top | item 15617767

How I threw away a work of art

24 points| DanBC | 8 years ago |bbc.co.uk | reply

32 comments

order
[+] tinco|8 years ago|reply
If it's just tiles in a regular pattern, how do you know one is made by Invader and not a random copycat? Asking seriously, someone paying 200k must mean they have something unique to hem right?
[+] fermigier|8 years ago|reply
From http://www.space-invaders.com/about/ :

Are your mosaics being removed or stolen?

Lately, I have been facing this issue. A large number of the pieces are removed, damaged or destroyed by individuals who seek to resell them. Given the type of tiles I use, to steal the work is impossible. These individuals by removing the mosaics destroy the piece and then have to buy ceramics to repair or recreate the work. They even try to add a patina to make it look vintage. They then try to sell these bad replicas! I have hard time believing that anyone would buy any unauthenticated mosaic tiles as people could simply go to home depot and do it by themselves …I can only hope that soon enough nobody will be tempted to buy or steal pieces in the streets and therefore that this nonsense and painful destruction will stop.

Also insightful:

Is it possible to own a Space Invader? How do people acquire one of your works?

The most economical solution is to buy tiles and to create your own at home. It is not a very difficult assembly work and it is possible to find similar types of tiles I use.The second solution is to purchase an "invasion kit". It is a ready-to-use limited edition of a Space Invader. They are produced at the studio and sold in the Space Shop. It is at the same time a conceptual and functional object. Finally, for people who wants a unique art piece, they can seek for an Alias, which is the exact replica of the unique work in the street. There is one and only Alias for any past or present works present in the streets. Every Alias comes with a signed certificate of authenticity. Art Collectors should contact Over The Influence for any available pieces.

[+] ggambetta|8 years ago|reply
Heh. The usual question with modern "art". For me all this is very similar to "coloured bits" (http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23). What makes your black square better than (or even different to) my black square?
[+] taneq|8 years ago|reply
The value of artworks is as much about their 'provenance' as it is about the actual content of the art itself. A famous painting isn't worth a lot because it's a really good painting, it's worth a lot because a lot of famous people have owned it.
[+] libeclipse|8 years ago|reply
He fully deserved that.

He had the right to destroy the work since it was his and in his property, but to then whine about it just because he learned of its monetary value... It's just wrong.

Pfft, and calling it a "work of modern art" after the fact.

[+] throwaway2016a|8 years ago|reply
I didn't get from this that he was whining at all. I took it as a fun cautionary tale.

9 years is a long time. I'm sure he's removed enough from the experience to be able to laugh about it.

[+] nerdponx|8 years ago|reply
I was about to post exactly this sentiment. This guy can suck it, he deserved what he got.
[+] tzs|8 years ago|reply
> He had the right to destroy the work since it was his and in his property

Probably should add to that " and he destroyed it in a way that did not harm the reputation of the artist".

This was in France, which has some strong moral rights for artists, including a right to respect of the integrity of their work (droit au respect de l'intégrité de l'oeuvre) which prohibits modifications and mutilations to the work that could harm the reputation of the artist.

I also found something that suggested that in at least some countries the right to respect of the integrity of the work requires that before destroying a work you have to offer to let the artist take it back, but I don't know what countries that applies to.

[+] Luc|8 years ago|reply
But... that's the only way in which it's more valuable than some pixel art you make yourself - because of a 'fool' willing to pay that for it.

Granted, if you twist my arm I can come up with grand statements about oeuvres and the conversation between the art and the environment in which it is embedded bla bla bla, but that's just a way to justify the inflated price for something which is just kinda neat and fun.

[+] mbrock|8 years ago|reply
Seems like "How I threw away something that's currently trading for a lot of money" would be a more relevant title.

That reminds me to bring up art more in the conversation about the "underlying value" of cryptocurrencies.

Working title of the essay I'm not going to write: "The Store of Value in the Age of Digital Reproduction in the Age Following the Age of the Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction".

[+] Double_a_92|8 years ago|reply
What should he have done? It was literally stuck on his wall. Would it stay art if he ripped the wall out?
[+] lord_jim|8 years ago|reply
Street art is supposed to be ephemeral and free. The people who put it inside frames and sell it for $200,000 are the real destroyers
[+] fermigier|8 years ago|reply
Invader has explained his business model here: http://www.space-invaders.com/about/

"Is it possible to own a Space Invader? How do people acquire one of your works? -> [...] Finally, for people who wants a unique art piece, they can seek for an Alias, which is the exact replica of the unique work in the street. There is one and only Alias for any past or present works present in the streets. Every Alias comes with a signed certificate of authenticity. Art Collectors should contact Over The Influence for any available pieces."

[+] dgut|8 years ago|reply
Just because it's worth a lot of money doesn't mean shit. The original authors of the game are the real artists.
[+] nxsynonym|8 years ago|reply
I agree with the first part of your statement.

The second part - it's not a zero-sum game. Why can't both be "real" artists?

[+] Cthulhu_|8 years ago|reply
The article woefully goes on about how the artworks are being stolen by thieves in high-viz jackets, but that's kind of the point of street art - it's ephemeral, it will get damaged, lost, etc, and in fact it's placed illegally in the first place. The author probably expects it to happen and doesn't mind. Of course, when people start spending 200K on the works it becomes a different matter, but then he should put his work in a museum - you know, something that has security.
[+] fermigier|8 years ago|reply
"The author probably expects it to happen and doesn't mind."

-> He does mind: "I can only hope that soon enough nobody will be tempted to buy or steal pieces in the streets and therefore that this nonsense and painful destruction will stop" - from http://www.space-invaders.com/about/

[+] fermigier|8 years ago|reply
I'm a huge fan of Invader. When I walk (or ride) in the streets of Paris and spot an Invader, it bring me a small moment of joy. I've trained my children to spot then too, and it's even better when it's them who find them first.

See:

- http://www.space-invaders.com/about/ for a FAQ about the artist and his project.

- http://www.space-invaders.com/world/ -> map of all the Invaders over the world (Europe, US, Asia, a couple of african countries).

- http://www.space-invaders.com/world/paris/ pictures of the ones in Paris.

[+] gambiting|8 years ago|reply
Well, it was just silly to destroy it, even if the author didn't like it.

In my parents house(which was built in the 80s) the original owner had an entire wall of the living room decorated with an absolutely stunning mosaic of a peacock, made out of tiny glass squares. He must have commissioned a local artist to design it and then the artwork must have been created over weeks with a lot of manual labour. However, try as you might, it would never fit into a modern house, as beautiful as it was - so what did my parents do? They put a thin plasterboard over it and just painted that. So the peacock is still there and we have a plain white wall in the living room. Don't understand why the author couldn't have done the same.

[+] anonyx69|8 years ago|reply
The author would never have been able to sell it anyway since it's impossible to authenticate.
[+] bobthechef|8 years ago|reply
Cute pattern (an homage), nothing wrong with crafty stuff like creating fun tile patterns like that, but the whole “scene”, the pretentious fluff and the stupid amounts of money being spent on this stuff is moronic and pompous.
[+] anotheryou|8 years ago|reply
So once it was worth 200k it became worthy art, lol.
[+] emsy|8 years ago|reply
It's contemporary art, not modern art.
[+] lbotos|8 years ago|reply
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who was a little miffed about that. For those you are like "huh?" in Art (big A) Modern imo is ~1900-1960. Wikipedia starts it about 40 years earlier which I'm apt to believe just not familiar with.
[+] nxsynonym|8 years ago|reply
Correct - modern art is an art movement during a specific time period.

Contemporary art is simply "made by living artists, now" - and will inevitably be re-name with some -ism to help classify the common themes and styles.