
Myth Busting Banksy - Artnome
https://www.artnome.com/news/2018/10/6/myth-busting-banksy
======
radarsat1
> Score one for Banksy, though there are many other ways he could have
> protested if they wanted to make the point without benefiting financially
> from the protest.

How did Banksy profit from this? The value went up _after_ the sale..

The only other point in the article that I disagree on is the part about why
Banksy's piece was auctioned last. He compares it to the random chance of
being last and says that it is very very unlikely that it would randomly be
last. As if the order is_ _ever_ random in an auction. Obviously we need to
know about the other pieces in the auction. Maybe the Banksy piece was last
because it was expected to sell for the most, nothing to do with any gimmicks.
Asserting that it's either "on purpose" or "completely random" is a bit silly,
there's clearly something in-between.

~~~
lisper
> How did Banksy profit from this?

He got his name in all the papers.

~~~
stinky613
How does he profit from that?

~~~
20181005
The increase in Banksy's cultural cachet means that his next pieces sold at
auction will likely be valued much higher than they would have been if this
had not been in all the papers.

I can't say it's not a brilliant piece of art. It's quite similar to Duchamp's
ready-mades[1] in that it's a critique of art itself.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_\(Duchamp\)\[1\])

------
mrleiter
I wonder, like mentioned elsewhere in the art community, if this stunt will
have the opposite assumed effect: that the artwork will be more valuable now
than it was before. Since now it is a "double-Banksy" in a sense. And if
others and I can think of that outcome, most definitely so can Banksy. And
maybe that is the real critique of the artworld:

That even if you destroy the art, the destroyed art is still worth millions.
Simply because the art has detached itself from its meaning and origin, and
has tilted towards who made the art.

~~~
jansan
If I was an art collector I would pay much more for the artwork now, for the
simple reasons that

1\. The girl with a balloon print was not the only one of its kind. There are
other variations. It was not so unique before.

2\. This is the only one, the first one, even the first (prominent?) artwork
that "destroyed itself"

3\. It is still an artwork. It did not destroy itself completely, but stopped
in the middle of the destruction process. Doesn't it look great now, sticking
only half outside the frame? Any museum of contemporary art would die for
having this. And only this, not a similar one or the next one that destroys
itself.

~~~
beaconstudios
> 2\. This is the only one, the first one, even the first (prominent?) artwork
> that "destroyed itself"

I don't know if you mean specifically Banksy work, but there's a whole
discipline of auto-destructive art: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-
destructive_art](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-destructive_art)

A well known example is the poem Agrippa by William Gibson (yes, that one)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa_(A_Book_of_the_Dead)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa_\(A_Book_of_the_Dead\))

~~~
jansan
Did not know this, thanks. Maybe we can agree that Bansky's auto-destructive
artwork is the one with the best publicity.

~~~
beaconstudios
oh, for sure.

------
rossdavidh
The point about it being too much of a coincidence that the Banksy piece was
sold last, seems weak to me. Banksy was likely the most popularly known artist
whose work was for sale, and it makes sense to me that they would put that
last. A better analysis would have looked at how much all of the pieces sold
for, as a proxy for fame. If lots of piece that sold earlier than Banksy's,
sold for more, then that would be pretty suspicious. I'm guessing, though,
that Banksy was the biggest name for sale, and I would not expect Sotheby's to
put them for sale in a random order, but rather start with the lesser known
artists/pieces first.

Of course, I don't know the art auction world, and maybe it happens the other
way, and you do the big names first, I don't know. But I also can't find out
from reading this analysis. One thing I'm pretty sure of, is they don't just
assign the order randomly.

------
xefer
I like Banksy's work well enough, but the thing that has always bothered me
about his persona is the collusion in the art and media world to maintain his
supposed anonymity. I simply can't believe that there aren't large numbers of
people who know exactly who he is, so why is he privileged by the media in
this way?

~~~
gregoriol
As soon as the real person behind is officially known, there is no more story,
it's over.

I guess it's interesting (and lucrative) for the arts industry and the media
to continue to play along.

Maybe at some point a real investigation media will take the subject and mark
the end of the game.

~~~
snowwrestler
Not necessarily, Jean-Michel Basquiat started out as an anonymous graffiti
artist, who later revealed himself and did very well under his own name.

------
kijin
I disagree with the author's conclusion that Sotheby's will lose any
credibility from this incident.

Modern art is crazy. A painting that shreds itself is pretty mundane by
contemporary standards. If the shredding was an integral part of the work as
intended by the artist, then Sotheby's has done a great job showcasing all the
features of the work. Now that they've demonstrated an ability to handle
unconventional works like this in a controller manner, I wouldn't be surprised
if even more elaborate contraptions that blur the line between art and
technology begin to come up for auction at Sotheby's.

Besides, the shredded painting will likely fetch a much higher price if it
ever comes back to the auction.

~~~
IIAOPSW
Does Sotheby's have an API? I got some stupid easy ideas and in the worst case
no one buys it.

"This balloon inflates the more you bid it up. Eventually it pops. Its an
allegory for the housing bubble"

~~~
billpg
If only you were famous. You could have made millions from that idea.

~~~
gagege
How does one get famous making art? Magic?

------
dmayle
The very first point in the article is about the capability of a wireless
device to last ten years on battery charge, and the argument in favor is based
on current technology ("I'm amazed at how little power is used by the wireless
processors I'm working on now.")

The real question is about the wireless processors designed 13+ years ago
(longer than the painting to allow time for it to hit production).

This thing was supposedly designed and enabled before the iPhone was released.
The author does not present a credible argument.

~~~
jstanley
He also points out that "Banksy's people" had physical access to the painting
very shortly before the auction.

I think it's much more likely that a battery was inserted at that time.

~~~
giarc
I know nothing about the art world, but would "Pest Control" be given
unsupervised access to the painting prior to the auction? Especially given the
artist and his reputation.

------
graycrow
I like this analysis from EEVBlog more:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdKdQWhlNTY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdKdQWhlNTY)

~~~
jansan
Nice one. Here is the "Strip Box" video he showed at the end:
[https://vimeo.com/92609964](https://vimeo.com/92609964)

------
wheelie_boy
I liked this take on what it would be like living with banksy:
[https://medium.com/@electrolemon/the-year-of-living-with-
ban...](https://medium.com/@electrolemon/the-year-of-living-with-
banksy-f9e1774ec60b)

There's only so much of his shtick that I can stomach.

~~~
wlll
That seems far fetched, and also pretty entertaining. Far better than my old
housemates who would fuck in the kitchen and throw knives when drunk.

~~~
lisper
It's obviously fiction. (But Banksy might well be the author.)

~~~
wlll
Yeah, I'd wondered wether it was written by him.

------
agumonkey
Not long ago I was introduced to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blek_le_Rat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blek_le_Rat)

who apparently shared a similar sense of style

------
DrNuke
Artists like Banksy are well into their time, that’s why they are so
successful once they achieve global exposure. Shredding your own work remotely
at Sotheby’s just after their auction is as artistic as political you can get
in the UK these days, that is just a stunt like the Brexit, the fake
multiculturalism, the fake social elevator, the fake establishment and so on.

------
jansan
I am not buying into the video posted by Bansky. The knives have an awkward
angle, how are they supposed to cut?

I think he added something else to the frame afterwards. Something like this
banknote printing machine:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE7qHz_cVew](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE7qHz_cVew)

~~~
kalleboo
The EEVBlog YouTube channel (someone else already linked it) covered the
implausible shredding mechanism in the Banksy video.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdKdQWhlNTY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdKdQWhlNTY)

In addition to the impossible angle, the position also does not fit a
plausible paper path, and you can also see the curvature indicative of being
stuck in the roller of a traditional shredder for days/weeks/months on the
bottom of the paper coming out.

~~~
jansan
Makes you wonder how the previous owner could have not noticed the shredder.
"There is a slot at the bottom of my insanely valuable Bansky artwork's frame
and I can see parts of a machinery through it, but it probably doesn't mean
anything."

~~~
eigenstuff
It'd already been noted that the frame was unusually thick

------
topmonk
The one question I had, which the article didn't go into, was shredding only
half the painting intended, or was it a malfunction?

~~~
jansan
Intention. It stopped at a perfect point.

~~~
topmonk
I didn't agree with you at first, but after seeing the painting out of its
frame, I think you are right: [https://1fuzz.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/art-owner-shred...](https://1fuzz.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/art-owner-shredded-banksy-painting-1fuzz-com-1.jpg)

------
PhasmaFelis
I haven't seen anyone mention that, in the shredder video, the blades are all
placed flat, parallel to the painting. I don't see how they could have cut
anything in that orientation, unless the mechanism is tuned to score the paper
by dragging it across the point. Or am I missing something?

~~~
gagege
Yeah, I assumed I must have missed a detail. Or Banksy is totally messing with
us.

~~~
hoopism
An angled razor makes more sense (think about how you shave)... less of a
chance that it gets jammed if the paper is sliding over an angled razor rather
than vertical.

EDIT: A deli slicer also a good example... it works on an angle... not like a
chopsaw

------
stevewillows
It was convenient that the piece was the last one for the night. However,
Banky's piece did have the largest gain from ceiling estimate to sale price.
It wouldn't surprise me if the Sotheby's staff knew of this potentially
dramatic gap and decided to put it at the end of the night. Combine that with
the potential of Banksy pulling a stunt like this, and placing it last seems
to be the more conservative option for the lineup.

    
    
        %     LOT  PRICE    ARTIST          WORK
        3.47%  67  1042000  Banksy          Girl With Balloon
        2.94%  66  1030000  Kaws            Again And Again
        2.42%  48  1450000  Georg Baselitz  Kopfkissen
        1.77%  29  1150000  Georg Baselitz  Ohne Titel (Der Neue Typ)
        1.71%  42  1450000  Lucio Fontana   Concetto Spaziale, Forma

------
gcthomas
I notice that the shredded portion doesn't line up with the part still in the
frame in the photo. The top of the girl's head looks too far up and to the
left to be part of the same picture.

~~~
jansan
That was my thinking, too, and it would indicate that the shredded and
original picture are not one and the same. Thinking this further, if he
actually used something like a banknote printing trick device, the whole
process could be reversed at the next auction :)

~~~
flycaliguy
Love this idea! I wonder if this thing is going to be x-rayed by the current
owner though... Maybe he left a note in it to convince the owner to play
along.

------
anotheryou
You can totally hide a slot that is already open. A normal frame has some
layering going on in the back anyways:

[https://www.universityproducts.com/pub/media/wysiwyg/how-
to-...](https://www.universityproducts.com/pub/media/wysiwyg/how-to-
images/framepackage.jpg)

All it would take is a slot in the frame back and a bit more sturdy backing
paper covering it. The backing paper that has to be not fixed on the bottom
edge.

------
justtopost
At no point did the author prove that the frame was the same one in the video.
I really had a hard time reading after that. The sideways xacto blades would
have trouble cutting canvas, even preshredded, at that angle. While the rest
seems plausable, no further facts are offered save for "maybe 38" cuts maybe
matching with the frame shown hastily in his vid. I was really hoping for
something more concrete than the same pontificating.

~~~
gk1
The work is very likely NOT on canvas, but on paper.

~~~
dwighttk
"spray paint and acrylic on canvas" [1]

[1][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?locale=en)

------
bedhead
Banksy is like the Malcolm Gladwell of art. He's really good but crossing over
into the world of pop culture has garnered an unwarranted amount of scorn. I
like Banksy and I like Malcolm Gladwell, both are really good at what they do.

~~~
specialist
Hmmm. This comparison is really challenges me.

I liken Gladwell to other mercenary concern trolls like David Brooks.

But in my rush to defend Banksy... I realize I have no idea who signs his
checks. His schtick could also be just another troll. Bread and circus to keep
the hoi polloi complacent.

Indeed, how could Banksy not be? Either by default or by design, result is the
same.

Thanks. I relish these types of conundrums.

------
class4behavior
If Sotheby's was in on it, then the buyer must have been as well. Otherwise,
they would open doors to a lawsuit.

------
yAnonymous
Banksy is a sellout.

~~~
hazz99
Why is it bad to make a profit from your artwork?

~~~
gcatalfamo
Well for being against capitalistic culture, the Banksy movement acts pretty
capitalistic...I guess it's not about making a well-deserved profit, but more
about being incoherent with your message.

~~~
Nasrudith
Really at this point it has highlighted it is impossible to be mainstream and
maintain the status quo. When you start putting out unique works on random
buildings and people are willing to pay enough to cut out the wall and replace
it for a windfall it is fundamentally impossible. The subversion is
fundamentally lost. Even doing something akin to putting Gitmo in Disneyland
to force people to confront crimes committed in their name while trying to
escape would see it scavenged and sold. Given a choice between making random
landowners richer and himself it becomes clear why.

------
gregoriol
If they (Sotheby's/security) let a device with metal, batteries and remote
trigger in, how could one assume they won't let a bomb in there?

If they did it while knowing what is inside, it's fun and stuff. If they let
this kind of stuff in without checking, this would be very bad... they should
be sued over lack of inspection (they are experts!) and lack of security by
the buyers and persons who were in the room.

~~~
jstanley
The same way bombs don't get taken into almost any crowded place: the fact
that vanishingly few people want to take bombs into crowded places.

~~~
gregoriol
I mean: these are experts, they sell stuff valuated at millions of $, they
must inspect what they sell. It's not about about security at first: it's more
about if the thing is authentic, if the thing is in good shape, if it will not
break during transport or display, how to store/hang it properly, ...

After that, they must have been suspicious about the weight, the bottom hole,
... and must have done additional, more detailed checks, even a scanner to see
what's inside. It's not like it was a simple piece of paper they had in hands,
it's a million $ strange heavy thing.

Anyway, it shows very bad about them if they didn't see what was "wrong" with
this piece.

~~~
jstanley
They took it to "Banksy's people" to have it authenticated.

