I like this analysis, and I appreciate your sly artistic construction, in which your comment on performance art is, itself, contained within a lovely little piece of performative prose.
You have a whimsical, one might even say magical ability to create posts that seem, on their surface, to be little more than a series of disconnected and trite observations, but that, when viewed as a whole, transcend the banality of the specific and produce a deep, comtemplative view of the world.
I agree this was pretty cool, even if it some sort of “setup”.
How was the shredding executed? Was it done by remote control by someone in the room? Maybe by cell phone but then someone would have to contact the perpetrator from the auction since I doubt it was broadcast live. I ask because the shredding took place right after it was sold.
Adding more intrigue to this is no one knows who Bansky really is.
Thank you for the kind words mhendo.
I’m impressed by this master stroke of self promotion. It’s art imitating asymmetric wealth.
Should we shred our Banksy Amazon prints and how does one keep the dangling pieces from curling due to changes in humidity? Maybe have it printed on glass first and then cut on a tile cutter?
You obviously meant this question as a joke, but it’s an interesting question. Were the potential buyers informed that this was going to happen?
Like most here, I get it, but what if the buyer didn’t? What if he said “hey, it’s ruined, I’m not paying good money for that”? Would he still be on the hook for $1.4 million?
This.
Had the painting sold in the normal fashion, we wouldn’t be talking about Banksy. Guy’s a marketing genius.
Banksy is a satirist. Satire is rarely subtle, but often very clever. Obviously that can be annoying, but I like it.
Sotheby’s has said they are working it out with the Buyer, who, if they were smart, would keep it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Keeping it may be the smart thing but there is one thing to be considered. It must battery powered. If I’m not mistaken batteries contain chemicals that with age can leak and become corrosive. If so then any batteries should be removed. Whether that can be done without disturbing the artwork depends on how it’s constructed.
Supposedly, yes. From The New York Times, “A photo posted on the private Instagram account of Caroline Lang, the chairman of Sotheby’s Switzerland, showed a man in the salesroom operating an electronic device hidden inside a bag. Ms. Long said that she later saw a man being removed from the building by Sotheby’s security staff.”
BTW, on his Instagram account, Banksy explains when and how he did it.
According to that, a few years ago he hid a shredder in a painting “in case it was ever put up for auction”.
What does that imply exactly? Was it still his and did he decide to auction it, or had he sold it to someone else who then later put it up for auction?
Was it even his property to destroy at this point?
To answer my own question, according to Vice the painting was acquired by Sotheby’s in 2006. So, if that’s correct, and considering the value of the painting, did he just commit a felony?
I don’t see how.
The painting was initially sold with theartist’s framecontaining the shredder. As such, the whole unit was purchased,* including the potential for it to shred itself*. He didn’t come after the fact and install a shredder into a painting someone had already purchased.
Now, you could argue that there’s a case for some sort of deception as to the nature of what was sold. But that’s also on Sotherby’s for not properly checking out all aspects of what they sell (charitably assuming they weren’t aware of the shredder.)
But at best, you’re talking a civil case for the deception, there’s no case to be made here for felony. Nothing was stolen, or, technically, destroyed. and the artwork did exactly what it was intended to do by the artist.
So it had a battery embedded for 12 years, which remained fully functional ?
Is there an electrical engineer in this thread who can please tell us how that’s done?
Very good point! Now I’m wondering if Sotheby’s (and maybe the “buyer”?) were in on it.
And it’s not just the battery. Would a shredder that was never used still function after 12 years? Would the rollers have deteriorated? Would the motor still turn?
I smell a rat.
Also, who took the photos?
Somebody was perfectly positioned to catch the audiences faces, the picture frame, etc, and had his camera turned on and instantly ready to use.
Normally, at formal occasions like this, people keep their phones turned off.
Not just photos; a video.
It wasn’t built in 1890. Of course it would still work.
How exactly does the shredder work when the blades are turned sideways? Do you think you could lower canvas or paper onto an xacto blade and have it cut cleanly? Did you notice how the flat painting suddenly appeared curled as it “went through” the shredder?
There was no shredder. There was a shredded version of the painting rolled up into the frame that lowered as the painting was rolled up onto it’s own spool. Dollars to donuts someone at Sotheby’s knew about the trick frame and made damn sure it was going to work on cue.
That said, Banksy is a master promoter of him/her/them self.
It could still work but there was no guarantee. The battery could have deteriorated. Parts could have corroded. It could have accidentally been set off somehow during those twelve years.
It’s a great piece of performance art but I’m skeptical that this happened as described.