1) why would he lie about it? The youtube video clearly shows a print being completely shredded by the homemade frame/shredder.
2) think about what motivated him to do this in the first place.
3) he has a life-long history of destroying/defacing other people's property


The only logical conclusion seems pretty obvious.

You'd think they could easily tell by opening it up or even x-raying it, but does the new owner want that info out there? I have no idea or opinion on this, I'm just curious how, or if, it effects anything knowing the answer.

Perhaps Banksy's long term plan is to complete the shred if it ever comes up for auction again? That would make removing the batteries a good idea or a bad idea?

Apparently further damaging the piece does not decrease it's value.

because making people believe he meant to fully shred it amplifies his image as a non conformist FU type, which banksy lovers admire him for.

Reading about his previous "pranks" they are all pretty tame and not nearly as out there as his supporters in this thread have portrayed. Graffiti isn't the same as destroying something worth 7 figs. So he gets to look like a badass but still play it safe if you believe he wanted to shred the whole thing.

Alobar,

Why was that picture worth 7 figures?

Alobar

So basically you think that "playing it safe" means he could get into way more trouble by shredding it all the way rather than halfway?

Im not buying thay for a second. It doesn't make sense at all.




Also, who are the Banksy "supporters"? I don't think people on either side of the half/full shred debate necessarily like or dislike him, or support him any way

It seems worth noting that Banksy never said he intended to completely shred the painting in the video he posted after the fact. People are interpreting what he said to mean he meant to completely shred it.

What he said, and demonstrated, was that the shredder worked perfectly during multiple tests. Another way to interpret what happened is that he's saying the shredder works fine but the piece wasn't completely shredded, implying he didn't intend to completely shred the piece.

It's also worth noting that in the video you can clearly see that there's a window in the back of the piece as he's sealing it up. The mechanical workings would be clearly visible looking into that window. This discredits Sotheby's assertion they didn't know what would happen.

CS3,

We already covered the potential for him t oget into more trouble by shredding the entire piece in detail.

I'm inclined to agree with this. What's the odds the shredder breaks at the auction and breaks when the painting is half way through?

This also implies that the remote control was a single-push activator instrument of a button that needs to be held down.

why dont you buy it?

He clearly didn't mean to destroy the painting, because even shredding it all the way wouldnt have done that, and destroying it completely is something that he actually could have achieved.

So given he didnt actually want to destroy the painting and all his pranks are cheeky and ultimately harmless but thought provoking. Whats more in line with that, shredding it halfway that makes it perfectly to display piece of performance art, with little to no risk or getting in any kind of trouble. Or shredding it completely, which isn't as fun and has a higher risk of legal issues.

I called up my good friend William of Ockham and told him the half-shred for legal protection theory. He laughed and hung up the phone. Also, that didn't really happen because he's dead and we weren't friends.

Duly noted, counselor. Will post updated lists if additional people post their positions on these clearly important issues.

I can see Banksy lying and I can see him telling the truth.

WTF counselor?! I just added you to Team Fully Shred! There's no room for that kind of equivocation on this important issue!!!

?

I’m on team fully shred but it’s 60-40 or so for me. I don’t feel that strongly about it.

Lol limit switch. Do you think that maybe in addition to being started remotely, the shredder could have been stopped remotely? Possibly even by the same person with the same remote!

If you really want the shred to stop right about halfway, a limit switch is the better design for simplicity and reliability.

I guess you're sticking with your position that the absence of a limit switch would show Banksy's true intent.

What's stopping the rest of the picture from still being shredded? I can't imagine anyone has actually disabled the 'shred' function, as it were.

Art. Art stops the entire canvas from being shredded.

I never said that. Presence would show intent, but absence would be inconclusive. Why is this so hard to understand?

Vandelay?

I wonder how much the shreds of this thread would go for

I'd hazard an estimate around $3.50

Do you really have to ask?

Well... quite. We all basically remember how a TV remote works, I take it. What you switch on, you can switch off.

In its half-shredded form, mid-self-destruct, the installation is striking and highly exhibitable. If it were just ribbons on the floor and an empty frame, not so much. Which could cause those awkward legal complications, not only civil but possibly criminal (obtaining money by deception).

And also, who gets the money from the sale? Supposedly the work was donated to a friend of the artist, but I'm not sure a businessman like Banksy would contrive such a big business opportunity if he wasn't gaining from it. Maybe he's just happy with the (massive, intercontinental) publicity, but he's got to make a living, and he's got to make a pretty solid one to keep up his prestige.