Too late for a refund?
Reading it, it’s pretty clear that Sotherby’s was in on the stunt and the art is now worth more than ever.
Go, Banksy!
Fascinating. Because the page also links to this story:
Basically, an Instagram story-line faked by its creator.
And this story, Thailand's Maya Bay closed indefinitely | CNN How Thailand won’t let tourists go to a beach made popular by a movie, until they can shore up the ecological problems.
We’ve had threads before how some art has been lost, and its too much of a tragedy to abide, example of some pre-pubescent photographed girls now in control of their fathers estate no longer want their topless budding breasts to be on display. And possibly other stories.
Art happens, and people experience it, and it changes them. Then, an artwork may disappear. That also happens. I don’t like centuries old Buddha statues getting dynamited, but, outside of third party cultural attack or archival negligence, sometimes artworks are gone.
Embarrassing that Banksy has to bash us over the head with the concept, but pretty cool he took the initiative.
Bah. It was a straight shredder, so the picture can be reassembled. If he’d been serious, he would have used a cross-cut shredder.
I suspect the buyer will want to keep it and will frame the whole contraption complete with shredded piece hanging out the bottom of the frame (and then will possibly re-sell it for several times the amount)
It didn’t self destruct. It transformed. It’s still art and now the buyer became part of the process.
I think it’s extremely cool.
he’s not exactly subtle is he? I find his work rather obvious and banal, like he never left the sixth-form.
My thought were nearly identical.
And be real - girl reaching for balloon? The only reason that was selling for more than the value of the frame was it was Bansky. It is still very much a Bansky and one unlike any that have come before it, just about as pretty now as it was before but with more meaning as a Bansky.
Reminds me of the Card Against Humanity Picasso stunt. And my son educated me some in that thread about other art that has been transformative and transgressive as part of its meaning. (And its marketing/value.)
I wonder what Bansky collectors would each pay for one framed shred of that work?
That’s the point, of course. This is like criticizing Dali for being unrealistic. Duchamp, Man Ray, Warhol and others specialized in making art out of the banal.
what’s the point? that his art is unsubtle and obvious?
The point is that you don’t get it.
The point is to act like you get it whilst feeling amused and superior to people who admit they don’t get it and, even more so, to people who are unironically claiming to get it. The question of whether there is even anything to get is not a part of the process.
Yes. Like has been said before, I suspect this act of “destruction” has actually increased the value of the art, possibly substantially.
No, I absolutely get it, what there is of it to get. I’ve had no problem being impressed by difficult and challenging art before. I’m not a snob of either persuasion.
It isn’t difficult, challenging or clever enough to be interesting to me. It doesn’t move me, it says nothing to me.
You may like it, that’s entirely up to you but it isn’t a universal opinion.
Seems very odd that the shredder stopped with a third of the work untouched. The transformed piece can still be displayed.
There should have been a useless pile of shredded paper on the floor.
Banksy must have planned it this way.
I assume this is a reminder of the artificial value placed on art. That one wealthy person wants to own the work and drives up the value. Depriving everyone else from enjoying it too.
Banksy has always produced street art for the public.
Obviously it’s not a universal opinion. No one likes everything.
The banality of this particular image is part of the joke, which is that people are willing to pay over a million dollars for such a trite image just because of who produced it. And most of Banksy’s pieces are jokes. I don’t think they are intended to be challenging so much as mocking.
He comments on banal art in pieces like The Banality of the Banality of Evil.
I’ll be interested if Banksy captures a screenshot of the shocked faces and makes a new art piece in Photoshop.
Or it could be a street painting someday
That’s performance art captured at it’s best.
Which is certainly a valid interpretation but neither new nor particularly shocking.
What I don’t agree with is an assumption that the only possible manifestation of “getting it” is “liking it”.