Cap,

People aren’t buying banksy at auction because they think that picture is so beautiful it’s worth x.

They’re buying it because it’s a banksy. And the destruction is part of the whole banksy artwork and ethos (regardless of how sincere or contrived you may believe it to be at this point).

So had I bought this for $1.4M and banksy just banksied the **** out of this piece, my emotional response would be super pumped.

Completely different situation with banksy doing this vs anyone else destroying it.

An artwork is more than just a picture on a canvas, that’s the key point you and Howard are missing here.

This may be a dumb question, but in a hypothetical situation, where the painting was completely destroyed and the buyer or auction house attempts to sue Banksy, how exactly does his name get out? I mean he's hidden his identity for this long, there are law/political officials that hate his graffiti and want him arrested, if they can't figure out who he is, who do they draft the suit to? How does it reach Banksy in the first place if no one knows who he is? (Assuming his tight knit friends that may know his true identity don't rat him out or something)

Zik,

Buyer and seller and Banksy all have fairly deep pockets here, or so it would seem.

YF

Howard

ED,

He did Banksy the **** out of it, hence it's increased value. I don't think you're being honest with how you'd feel, how other buyer's would feel, the publicity, or how desirable the remnants would be had he completely destroyed it. "Hey this fool just paid 1.4M for a painting and then the artist immediately destroyed it. Want to buy the remnants from him for 2.8M so he doesn't look like a fool?"

What do you think Banksy's intent was? Do you think he was attempting to commit fraud, and cause the buyer to lose money, or do you think Banksy wanted to help the woman make an instant 1M+?

All,

I think today's press release is timely:

In Bristol, where he's from, he's believed to be a bloke called Robin Gunningham, whose only acknowledged work is an album cover for a local ska band in the Nineties. ('Oh My God It's Cheeky Clown' by Mother Samosa. If you've got a copy, it's now worth money.) This is, of course, not certain, and Banksy denies it, but then he would.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/b...-robin-1765704

I would imagine hat a dedicated PI could figure out who Banksy is. Yes, officials are mad at him but it’s not as though he’s a murderer on the lam.

That urinal was just a urinal till Duchamp wrote 'R. Mutt 1917' on it. And the Philadelphia Museum of Art proudly displays a 1950 'replica' of the famous work, a similar urinal which Duchamp agreed to sign with the same inscription.

https://www.philamuseum.org/collecti...ent/92488.html

And, good Lord, we're a century on from that gag and 'art' hasn't really gone anywhere since, has it?

A half-shredded Banksy in a frame all mounted in a large acrylic box is much more accessible and thus valuable than an incoherent pile of shredded canvas. I’m perfectly aware that both have been banksied.

I’m no art appraiser, obviously. But I’ve got to think that the current state of the thing is more valuable than a complete shred.

Dc,

I don’t know what banksy’s intent was, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he was making a point about how silly it is to pay a million bucks for a picture like that.

I’m very confident about my feelings and the feelings of the buyer even had the work been completely shredded. Again, I think you are not adequately taking into account the nature of contemporary art world and artists like hirst, banksy, etc. It’s not a Rembrandt or Davinci we’re talking about here, it’s about more than just the work itself, it’s the experience etc too.

Banksy's firm, Pest Control, told Sotheby's not to remove and examine the frame because it was an essential part of the installation (as indeed it is). It's not a painting, it's an installation, and the frame, and the remote-control shredder, and the coup de theatre at the auction, and the whole hoo-hah, are all part of the work. (Because the principal medium of modern art is publicity.)

I doubt Banksy's claim that the picture was meant to be completely shredded instead of 50% shredded. The outcome is too neat. The thing is still in the frame for exhibition and looking pretty extraordinary. Banksy's firm has even officially changed the title to Love Is In the Bin. And the work's value, in most people's view, has gone up, as has Banksy's notoriety. Nobody is going to sue anybody. They're all in the money.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-45900314

If you are not spending $1m on a painting, you are discussing a world you simply have no comprehension of and any opinion from someone not on that world shouldn't be taken seriously.

It's a perfect time for this prank since modern art is so controversial. Of course, that controversy is stemmed from people who never stepped into an art gallery, and only pulls up images on Google claiming that Rothko is just monotone squares that a child could do. I'd argue that the attitude towards modern art is misunderstood and (mostly) misguided.

Has anyone asked the buyer, the auction house, or anyone in attendance fighting for the painting how they feel about it?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKCN1ML2RH

The unnamed buyer is paying for it anyways, and other auction houses are hoping that they'll get "Bansky'd" as well.

It seems the sentiment is that this was AMAZING, and once again... unless you are in this world, you have no valuable opinion. Even though I love art galleries, lived in art districts, and rubbed shoulder with artists you may have heard of, I have no valuable opinion to add.

If you still aren't sure about how Sotheby's feels, look at this page:

https://www.sothebys.com/en/artists/banksy?locale=en

They are selling more of his art, and the articles are fairly glowing.

cheers.

Was going to say if Banksy included the shredder in the frame when he gave it to the guy who sold it, it seems like the "work of art" was always a painting that self-shreds at a later date so there's no fraud, but I see El D slow ponied me.

There was an auto-destructive art movement in the 1960s. What Banksy did isn't the same thing, but they do share an anti-capitalist perspective https://www.stewarthomesociety.org/ass/auto.htm

You can't get much more LOLDiablo than to come into the middle of a discussion and assert that you know what someone else feels about art, and that if you have a different interpretation of a piece of contemporary art then you don't understand it.


DaveT's assertion that if you don't have a million dollars you can't understand or appreciate art comes pretty close though.

Dave,
I think there are a bunch of professional art critics who'd beg to differ with you on this point. Since you then go on to give your opinion, I assume you're either spending millions on art or we should completely disregard what you've written.

Everybody just showing up to discuss the resulting piece,
We had this conversation a few pages ago. Everyone agrees that the way it turned out is a positive thing for all involved. We're now discussing whether Banksy was being honest when he said he meant to completely shred the piece, and the ramifications had the outcome been different.

Cap,

Your interpretation of art is as valid as anyone else’s.

But your understanding of the business of art is not.

I only claim you don't understand the world that's involved. If you want to talk about smoking Cuban cigars, start smoking Cuban cigars, you know?

*

The honesty of Bansky's remarks is akin to Artist's S* by Piero Manzoni.



The concept is pretty self-explanatory, however, Manzoni instructed that the cans should never be opened, lest they lose their true value. The cans are made of steel and can't be x-rayed.

Bansky is deliberately or accidentally making a throw-back to this and similar pieces of art (or "art" depending on how you feel about it). The mystery of the contents or intent is part of the experience of owning the Bansky or the Manzoni.

A single can of this **** sold for 124,000 Euro. A fellow artist claimed that these can contain plaster, but we'll never know. Similarly, the amount of destruction that was intended is part and parcel of the experience (thus value) of owning the Bansky.

If the Bansky was completely destroyed, Bansky could say that it was only meant to shred half the painting. I don't think either situation would alter the final intent or value of the painting. There is no logical reason to think otherwise.

I fully admit to speculating as to whether a half-destroyed-but-still-intact Banksy is worth more than a pile of shredded canvas.

Howard,

The value of half or fully shredded would almost certainly be very close, because post-event the initial picture itself is largely irrelevant to the essence of the work.

I don't buy the "I meant to shred it and it didnt work" bit. The way it is now is too perfect, and the "I meant to shred it but it failed" just adds to that perfection.

if he really wanted to destroy it cutting it in strips would be the worst way to do it anyway, they would just be reassembled and displayed. I'm sure a way to actually destroy it could have been developed rather easily

Schrödinger's dump

5,000 years from now, archeologists will find these cans and use them to crack the Italian, English, French, and German languages.

OOT Art Fight!

There seem to be pretty divided opinions on these 2 questions: 1) what the worth of the piece would be if it had been fully shredded, and 2) whether Banksy actually meant to completely shred the piece or not. So far I see:

1) Some here believe that the piece would be worth less, maybe much much less, while others believe it would be close, maybe nearly the same worth.

Team Worth Less
de captain
Alobar
Howard Treesong

Team Worth Close
El Diablo
madlex
patron

2) Some here believe that Banksy was lying about his intentions and all along always meant to just half-shred the piece and stopped the shredding at the perfect time. Others believe he was being honest when he said he meant to completely shred the piece.

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

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

So far, I've mainly just seen opinions (my own included), but is there any objective data or information that anyone can link that would support either position on these questions?

Has he ever been known to lie about something like this?

Please add me to team fully shred.

It shouldn't be too difficult to see if there is a limit switch positioned to stop the shred halfway. It would probably be a good idea to get in there and remove the batteries anyway, as they could leak liquid or gas that would damage the work further.