I didn’t know we didn’t know what he looked like until I went to see if that was him. But it looks like he’s been pictured.
I’m not that familiar with his art. I know that name, I’m aware of what he does, to a point. I hear about him from time to time, I know “Exit it though the gift shop” is about him, but that’s about it.
Are you saying that if you saw that little stand you would have spent at least $120 on a whim?
I don’t think that’s fair. If his art truly is worth millions…and how can you put a price on art that’s typically on buildings, what if that guy was selling Picassos or Renoirs? Would you assume they’re for real? To me, that booth looked like someone got a hold of a silk screener or some spray paint and stencils. I mean, if it matched your decor, I’m sure it would be worth $60 to you. But the random passer-by, no way.
The value as any other piece of art or antiquity or whatever. Why is an authentic rare coin worth more than any other lump of metal? Why is George Washington’s axe worth more than a hatchet from Home Depot? Why is an original copy of the Declaration of Independence worth more than a paper scroll from the TeaParty.com web store? Why is the Mona Lisa worth more than a color print out of the Mona Lisa from Wikipedia? “Worth” being not only monetary value but cultural value.
I always thought the idea that you’re paying for the object’s history and “story” to be pretty obvious. I don’t see any new ground being broken here.
All the Banksy that I’m familiar with and like (and I do) is on buildings. Its meaning is completely tied up with its location. What are his canvases about?
I don’t know what to make of him, as he’s not necessarily my cup of tea as far as contemporary art goes, but “world-famous” is an apt moniker for him. Not everyone knows him, but, if you follow contemporary art, even tangentially, he’s one of the 21st century guys you should know. So there’s your relativity. If you don’t follow art, you might have heard of him as he is also somewhat known in pop culture. If you don’t follow art and pop culture at all, he’s easy to miss. Regardless, I have no issue with describing him as “world famous.”
Only the question “Are you saying that if you saw that little stand you would have spent at least $120 on a whim?” was meant for you, not the rest of it.
Sorry, the rest was just general thoughts on the subject. But it was mostly rhetorical and/or meant for anyone who claims that they would have bought something had they been there.
Here’s a good example. What if this said that it was authentic? Would you snatch it up for $150? Or would you say “Waitaminute…Banksy doesn’t do canvas work.” or “Waitaminute if that’s by Banksy it wouldn’t be $150” or would you really say “Holy crap, I’ll take 2”?
Let’s just pretend for a second that you didn’t recognize it as a previous work from somewhere else, it just said that it was an original Banksy.
I got some bonus points in some college class (don’t remember what it was) for knowing what a deuce and a quarter was. They were trying to show how IQ tests can be biased and I think only black (well, inner city) kids were supposed to know that one. Even that was wrong, really, it was ‘car people’ who knew it and my dad was a car guy so I had heard it come up from time to time.
Either way, of all the other blacks, whites, males, females and ages from 20 up to about 50 I was the only person that knew it, even the teacher didn’t understand it other then having it in her guide.
I think the point is it really worked; he put it out there to prove what he does really isn’t worth much as art, he knows that and thinks the whole scene is absurd.
Really, they’re simple little cartoonish canvasses and worth exactly that $60 range.
The rest of the value, as he’d agree, is bullshit.
I don’t know why I should care about a “lesson” that any high school kid should be able to impart with fifteen seconds of introspection. I don’t know what about his little experiment is newsworthy or worth discussing apart from “Haha… those people could be rich but they didn’t buy it”.
sorry I just don’t think of him as an artist. If you paint on someone elses property without permission that makes you a vandal, doesn’t matter how clever or talented the painting is.
I think if you can look at a well-made and thought-provoking piece of art and say “it’s not art because it’s vandalism,” that’s an unfortunate limitation on your perception. There’s no reason it can’t be art and vandalism.
Hey, like I said, I’m not necessarily fond of him, but if Banksy wants to graffiti up my garage, he’s welcome to do so any day. It’ll sure beat the hell out of the gang tagging we get here from time to time.
But its monetary value only comes from its authenticity because inauthentic replicas are so easily obtained. So I didn’t spend $60 on what I presume is a knock-off only worth the canvas it’s printed on. Does that mean I don’t like the print on it? What if that print is my computer wallpaper? What if I actually love the design, I just didn’t want to pay $60 for an inauthentic piece widely and easily available on the internet any time I want to enjoy it? Maybe it’s not worth $60 to have a replica of the print on canvas when I can run it on my laser printer and stick it to my fridge with a magnet. How is declining to buy the piece a real signal that it’s not “worth much as art” when replicas and depictions of art cost nothing but a few electrons these days?
You know what else I don’t buy? Bootleg DVDs of Mad Men. Photocopied sheets of “A Christmas Carol”. Not because I think they lack value as art but because I can already watch it via legitimate means or go to Project Gutenberg and download the e-book.
It’ll sure beat the hell out of the gang tagging we get here from time to time.