
An artwork by Banksy shredded itself after selling for $1.3M at Sotheby’s - okket
https://www.artsy.net/news/artsy-editorial-artwork-banksy-shredded-selling-13-million-sothebys
======
ljm
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.

~~~
fpgaminer
> 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.

I suppose that's also already true today. Unmaintained software rots; the OS
moves on and the software no longer runs. DRMed software has its servers shut
down. Online games get shut down. Etc. The most loved software typically has
enough interested hackers to keep it alive; releasing bug fixes decades later,
defeating DRM, emulating server software to keep old online games alive, etc.
But if no one cared about a piece of software, it won't be long before it
"rots" and becomes unrunnable in the future.

Somewhat related, your comment reminded me about a piece of online performance
art. It was a website with an animation of a dying astronaut, a countdown, and
a clickable button. If the button wasn't clicked within a certain amount of
time, to reset the countdown, the astronaut would die. Forever. As long as
someone, somewhere, on the internet clicked that button, the astronaut would
keep on living.

Things were touch and go when the website first went online. Not a lot of
visitors meant not a lot of people to click the button and keep him alive. But
it went viral, and his life was nearly assured.

I believe in the end a server glitch or something ruined it; the countdown ran
out and the astronaut died. And that was it. There was no reset after that.
For a brief flicker in time that virtual life burned dimly enough to light up
the internet. Now he's merely a buried artifact of internet history.

The transience of the act is what gave it value. If something never dies, if
it can never be lost, what value does it hold?

At the end of the film Blade Runner, the "Tears in Rain" speech. I always felt
like he was saying he finally found value in his life. Androids, living only
for a brief few years, didn't find much value in their lives. But he realized
he had seen and done things that nobody else in the world had. And when he
dies, those things will be lost forever, like tears in the rain. It seems
pointless. But that loss is what gives value to his life. He isn't just
another android. He's something priceless.

~~~
kall1sto
[https://codepen.io/leemartin/pen/pxNvod](https://codepen.io/leemartin/pen/pxNvod)

~~~
exikyut
Nice.

One issue: the overlay parts are positioned using onload JS, and do not
reposition on resize.

------
nns
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.

~~~
spuz
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?

~~~
avoutthere
For an "anti-capitalist", he sure has a lot of books for sale on Amazon.

~~~
CPLX
This is my least favorite criticism ever.

“Like, hey man, if you’re complaining that the system is totally unfair and
forces most people powerlessly into a narrow set of compromised choices, why
are you making one of those choices?”

When I worked with Tom Morello he used to get it all the time too. It’s a
bogus argument. There’s no requirement that one leave the system they are in
prior to expressing fundamental doubts about that system.

~~~
cthalupa
Tom Morello has been happy to use his fame and status to try and get his way
with things.

[https://www.facebook.com/The5PointCafe/posts/101526824416292...](https://www.facebook.com/The5PointCafe/posts/10152682441629277)

------
crooked-v
> 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.

~~~
codeulike
The implication is that the frame was a recent addition and that Banksy or an
accomplice was in the room to trigger the shredder at the right time

~~~
codeulike
Having thought about it a bit, a shredder is a complicated and unreliable
machine for a stunt like this. I reckon there was a roller hidden in the frame
with (half) a pre-shredded painting on it. The roller then rolls in the main
painting while dispensing the shredded version. Much simpler, and easier to
test.

~~~
anigbrowl
That's why it stuck half way, most likely. Shredders are unreliable but I
wouldn't call them complicated. Small ones are expense and it only had to work
once.

------
throw0101011
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.

~~~
hueving
>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?

First, if it's just from climate change, it will be gradual increase in
scarcity and all kinds of methods of growing food become viable as the price
of bread increases. So unless climate change actually makes Banksy
undesirable, it will still be worth more loaves of bread than one person could
eat in a lifetime.

Second, if it's an acute wide-spread disaster, the only thing that becomes
relevant is food/water/shelter /weapons/first-aid. Not only would a Banksy be
worthless, but so would the world's biggest diamond as well as the cure for
cancer.

So it's a meaningless comparison just based on the fact that you don't like
rich people out-bidding each other over art (and subsequently supporting
artists).

Once you start down the road of being dictator of spending on expensive things
that aren't solving starvation, all kinds of things like space exploration,
the development of the internet, etc all become "sorry effects". Guess how
many villages could be fed on the budget of the Apollo program.

~~~
throw0101011
The difference is the number of people a product or a project will likely help
times the ‘utility’ each person receive.

> Once you start down the road of being dictotoe of spending on expensive
> things that aren't solving starvation, all kinds of things like space
> exploration, the development of the internet, etc all become "sorry
> effects". Guess how many villages could be fed on the budget of the Apollo
> program.

I do not advocate dictating spending but propose designing a better incentive
system for rich people to spend money on useful things. See my reply to
another comment down below.

What are ‘useful’ things?

Your examples here have good probabilities of turning into ‘utility’ for the
masses. Cure of cancer (obvious), Apollo program (many scientific advances),
...

Bidding up prestige and coolness is a zero sum game and only increases a small
bit of satisfaction of a few rich people.

It is about valuing the needs of the rich and the masses more equitably.

~~~
isostatic
That money doesn't just vanish though. It's a wealth transfer from Adam to
Bernice. Adam's bank balance drops from £100m to £99m, Bernice's goes from
£100m to £101m.

If that transfer didn't happen, then both bank balances would remain at £100m.
Nothing is lost or gained, it's irrelevant (Although in Banksy's case the
original first sale often involves a transfer of wealth from Adam and Bernice
to a random person)

There's nothing inherently good or bad about rich people playing money games
with each others assets, it's not the same as Adam paying £10m to destroy a
town and gain £20m in profit from exploiting the resources, or indeed divert
tens of thousands of high-skilled effort per month into something like the
Apollo program.

~~~
fjsolwmv
The transaction costs are bad, which may or may not be substantial.

~~~
isostatic
Any transaction costs go to paying the auction house for things like catering,
electricity, security, rent etc. No worse than a bunch of rich people spending
money at a restaurant.

There's an argument that auction houses aren't paying their way for the
services they use (especially in expensive areas), and other functions
occupying that space could be better for society. A land value tax would solve
that. I'm not aware that auction houses rely on other things like copyright or
patents that can stifle economic activity.

------
nayuki
Some photos of the shredded art:
[https://hyperallergic.com/464419/1-3m-banksy-artwork-self-
de...](https://hyperallergic.com/464419/1-3m-banksy-artwork-self-destructs-at-
auction/) ; [https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/sotheby-s-banksy-ed-
as-...](https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/sotheby-s-banksy-ed-as-painting-
self-destructs-live-at-auction) ;
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Std3LfVx41c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Std3LfVx41c)

~~~
okket
It stopped half way, to me it is more 'art' than before.

~~~
codeulike
Yeah whoever bought that has probably made a profit already, its a lot more
interesting now.

~~~
mygo
whoever bought it also payed the same exact price as Banksy’s all-time auction
record set 10 years ago, down to the pound.

------
rmason
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.

[http://beltmag.com/the-fight-over-graffiti-banksy-in-
detroit...](http://beltmag.com/the-fight-over-graffiti-banksy-in-detroit/)

~~~
majewsky
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.

~~~
konschubert
Wasn't it Marc & Gerkan?

~~~
majewsky
You're right, the architect in question was Meinhard von Gerkan.

------
chasing
The KLF did it better.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Quid)

~~~
zaat
What a depressing story. Banksy stunt is uplifting, that story really made me
sad.

------
jakecodes
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.

~~~
maym86
I highly doubt it. I don't think Banksey is worried about a print being
damaged.

~~~
zseck
From the video that Banksy posted, the shredding mechanism just doesn’t make
any sense. X-acto blades at that angle wouldn’t shred in the way it come out
of the frame. There’s clearly something else happening here.

[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-
bristol-45770028](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-45770028)

~~~
wrycoder
Absolutely. It would not work. See the other comment suggesting the shredded
version was stored in the frame.

------
zaroth
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!

~~~
vanderZwan
> _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.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_Girl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_Girl)

~~~
cthalupa
[http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2018/contempo...](http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2018/contemporary-
art-evening-auction-l18024/lot.67.html)

Sotheby's posts lot details on their site for all auctions. The provenance on
this one is quite direct. Banksy -> "Current Owner" -> Whoever won the auction

Banksy himself made the frame.

However, rumor that I've seen among the art world is that Banksy was the
"Current Owner" as well as the bidder. The piece sold for the exact same
amount (to the pound) as his previous record Sotheby's auction. People are
also not buying that Sotheby's wasn't in on it - wooden frames like this have
to be verified to be free of pests like termites, etc., which the lot details
report was done. It seems unlikely that in verifying the frame to be pest free
they would have missed a motorized shredder in it. Especially since the
shredded pieces had to go out somewhere...

------
twunde
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.

~~~
orbifold
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.

~~~
therealdrag0
To each their own. I google-imaged Jeff Koons, and I didn't find any appealing
to look at or would want around my house (except maybe giant flower puppy :P)

~~~
orbifold
Well you have to see the pieces in person, I think some of them look fantastic
if you already own a completely ridiculous mansion or a semi-public space like
a luxury resort in Dubai or something. They are definitely cool to look at in
a museum context, I saw them at the Centre Pompidou two years ago.

------
rapnie
Big art has been hijacked by big money. Art as an investment vehicle,
something to preen yourself with, show others you are elite.

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.

~~~
tetrazine
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.

~~~
drasticmeasures
The stunts are the art.

I am an artist myself. I don't see Banksy as being an anti-capitalist or anti-
consumer culture artist. I see that aspect of his performance as a persona,
exactly like Mr. Brainwash is, and that he uses that persona as background for
his real art, which are the stunts he pulls off to delight wealthy patrons.

I also don't believe he is trying (ineffectively) to rebel against the
commodification of art; he's knowledgeable and complicit in it, much like
Damien Hirst.

A case for my argument is that he (deliberately) delighted the art auction
audience with his stunt (as opposed to insulted); the art work was only half-
shredded, allowing it to still be hung; knowing action houses, they had
thoroughly inspected the art work before putting it up for auctioning, and
were complicit with Banksy's stunt, and this much is evident in their good-
natured choice of words for the press; the art work's value has only
increased, as has his reputation as a (complicit and well-wishing) prankster.

In short, Banksy has taken the post-modernist concept of an artist with a
persona that superficially and ineffectively rebels against capitalism while
the real artist is actively, knowingly and profitably complicit with
capitalism... Banksy has taken it to a sublime level, and that's why we in the
art world who are in on the joke (and know who is really being laughed at: the
public who believe in his flimsy anti-capitalist persona) love him as one of
us.

------
Geekette
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?

~~~
MisterTea
Two possibilities, and by god I hope my first is right:

It's a super clever two-stage prank. At auction the picture is supposed to
shred but it stops half way. Did it break? Was that the intention? Who knows!
That's the mystery behind it. Now it's more than just a simple painting, it's
a performance piece and worth significantly more! The half shredded portrait
is hung up somewhere and weeks or months from now the shredder comes back to
life for the finale of complete destruction. "Going... Going... Gone" became
"Going up up and away!" Ha! Take that Banksy! Then full circle back to gone,
Banksy has the last laugh. Bonus points if it does this in the middle of the
night and the owner is greeted by a pile of shreds on the floor the following
morning.

Second and more boring possibility: the shredder was supposed to fully destroy
the picture at auction but unfortunately failed. I believe Banksy intended the
piece to fully self destruct in full view of the auction house as a big "fuck
you" to art hoarding and monetizing.

------
jypepin
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.

~~~
midnitewarrior
It's not trolling, the work was a performance piece.

~~~
philliphaydon
> It's not trolling, the work was a performance piece.

If the buyer wasn't aware of this prior to buying it then technically Banksy
ruined the buyers art, or the buy can back out because he's not getting what
he paid for.

~~~
okket
But the buyer would be stupid to do so. Also, transformation to the point of
self-destruction is an accepted part of art, at least since Joseph Beuys'
"Fettecke".

~~~
philliphaydon
What if the buyer just loved the piece of art prior and now hates it? I liked
the before. The new “art” to me is crap. Art is subjective right? Not all art
is purchased for its value. But the emotional connection one has for it. And
such.

~~~
okket
If you don't like it you can either return it and maybe get your money back,
or sue, or whatever, or try selling it for much more. I am not even sure an
assurance would cover this case, because it is obviously still there, and
worth more, presumably.

~~~
jypepin
right. But if the buyer bought the piece because they just want to see it in
their home, and now don't like anymore, then it is ruined for them, even if
they can sell it for more money :)

------
Nomentatus
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.

~~~
colbyaley
The change in color likely has to do with the lighting. When it's removed from
the wall you can see the square of light placed on the frame.
[https://youtu.be/5-RFj1Slcws?t=22](https://youtu.be/5-RFj1Slcws?t=22)

------
Zaheer
Some more background on the iconic image:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_Girl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_Girl)

------
tootie
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.

[https://i0.wp.com/www.guggenheim.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017...](https://i0.wp.com/www.guggenheim.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/10/art-ai-weiwei-dropping-a-han-dynasty-
urn-X.2016.10601.jpg?w=870)

------
JumpCrisscross
Strip shredding implies a desire not to destroy the piece, but instead, to
recognisably transform it.

------
Luc
Art made specifically to get media attention and keep the Banksy brand alive.
A bit shallow, though.

------
severak
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.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa_(A_Book_of_the_Dead)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa_\(A_Book_of_the_Dead\))

~~~
vidarh
That was my first thought too. I remember the attention it got. And of course
it was not so ephemeral, as people ensured the poem was captured, since in
that case people knew it advance it would self-destruct.

It's an interesting poem, and one that probably was read far more because it
was published the way it did than if it had been published the normal way.
While I enjoyed poetry, it is the first and only time I've rushed to read a
newly published lyrical work.

It's beautifully constructed in that it is about the distinction between
memory and reproduction, and where the poem represents a reproduction of
Gibsons own memories, the self-destruction served to make the book itself an
event and creation of memories about the reproduction of the poem even in many
cases in people who never got around to reading it, but just read about it.

It's also interesting because one of Gibsons own comments about it is about
how we tend to remember the past in light of the present, not the way it
actually was, and thinking about how I remember the work, I realise I have
memories of text fading, but 1) my memories don't match how it was presented,
2) I never saw the original anyway.

I have distinct images of reading it in light blue on darker blue, but I would
have read it on my Amiga. Those are not the Workbench colours, and the offline
readers I used did not use that colour scheme - it's more likely that I'm
confusing it with reading texts shared on floppy on my C64, years before. So
our memories of Agrippa are themselves now an example of the theme of the poem
itself.

Ironically, it is a cooperative project with Dennis Ashbaugh who designed the
book as an art piece, and came up with the concept of the self-destruction,
but whose part of the work has remained the lesser known part of the "package"
despite (or because) not being the part to self-destruct.

------
paulie_a
I've never understood the art community's love for banksy. It's mind numbing
drivel. South Park has far more depth and creativity.

~~~
acomjean
Banksy is an artist that mocks the art world. He or she kinda makes fun of it.
The art is decent, and its fun (sometimes undervalued in art circles). Banksy
said in the forward of one of his book collections : art is controlled by just
one group, the museum curators and rails against that.

Who else would set up a pop up shop outside the MET museum in NYC and sell
original pieces and then report that they've sold only 6?

[http://gothamist.com/2013/10/13/video_banksy_set_up_a_pop_up...](http://gothamist.com/2013/10/13/video_banksy_set_up_a_pop_up_booth.php)

"The street prank gave Gothamist graffiti guru Jake Dobkin lots to mull over:
Who's the joke about here, though? Is it that Banksy's work kind of sucks,
from an empirical point, in that no one would buy it unless they knew who it
was by? Or is the joke on everyone for not being smart enough to be there and
recognize how valuable the stuff on sale was? As with all Banksy, there's kind
of an edge to it that makes you feel a little annoyed—like he's having a joke
at your expense.

"

------
StavrosK
I'm getting 503s, so here's an IPFS mirror:

[https://www.eternum.io/ipfs/QmTi3JeC9k1zQy9PFS4ZTf5wZDzP7gyY...](https://www.eternum.io/ipfs/QmTi3JeC9k1zQy9PFS4ZTf5wZDzP7gyYNFD3mzmUJNsdAk/)

------
ultrabenos
I honestly don't know why anyone at the auction, who was interested in that
piece, thought there would be no trick or strings attached, or why Sotheby's
didn't suspect anything after investigating Banksy. The wiki excerpt shown by
Google says "Banksy is an anonymous England-based street artist, __vandal,
political activist __, and film director. " It then goes on to call his works
satirical and focused on dark humour.

Anyone willing to spend £1,000,000 on a piece of art by Banksy should know
enough about him to imagine that he'd hate auctioning his work to the rich at
an elite establishment like Sotheby's.

------
fileeditview
Discovered Banksy many years ago and I have to say: if there is a true artist
it's him. Or maybe it's them? Still think it's very plausible that Banksy is a
collective.

The creativity and ingenuity just seems too much for a single person.

~~~
int0x80
I find the history behind it certanly interesting (and the art is amazing!).
There was a documentary and a conspiracy theory too about the whole thing,
just a movie, but good to watch IMO. "Art through the gift shop".

~~~
4rt
"exit through the gift shop"

[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1587707/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1587707/)

~~~
int0x80
ah right, sorry!

------
m3kw9
I bet it continues to shred after it being sold for 10 million.

------
dmix
Oddly, $1.4m is exactly the amount Bristol libraries are short in their
budgets, which Banksy offered to help. If only he had sold the art.

[https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2018...](https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-
news/2018/jul/04/banksy-offers-to-help-save-bristols-under-threat-libraries)

------
ridgeguy
It was only at the moment of shredding that Banksy finished his work.

I won't be surprised to see its estimated value double within a week.

------
electic
Appraisers are saying the instant the artwork was shredded it became more of
an artwork and is now worth a lot more.

------
analog31
Googling "self destructing art" yields some interesting finds, many centered
around the Dada movement.

------
rurban
Thanksfully the original Banksy Girl with a balloon is still on some street in
Amsterdam, visible to everyone. This frame was just an elaborate prank, as
usual, to invalidate the "art market" scheme. From time to time forked Banksys
are put on the commercial market. This was wonderful.

------
rajacombinator
Plot twist: the buyer can now probably keep the frame + shreds and resell it
for several times what they paid.

~~~
xevb3k
I assume they won’t actually have to pay? I’d guess whatever contract their is
with the seller also requires that the art is delivered safely to the
purchaser.

I wonder what the message is here, or if there is a message beyond the
publicity. I guess something about the art having no inherent value...

~~~
Fricken
It's now a part of art history, it would be a foolish move on the part of the
buyer to not accept it. Banksy has reaffirmed why he's maybe the only
contemporary visual artist today who counts as a household name. Although I
guess we cuold debate whether he's first and foremost a visual artist, or a
performance artist. The audacity of his stunts and trickery far outweigh the
merits of his clever visual puns.

~~~
godzillabrennus
Walked past one of his works on the upper west side of manhattan. I wouldn’t
have known it was his except for the plaque put up next to the plastic barrier
installed to protect it.

Kind of crazy that the art is likely worth as much as the entire building it’s
on. Although, this is Manhattan so who knows.

~~~
icebraining
His works in the Gaza strip are definitely worth more than the entire
buildings.

------
newnewpdro
This reminds me of the novel Bluebeard by Kurt Vonnegut Jr.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebeard_(Vonnegut_novel)#Pai...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluebeard_\(Vonnegut_novel\)#Paintings)

------
amai
A video of Banksy himself showing how he built the shredder:

[https://www.instagram.com/p/BomXijJhArX/](https://www.instagram.com/p/BomXijJhArX/)

------
qwerty456127
Just a huge disappointment (not for the investor, of course). It would be cool
if it would actually shred itself into small pieces so the investor would lose
$1.3M but in fact it just changed its style.

------
anonu
From the pictures it appears to only have "half shredded" itself... There is a
certain aesthetic to that as well... a full shred may have rendered it
worthless. But a half shred...thats art...

------
fallingfrog
Good for him! That's one way to keep your work from being locked up in the
private estates of the beautiful people. At least it won't be somebody's tax
shelter now.

------
Animats
“This is now part of art history in its shredded state and we’d estimate
Banksy has added at a minimum 50% to its value, possibly as high as being
worth £2m plus.” - MyArtBroker.com

------
expertentipp
An obvious set up performance. See the artwork - a baloon hijacked by the wind
from a girl. Lifes of rich people must be really boring.

------
baron816
How much more do you think it's worth now? 2x? 10x? All this media attention
is definitely having a huge impact.

------
corodra
So, I can’t access the site, guessing it’s overloaded.

But a few things I’ve picked up from the discussions.

First off, a product that destroys itself immediately when purchased. I
understand the art world now sees it as more valuable. Whatever. Idiots. But
what if you bought a car and the moment you drove off the lot the wheels fell
off? That’s some fraudulent ass shit right there. Now, don’t get me wrong. A
mil+ for any type of “art” is a stupid in my eyes. But I’m also into
collecting antique wood working tools. So, to each their own. But I understand
the anger someone would feel for paying a lot for something that is trash.
Plus as a seller. As Sotheby’s, I’d raise some unholy hell... unless I was in
on it to.

The anti-capitalist committed the biggest sin in capitalism for his own greed.
He profited from an exchange that inherently does not satisfy a customer’s
need, even though advertised otherwise. And yes, I say greed. He, or they if
it’s a group of artists, are part of it as a money making scam.

Famous anti-capitalists are not anti-capitalists. They’re always sellin’
somethin’. Maybe not today, but at some point, they cash in for their
audience, eyeball investment.

Oh well, no one cares because it’s the art market. The most prolific way to
launder and transfer dirty narco and terrorist money because, no one in the
public cares. The old white people market as people like to whine about. That
market needs to be regulated more hardcore than the stock market. Maybe that’s
the point? Damn I hope so, then I’d give them more credit. But most folks
ain’t that clever.

------
sparrish
The real piece of art here is the engineering of the frame.

------
foxhop
The girl is dead. Her hope lives on.

------
snissn
Is Banksy a sell out now?

------
Jenz
Absolutely brilliant!

------
jeisc
an excellent work of art makes people think something new

------
raverbashing
Looks like the source website shredded itself

~~~
saagarjha
You might need to disable your adblocker.

~~~
raverbashing
Nope, it's returning 503

~~~
saagarjha
Worked for me, so I don’t actually know what’s going on here.

~~~
amingilani
It's consistently returned a 503 since I started checking it a few hours ago.

------
make3
so what, in effect Banksy chose to shred 1.3M$? I understand he has a message
etc, just curious if he really sacrificed so much for it

~~~
okket
Banksy will get his money, but his artwork is now probably worth much more. So
it is debatable if he succeeded with his intentions to criticise the
commercialisation of art.

~~~
thomasz
There is zero chance that he did not anticipate this.

