Part of me feels like this stunt is clever because the nature of the performance improves the value of the work. So it's self-destructive in the technical sense of the term but it was designed in such a way to essentially transform the piece. While shocking in the moment, as the pictures of the scene show, the work has three separate qualities: the original significance of the piece, the new meaning it attains after partial shredding, and its role in the historical documentation of the scene that played out. A bunch of moneyed folk at an auction recoiling in horror - either because of the money they initially thought was wasted, or more charitably because they genuinely cared about the work. What would your own assumption there tell you?
However, in my mind I also imagined something entirely different. What would it say for a similar work of art to self destruct at a very glacial pace, and the only way to prevent degradation was to pay attention to it? What would it say about the nature of art and wealth if the owner did not notice the piece had destroyed itself until it was too late, presumably because they bought it and left it in storage or on a wall they never looked at? This is what plenty of art will already do over the course of centuries, without maintenance or restoration, so I'm thinking about something more accelerated and deliberate.
And on an extra level, I have started to wonder how such a piece could be represented through programming. The website that rots, pixel by pixel, when it isn't viewed; or the application that subtly corrupts itself over time.
This is a well orchestrated publicity stunt. A reputed auction house like Sotheby's would never put an item up before thoroughly checking and documenting it.
Post this stunt, the artwork will now be valued much higher than what it sold for at this auction. Banksy has been known for such ingenious and clever marketing stunts.
Please tell me which other ingenious and clever marketing stunts Banksy, the anti-capitalist artist who refuses to allow his work or even prints (with rare exceptions) to be sold is known for?
> Banksy’s iconic Girl With Balloon (2006) attracted feverish bidding in the room and on the phones, racing past its high estimate of £300,000 to hammer at £860,000, or just over £1 million ($1.3 million with fees). As the gavel slammed, a siren rang out through the salesroom and everyone stood stunned as the Banksy canvas slid through the frame that it was contained in and emerged underneath—but shredded.
I'm impressed by whatever engineering went into the power source for that shredder lasting since 2006 while still being remotely triggerable with perfect timing.
> The spray painted work of the girl with a red balloon, acquired directly from the artist, came in what the catalogue called “the artist’s frame”—a frame that was oddly thick for such a small work of street art.
I doubt the frame was from 2006. And even if, the batteries in it could be inserted/changed prior the auction.
I would think the buyer of this piece might be happy with what happened, though. The shreds still are there, and likely are worth more than the original piece of paper.
Not referring to this specific exhibit but other pieces by a similar artist. Thousands of people can create this kind of paintings for cheap. That it still sells for more than what many people can make in a decade or a career means a stratospheric concentration of wealth in society or a bubble in the commercial art world.
If there is real scarcity because of climate change or other widespread disaster, how much can a piece of this ‘quality’ be sold for? A loaf of bread, or less?
That millions of children still starve but a piece of simplistic art is worth more than the value of food a whole village consumes in a decade is a sorry effect of the financial system we use or the way our society assigns ‘coolness’ score to people and activity.
Has anyone been able to find video of the shredding happen? Finding videos on youtube is such a crapshoot nowadays with people uploading/copying the same videos or some lame commentary over static images.
Sadly what happened to a Banksy in Detroit maybe gave him the idea. An artist group 'extricated' the work from the ruins of the Packard auto plant. The new owner of the building who was planning to use the Banksy as a centerpiece for a retail center was not pleased. They promised to not sell it, then they did.
In Germany, there is a second part of copyright law. The actual copyright can be sold as usual, but the Urheberpersönlichkeitsrecht (creator's personal right) cannot. It gives the creator the right to forbid public presentations of his work that misrepresent his artistic vision.
The architect of Berlin Main Station (Norman Foster, if I'm not mistaken) used this law to (successfully) sue Deutsche Bahn (the German national railway company) for reparations when they changed the plans and used a cheaper ceiling construction than he designed.
As a magic aficionado my bet is that the picture was rolled into the frame and a pre torn version popped out the bottom. Like the old dollar bill trick. Still impressive.
This is just so impressive to me. That this was set in motion in 2006 with the engineering and frame design and executed perfectly 12 years later is just so magnificent I’m almost tearing up.
The way the it was shredded and stopping halfway allows the piece to still be hung, and in my mind, this massively increases the notoriety and value of the piece.
To prank Sotheby’s like this at the moment that the auctioneers gavel falls, is truly epic. Truly a great and well executed piece of performance art. I want video!
> Balloon Girl is a 2002 mural by graffiti artist Banksy depicting a young girl letting go of a red heart-shaped balloon.
It's a 2006 copy of a 2002 mural[0]. There is no mention of where the copy originated from though, nor any indication that the frame was part of the 2006 piece.
The portion of the artwork with the head at top seems disjointed from the rest of the shredded portion (the original picture has normal human proportions).
So, it seems at least, that there may be two works of art.
One which remains unshredded and one which was already shredded (and was released by some mech). Whatever powered the light, likely powered the release mechanism for the shredded and unshredded works of art.
I'm honestly struck by how _cheap_ this piece was sold for. Banksy is a household name unlike most contemporary artists. Pieces by Jeff Koons have sold for 50 million but Banksy struggles to cross the 1 million mark? I'm surprised that there are no tech millionaires or Wall Street Titans buying up the pieces.
Banksy's work is rooted in street art, which is historically priced at zero or less and/or priceless, i.e. usually not removed from source (exterior walls of public infrastructure) and viewed as expense by local govt (cost to clean off) but may simultaneously be loved by residents in the community it's located in. It's also subject to unexpected change or erasure (destroyed or painted over by municipal govt or other grafitti artists). So, it's not surprising that it took longer for Banksy's work to reach $M price levels.
In contrast, Koons' work is commercial to the core and on a grand scale (per physical size, amount and cost of materials, etc). The upper bounds of pricing on his work is open to debate but the lower limit was always meant to be significantly above zero.
> ...but Banksy struggles to cross the 1 million mark?
Well, now you have to add in a "risk factor" that the work you buy doesn't survive intact. Which could go either way -- non-shredded Banksy original vs. Banksy shredded original print.
Jeff Koons Art ist actually pretty good, I can’t say the same of Banksky. The value of Art is sometimes inversely related to how popular it is, because it then can be no longer used to signal that you „get“ it.
This piece was excellently executed but shredding may not have been the best way to make that point (even if it is a good laugh). A few quick thoughts on how this idea could be modified if the goal is to poke at the art market:
- Destroy the original completely. This would be difficult as even ashes from burning could be resold and exhibited. I’m also not sure destruction captures the right point.
- Reverse the shredder idea to instead have a photocopier in the frame. Have the copier spit out “originals” on demand and reveal that there is no actual original piece.
- Have money literally effect the art (or have the money become the art). Like fill the air gap in the frame with dollar bills upon purchase or something super in your face like that.
- Reveal new information about the piece or about the artist that makes owning the piece horribly distasteful.
- Physically print a giant photo of the new owner’s face over the art when the auction completes.
- Have the artwork be a complete pain to exhibit or care for. Maybe it comes with a button that has to be pressed every 108 minutes or else the price gets shredded (sadly this would almost certainly result in some guy getting paid almost nothing to sit about and press the button for years)
Banksy is always a bit too smirky for me, however I can’t complain too much as this armchair is really quite comfortable.
Big money art is not just an investment vehicle, it allows collectors to do things that would be difficult or illegal with other assets.
For example:
You and a few of your rich buddies buy up as much artwork as you can from a famous but not too famous dead artist. Say, 10 pieces at a million a piece. I sell my friend one of them for 1.5 million and another for 1.7. I buy his for 2 and 3 million. Repeat a few times, and now you've established a pattern that this artist's work is becoming more valuable. After several years, you all sell your paintings for 5-10 million a piece.
In the art world, Banksy is seen largely as trite and is known to attract new and dumb money. If you've seen his film "Exit Through The Gift Shop", Mr. Brainwash, the aspiring artist he portrays, is quite similar to how anyone who knows or cares a little about art sees Banksy himself.
It isn't just "big money" saying this - ask any cool (poor) artists or curators if they like Banksy and you'll be laughed out of the room. He's the Nickelback of contemporary art. It's not because of his message - lots of other artists make biting, hilarious attacks on global capitalism and consumer culture, if that's what you're into.
Also, as others in this thread have pointed out, practices like this shredding don't actually devalue the piece, and may in fact increase it's value. The shredding is an empty gesture signifying the rejection of a culture that the piece is very much a part of. If a piece is just an investment vehicle, what effect does humiliating the owner of the piece have on the piece's function as an investment vehicle, if it does not lower the value? They (allegedly) own the art only for it's value, so how does this strike back at them?
If you want to look getting money out of art, you might start by looking at the early performance art tradition and what it achieved in terms of decommodification. Pay special attention to the amount of lying and inconsistent storytelling. Ask yourself whether "Exit Through The Gift Shop" (grossed 3MM in USA box office and set Banksy on the track to these $1mm sales) achieves any of the same decommodification.
Big money ruins art. I'm not a proponent of the "starving artist" mindset, but the simple fact is that the most honest, deep-felt art comes from struggle and passion, not from wealth and comfort.
Personally I think it's just as likely he's riffing on the ridiculous ways some behave having discovered a Banksy on the outside wall of some property in order to sell.
Whichever, or even if he is an evil capitalist villain, complete with white cat, laughing at our expense, I still like his messages and style.
Great performance art. I've always thought about ridiculously expensive art self-destructing at point of sale, which is often auctions. I don't think art should be that inaccessible and I'm not asserting a specific threshold is but beyond a certain pricing level, art does become ridiculous. It would be interesting to see this incident repeat itself but with complete destruction - would the auctioneers argue that ashes or molten remains are still art?
I wonder if legally the buyer can retract the buy? Although I'm sure it's worth more with that.
Funny how Banksy, who was anti commercial things before as a street artist, now is obviously very torn being selling out and not. He is still selling out with this sale, but couldn't stop himself from trolling the buyer.
I feel like I'd feel in a similar way - hard not to sell when so much money is in play.
There probably was no shredding at the auction - there are likely two images in the frame, one pre-shredded to a certain point. Look at the color of the "shredded" print. It's not the same - it's darker, probably didn't age as well 'cause it was cheaper paper. Not to mention that using two images is vastly simpler mechanically and economically than actually shredding it. You just have to roll up half of one image while rolling out half of another (shredded) image. Making a shredding noise is a lot simpler than shredding (and fits in a smaller frame.) There are so many magic tricks that exploit our expectation in just this way (such as sawing a lady in half.)
Of course, it's not in Banksy's interest to reveal the trick immediately. Let the publicity build.
Reminds me of this classic Ai Weiwei photo where he just destroys a Han Dynasty vase for no good reason. I honestly love this photo. It really speaks to the breaking of tradition and not being bound to the past.
I wonder why nobody mentioned Agrippa (A Book of the Dead) by William Gibson. It was a poem on floppy disc that was programmed to encrypt itself after a single use.
[+] [-] ljm|7 years ago|reply
However, in my mind I also imagined something entirely different. What would it say for a similar work of art to self destruct at a very glacial pace, and the only way to prevent degradation was to pay attention to it? What would it say about the nature of art and wealth if the owner did not notice the piece had destroyed itself until it was too late, presumably because they bought it and left it in storage or on a wall they never looked at? This is what plenty of art will already do over the course of centuries, without maintenance or restoration, so I'm thinking about something more accelerated and deliberate.
And on an extra level, I have started to wonder how such a piece could be represented through programming. The website that rots, pixel by pixel, when it isn't viewed; or the application that subtly corrupts itself over time.
[+] [-] nns|7 years ago|reply
Post this stunt, the artwork will now be valued much higher than what it sold for at this auction. Banksy has been known for such ingenious and clever marketing stunts.
[+] [-] spuz|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrischen|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crooked-v|7 years ago|reply
I'm impressed by whatever engineering went into the power source for that shredder lasting since 2006 while still being remotely triggerable with perfect timing.
[+] [-] codeulike|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] okket|7 years ago|reply
I doubt the frame was from 2006. And even if, the batteries in it could be inserted/changed prior the auction.
[+] [-] Someone|7 years ago|reply
I would think the buyer of this piece might be happy with what happened, though. The shreds still are there, and likely are worth more than the original piece of paper.
[+] [-] unstuckdev|7 years ago|reply
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-bristol-45770028
It probably used that power source.
[+] [-] beerlord|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] throw0101011|7 years ago|reply
If there is real scarcity because of climate change or other widespread disaster, how much can a piece of this ‘quality’ be sold for? A loaf of bread, or less?
That millions of children still starve but a piece of simplistic art is worth more than the value of food a whole village consumes in a decade is a sorry effect of the financial system we use or the way our society assigns ‘coolness’ score to people and activity.
[+] [-] nayuki|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] okket|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nevster|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rmason|7 years ago|reply
http://beltmag.com/the-fight-over-graffiti-banksy-in-detroit...
[+] [-] majewsky|7 years ago|reply
The architect of Berlin Main Station (Norman Foster, if I'm not mistaken) used this law to (successfully) sue Deutsche Bahn (the German national railway company) for reparations when they changed the plans and used a cheaper ceiling construction than he designed.
[+] [-] chasing|7 years ago|reply
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_...
[+] [-] jakecodes|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zaroth|7 years ago|reply
The way the it was shredded and stopping halfway allows the piece to still be hung, and in my mind, this massively increases the notoriety and value of the piece.
To prank Sotheby’s like this at the moment that the auctioneers gavel falls, is truly epic. Truly a great and well executed piece of performance art. I want video!
[+] [-] vanderZwan|7 years ago|reply
It's a 2006 copy of a 2002 mural[0]. There is no mention of where the copy originated from though, nor any indication that the frame was part of the 2006 piece.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_Girl
[+] [-] open-source-ux|7 years ago|reply
https://scontent-lht6-1.cdninstagram.com/vp/c01d91bf8f623d18...
Original entry on instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/Bokt2sEhlsu/
[+] [-] russtrpkovski|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mc32|7 years ago|reply
The portion of the artwork with the head at top seems disjointed from the rest of the shredded portion (the original picture has normal human proportions).
So, it seems at least, that there may be two works of art.
One which remains unshredded and one which was already shredded (and was released by some mech). Whatever powered the light, likely powered the release mechanism for the shredded and unshredded works of art.
If so, still remains an impressive stunt.
[+] [-] spuz|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twunde|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Geekette|7 years ago|reply
Banksy's work is rooted in street art, which is historically priced at zero or less and/or priceless, i.e. usually not removed from source (exterior walls of public infrastructure) and viewed as expense by local govt (cost to clean off) but may simultaneously be loved by residents in the community it's located in. It's also subject to unexpected change or erasure (destroyed or painted over by municipal govt or other grafitti artists). So, it's not surprising that it took longer for Banksy's work to reach $M price levels.
In contrast, Koons' work is commercial to the core and on a grand scale (per physical size, amount and cost of materials, etc). The upper bounds of pricing on his work is open to debate but the lower limit was always meant to be significantly above zero.
[+] [-] UncleEntity|7 years ago|reply
Well, now you have to add in a "risk factor" that the work you buy doesn't survive intact. Which could go either way -- non-shredded Banksy original vs. Banksy shredded original print.
[+] [-] orbifold|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] isostatic|7 years ago|reply
British
> Jeff Koons
American
[+] [-] rapnie|7 years ago|reply
This shows the hypocrisy. Unfortunately it will not change anything. The piece has just become more valuable, I predict.
Go Banksy. Art for the masses.
[+] [-] mattbierner|7 years ago|reply
- Destroy the original completely. This would be difficult as even ashes from burning could be resold and exhibited. I’m also not sure destruction captures the right point.
- Reverse the shredder idea to instead have a photocopier in the frame. Have the copier spit out “originals” on demand and reveal that there is no actual original piece.
- Have money literally effect the art (or have the money become the art). Like fill the air gap in the frame with dollar bills upon purchase or something super in your face like that.
- Reveal new information about the piece or about the artist that makes owning the piece horribly distasteful.
- Physically print a giant photo of the new owner’s face over the art when the auction completes.
- Have the artwork be a complete pain to exhibit or care for. Maybe it comes with a button that has to be pressed every 108 minutes or else the price gets shredded (sadly this would almost certainly result in some guy getting paid almost nothing to sit about and press the button for years)
Banksy is always a bit too smirky for me, however I can’t complain too much as this armchair is really quite comfortable.
[+] [-] ohazi|7 years ago|reply
For example: You and a few of your rich buddies buy up as much artwork as you can from a famous but not too famous dead artist. Say, 10 pieces at a million a piece. I sell my friend one of them for 1.5 million and another for 1.7. I buy his for 2 and 3 million. Repeat a few times, and now you've established a pattern that this artist's work is becoming more valuable. After several years, you all sell your paintings for 5-10 million a piece.
[+] [-] bostik|7 years ago|reply
Or to just flip, without ever putting it on display. On industrial scale.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38167501
https://www.widewalls.ch/geneva-freeport-art-storage-freepor...
[+] [-] y4mi|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bufferoverflow|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Novashi|7 years ago|reply
And something to launder money with.
[+] [-] tetrazine|7 years ago|reply
It isn't just "big money" saying this - ask any cool (poor) artists or curators if they like Banksy and you'll be laughed out of the room. He's the Nickelback of contemporary art. It's not because of his message - lots of other artists make biting, hilarious attacks on global capitalism and consumer culture, if that's what you're into.
Also, as others in this thread have pointed out, practices like this shredding don't actually devalue the piece, and may in fact increase it's value. The shredding is an empty gesture signifying the rejection of a culture that the piece is very much a part of. If a piece is just an investment vehicle, what effect does humiliating the owner of the piece have on the piece's function as an investment vehicle, if it does not lower the value? They (allegedly) own the art only for it's value, so how does this strike back at them?
If you want to look getting money out of art, you might start by looking at the early performance art tradition and what it achieved in terms of decommodification. Pay special attention to the amount of lying and inconsistent storytelling. Ask yourself whether "Exit Through The Gift Shop" (grossed 3MM in USA box office and set Banksy on the track to these $1mm sales) achieves any of the same decommodification.
[+] [-] KozmoNau7|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NeedMoreTea|7 years ago|reply
Whichever, or even if he is an evil capitalist villain, complete with white cat, laughing at our expense, I still like his messages and style.
[+] [-] ispiansclsda|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Geekette|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jypepin|7 years ago|reply
Funny how Banksy, who was anti commercial things before as a street artist, now is obviously very torn being selling out and not. He is still selling out with this sale, but couldn't stop himself from trolling the buyer.
I feel like I'd feel in a similar way - hard not to sell when so much money is in play.
[+] [-] Nomentatus|7 years ago|reply
Of course, it's not in Banksy's interest to reveal the trick immediately. Let the publicity build.
[+] [-] Zaheer|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tootie|7 years ago|reply
https://i0.wp.com/www.guggenheim.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Luc|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] severak|7 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa_(A_Book_of_the_Dead)
[+] [-] paulie_a|7 years ago|reply