A rat in police uniform, holding a bunch of flowers?
Exactly.
To be fair, it was a very fine nose.
mhendo, I just want to let you know how much I enjoyed this post.
Ignorance fought – I just found out five minutes ago that his/her name is not “BanSKy” but “BanKSy”. I’ve heard the name said aloud a few times, always as BAN-skee and never as BANK-see. Even by people very deeply immersed in the art scene who you think would be sticklers about the proper pronunciation. :shrug:
DSeid, please don’t take my post the wrong way. Even knowing it’s “Banksy” … I’ll never not see “Bansky” in the future. I’m right there with you – “Bansky” just looks and sounds totally right despite it’s “wrongness”.
I always assumed his name was a bit of mockery of banks, myself.
I’ve always pronounced it as Bank-see.
My ignorance reduced.
The misdirection hypothesis, which I support, is presented in greater detail here, with pictures.
Presuming the x-actos to be the actual, functional element then I would concur that it’s probably a prop and the painting is still there.
So much for Banksy being an anti-Capitalist artiste.
Partway through that page, there’s a link to a video showing a tiny version of the trick. I’m convinced that the whole thing was a fake-out.
I’ve read that boredpanda article and I agree with the author’s conclusions. The original painting is probably intact inside the frame. The most likely scenario is that the “shredding” mechanism was installed recently, and that those involved in the auction were in on the stunt.
I’m puzzled as to why you’d think this, unless it’s solely because it would be logistically hard to shred the painting. Some commentators are heralding the shredding as the greatest work of art of the early 21st century. If you’re considering Banksy’s artistic reputation or any economic incentive, it would be disastrous if it were to turn out that the shredding didn’t happen. It’s worth far more shredded.
Although, since Banksy can do no wrong, perhaps they’d then herald the non-shredding as the ultimate act of meta-iconoclasm. Sotheby’s thought they were in on it because he told them he was going to shred it, Sotheby’s thought the shredding was real, but it wasn’t.
I think it didn’t truly shred for the reasons described in the article linked above. The “shredder” as depicted in Banksy’s video just wouldn’t work.
I disagree. It’s worth more now because of the event where it appeared to be shredded and the subsequent attention generated by the story. Whether the original painting is actually shredded or not isn’t as important as the fact that, at least for a while, everyone thought it was.
As with many things Banksy, the work of art is not just the painting itself, it’s also the story of the painting. And if the shredding itself was actually a hoax, then, yeah, that makes the story even richer.
Because I think the double fake-out is funnier.
Artistic integrity? Banksy?? He’s a prankster, and a double prank would only reinforce his reputation. Plus, the buyer has no reason to feel ripped off now. Nor would they sue. They’ll laugh their way to the bank, like Southby’s and the original creator. They got what they paid for, in full, plus a bonus. Importantly, there is no risk to Southby’s reputation either, despite evidence that they cooperated with the artist.
All technical limitations can be overcome if Southby’s is in on the prank. But no level of cooperation will make the shredder pictured in Banksy’s instagram operable.
Amateurs (and con artists) prank art buyers. Professionals prank the media.
The news is, only now has the museum thought to de-activate the shredder!
According to that article it’s now being claimed that the intent was for the painting to be totally shredded but something went wrong. Interesting.
I could have sworn I read that back when the news initially happened.
Banksy supposedly said as much. The final state of the painting was intended to be an empty frame, with the shreds in a bin below (“In rehearsals it worked every time…”)
