just because banksy's art is easy for morons to understand doesn't mean his messages aren't valuable
It wasn't his to destroy.
Not how property rights work.
maybe they should have checked the painting closer then, especially since this was seemingly originally part of the piece. It's sole purpose was to be destroyed at that moment. it's beautiful, really.
self destruction was a part of the piece as bought, and I'd rather the world have more interesting art than some no-name having 10 more million in his banksy account.
Yeah you don't get to sell someone something and have it completely self destruct and go "lol it was intentional so get fucked??"
Just because he intended for it to self destruct doesn't make it right
we just watched a 'stick it to the rich man' thing happen and he was immediately ready to post "going, going, gone" on instagram
banksy ain't deep, he's just enigmatic and loud
also regarding questions about whether the frame was separate or it came mounted in it, there's an easy answer-
the child's feet basically rest at the bottom of the frame-
https://i.imgur.com/SR4FNCl.png
when it comes out, there's a lot of extra canvas, with a big round crease indicating it had been mounted tightly to the roller/pull-across-blades system inside for a long while. It had to have been mounted and set up ahead of time, with or without anybody's knowledge
my biggest issue with the demonstration is that he posted a behind-the-scenes video and in it, the shredding system is a bunch of exacto blades glued sideways on a wooden block. You can't just drag a canvas against the flat side of an exacto and get clean spaghetti, I doubt this is any part of the actual mechanism
https://i.imgur.com/7yRwNVl.png
https://i.imgur.com/tvSsDJG.png
he had to make it look edgy and showy when in reality he probably just had some strip shredding rolls yoinked out of a cheap shredder
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/107007/dbc578b3-2a5b-4f52-83ca-34fe0c2432bd/image.png
If you didn't want your wedding ring to dissolve in water you shouldn't have bought it lmao it's intentional so get fuuuuuucked
Weddings are for fools, get with the times old man
as an art world phenomena, the shredded version of this is absolutely worth more now just for the debaucle. It was pretty much a gift of resale value at this point
So because you speculate that it may have more value, it's okay to destroy something you do not own?
If you buy a stick of dynamite do you complain about no longer being able to use it after it detonates? This art piece was intended to this from the start.
I don't think this was advertised as literally self-destructing, but it's also not some off-the-shelf commodity that was going to be useful. Banksy has always said he doesn't want to make art to sell (arguable how much he makes art as publicity stunts for money tho) so auctioning a banksy original on canvas should have been a big fucking tell it was either a fake or a stunt
I don't know if thats really relevant, the art peice was made to self destruct and is part of the art in this case.
At least that's how art scholars are viewing it right now.
wedding ring is an item created for personal use to represent something
this art, specifically banksys art, is meant for everyone. it has been taken from public access and viewing in streets and put in museums and been sold and commodified
your false comparisons are tiring.
Banksy is the r/phonesarebad of street art, quite literally.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/297971/51d1e411-04a8-4502-bf22-ff041663fc9c/image.png
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/297971/c73416e7-3a06-403a-b93b-eba4a282f11c/image.png
"The governement is bad, wake up sheeple, social media is bad, phones are destroying society" nothing but condescending hollow stuff.
What is he achieving here, it's just gonna give the art more value for the rich buyer.
People buy rings for their own purposes. If you buy a ring and discover that it's impossible to wear it -- and it was impossible to know this before you bought it -- that wouldn't fucking fly.
People buy art for their own purposes. There was no reason to believe that if you bought this painting it would be completely unusable without any input from you.
You don't have the right to do whatever you want with something you made once you don't fucking own it any more.
The creator of something is not the owner of it. If you don't own something, you don't have the right to exact your will over it.
They're just different perspectives at which to look at society, not really a statement saying phones are bad etc
Yeah but it was fucking worth it lol
I'm sure whoever is willing to spend that much on a Banksy piece is absolutely pleased that Banksy made the art more renouned by doing this. He bought something and immediately got an ROI out of it because it's a headline now.
You could just see it as a function of the painting in a way. Banksy made the painting to do that
Making art that's "commenting society as a whole" is just super arrogant to me. It's just like hollow "wake up" posts to give you a sense of superiority over everyone else who didn't have the brilliant insight that "wow people are on their phones alot now".
Art collectors love this kind of shit because they're not looking for a pretty painting. The art is more than what's on the canvas it's the person who made it, the story, the abstract meaning, whatever. That's why shit that looks effortless and plain sell for millions because to the person who is buying it, it's obviously more than an abstract dot on a canvas. If you're buying Banksy you're into that edgy street art vandalism stuff so getting your own painting vandalized by the guy you're buying into would be the cherry on top of the art you're buying.
I'd argue the art wasn't a complete work until it was shredded.
Depends on how the artwork found it's way to the auction.
Was it sold by Banksy in first place, or just discovered from some pile of garbage next to auction house :v
it being half shredded like that makes it way cooler of an art piece anyway
He/she spent a million on a dinner table story to humblebrag to rich friends, and instead of having to exaggerate one to justify buying it, they actually got a story.
Or it's an investment which is still worth more now.
No one lost so why get mad? Even a bootlicker has no one to avenge here.
Do you earnestly think Banksy cares a single iota?
So, how did they turn the shredder on? I'm guessing it was controlled remotely? So someone had to have known the painting was going on sale and be at the auction to set it off, right?
If this isn't staged that's some serious dedication.
It definitely increased in value because of the stunt. Art becoming more valuable by exposure to the media is a confirmed phenomenon throughout history.
Nobody cared about the Mona Lisa until it got stolen in the early 1900s and the theft made headlines.
Nobody cared about Vincent van Gogh's work until the wide release of his letters to his brother almost 30 years after his death.
Nobody cared about this Banksy until it got shredded just after being sold.
Cared enough to sell for a million quid
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
