717, 718 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1984). A buyer and seller can adjust the risk by contract.

However, under certain circumstances the risk of loss is shifted. The seller who desires to shift the risk of loss to the buyer before the buyer receives the property must clearly communicate his/her intent to the buyer. Hawkins v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21436 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 14, 1996). The shifting of risk of loss to the buyer before the buyer receives the property is not common. A statement in the auction memorandum clarifying the intention of the seller to shift the risk of loss to the buyer is enough to shift responsibility at the time of sale. Unless specifically communicated or agreed to by the parties, the risk of loss will not pass to a buyer until the property is received by the buyer. Caudle v. Sherrard Motor Co., 525 S.W.2d 238, 240 (Tex. Civ. App. Dallas 1975).

Quote

10-13-2018 , 08:58 PM

#96

rakemeplz

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 12,648

By the way just to interject on the value discussions going on in this thread, it could be that the guy's experience was worth more than the art itself. You can dine out on that story and it made for an interesting experience, and probably impacted his/her life more than most art sitting on the wall would. So even if he art had less resale value than the guy paid for, he still may view it as an overall positive.

That said I think Banksy's stuff comes off as much cheesy gimmick as art to me, but meh. I liked exit through the gift shop though.

Quote

10-14-2018 , 02:37 PM

#97

proudfootz

old hand

Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 1,923

The buyer might be grateful:

"Banksy might think that by destroying his art he's undermining capitalists who buy it, but he's wrong," commented Mikael Faujour of the specialist French art magazine Artension.

"The leftovers from this destruction will acquire a new prestige and additional monetary worth," he said.

Thierry Ehrmann, who heads Artprice, a firm which closely monitors art market prices, agreed that the prank had probably increased the value of the work.

It might now be worth "more than two million euros," he suggested.

https://www.nst.com.my/world/2018/10...al-experts-say

Quote

10-14-2018 , 02:45 PM

#98

lonely_but_rich

ɔarpal \ʇunnel

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 24,110

Hot take

Quote

10-14-2018 , 06:15 PM

#99

Didace

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 19,877

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimM

That's so obvious it doesn't require much discussion.

I find zero artistic merit in either the "original" artwork or in the "improved" version. But, art is in the eye of the beholder so calling it obvious is a little presumptuous. But I guess that also means it doesn't require much discussion.

Quote

10-14-2018 , 06:57 PM

#100

Sir Huntington

banned

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 2,354

I think it's funny that the only reason this is interesting is a publicity stunt. The painting is boring and the price for it is exactly what's happening in the market for a while now, manipulations of prices thru marketing. Some dork spending that much money on boring art.... that's just some brainwashed stupidity there.

Lame art is lame!

Quote

Page 4 of 12

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 4 of 12

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Last