In the video that Banksy released he says "A few years ago I built a shredder into a painting in case it was ever put up for auction..." The certificate of authenticity from '09 says the piece was given as a gift in '06 for services rendered.


If we're to take Banksy at his word that he meant to completely shred the piece, shouldn't we also take him at his word that he wasn't the owner of the piece?

Some moron who owned an original Banksy print shredded it with a knife in an effort to double its value from 40,000 pounds, and it is now worth nothing. Very amusing.

A little more reading tells me that Banksy built the shredder into the frame before he sold the piece somewhere around five years ago, “just in case it was ever sold at auction.” If it had worked as apparently intended and shredded the entire piece, I can absolutely see litigation ensuing. I would think Banksy would get sued for fraud.

Banksy owners worldwide are now nervously checking their frames.

Yes! You’ve slow ponied me; I started looking at this again this morning. It’s also interesting that Banksy gave the painting as a “gift for services rendered.”

Are you really confused by the idea that something can be loved by a small group yet hated by the general public?

I agree that the "gift"part of the story seems a bit fishy and does increase the odds that the seller was in on the prank.

If Banksy got sued would he be able to retain his anonymity?

No more confused than you are about the fact being loved by a small group doesn't insulate him from legal repercussions.

Please fwd any further questions to my fake lawyer:

You read this thread, it's like we're not even talking about the same artist.

That's funny but who decided it's now worth nothing? It's worth whatever someone will pay for it. I hope he gets nothing.

It might be difficult to serve a complaint on him. But once he’s been served, his name would be highly likely to become public.

Some art dealer. So, point taken. FYI, I have a pile of shredded canvas for sale if you’d like to make an offer on it.

HT,

Given Banksy's history, combined with an estimated net worth of 20M, do you think it's likely that Banksy has real lawyers on retainer?

Do you think Banksy is smart enough to consult with his lawyers, assuming he has some, before shredding a painting, he knows is worth 6-7 figures, that doesn't belong to him?

Would those lawyers advise him that doing so likely opens him up to fraud charges, 7 figures of liability, and a likely loss of his anonymity?



ETA:

Furthermore, can you envision a scenario where, if Banksy really wanted to pul this stunt but doesn't want to wind up in litigation, he and his lawyer could come up with a way to pull the stunt but not get in trouble?

Watching cap keep digging himself further in is its own work of art at this point.

I'm going to assume your reply is in response to this?

He is shredding someone.

All of those are plausible. Banksy’s public reputation is as an anarchic subversive who doesn’t give a rip about authority, though, and I can entirely see him flipping the bird to the establishment and doing this for fun. Full speed FU, and damn the torpedoes.

I’m obviously speculating here, as are we all.

He's basically maintained his anonymity for 20 years and said in an interview (According to Hattenstone of the Guardian), "anonymity is vital to him because graffiti is illegal". Mayors and newspapers have called for his arrest, but he's willing to give up his anonymity to commit fraud. It's plausible.

What's the statute of limitations on vandalism?

Cap and Howard,

It’s very hard for me to believe that:

a) the fully shredded piece would be any less valuable than the half shredded piece.

b) the buyer or auction house would sue Banksy.

c) banksy would be found guilty/liable of/for anything.

A and B because the spectacle around this event would be exactly the same, and that’s the source from which this work imo derives much, if not the bulk, of its present value.

C because I believe banksy would have a strong case that this was simply one element of this artistic work. The product was nowhere guaranteed by banksy to be a canvas with an image on it. It was a piece of artwork. And one element of that artwork was the fact that it would shred itself at some time. At least, that would be my general defense strategy.

In USA#1, it depends on the state — a quick survey says somewhere between one and three years. I’ve no idea what it is in the UK. Most property damage claims are misdemeanors and would not create any serious risk of jail time.

Banksy is obviously a prankster who likes to mock rich patrons in the art world, or so it seems to me. I’m obviously guessing and don’t have a strong view of all this. Given the actual outcome where the buyer is happy, I don’t foresee litigation. I suppose there is some shot that the seller now litigates on the theory that his Banksy should have sold at a higher price, but that seems unlikely to me.

I’m no art expert, but my immediate instinct is to disagree with (a). A pile of shredded canvas that’s not attached to half of a Banksy painting in a frame strikes me as far less valuable. But hell if I know.

Some enterprising lawyer may try to sue just to leverage the risk of his identity being disclosed into a settlement.

ED,
It's of course impossible to prove but I don't see how the 2 scenarios wind up being of equal value. Put yourself in the buyer's shoes. If you just paid 1.4M for a painting and then somebody completely destroys it, I'd be surprised to find out you had the same emotional response and valued it the same way compared to what actually happened. The aesthetic quality and display-ability are also quite different, as is the controversy.



HT,

Is attempted fraud a crime?

If anybody were ever to be sued over this it would be Sotheby's because they have much deeper pockets and much more comprehensive insurance policies, and the case could be made that they had a due diligence obligation to thoroughly examine a highly unusual frame from an artist with Banksy's reputation.

So you're saying HT is wrong about the law? I hope you realize he recently sat in the peanut gallery of the Supreme Court!


ETA:
You're probably right though about who to sue, not much use suing the perpetrator, who has an estimated networth of 20M, and admits to doing it. Better to sue the middleman who claims ignorance. Insurance companies love to take responsibility in situations like this.

It's a real Sophie's Choice situation. Do you go after the multinational auction house with $800 million in yearly revenue that would probably settle quickly and quietly to make it all go away, or do you go after the maybe rich, maybe busto anonymous person or persons in a tight knit community which will probably close ranks and pull an "I am Spartacus" just for the lulz? Tough call.