Banksy Artwork Self-Destructs At Auction Right After Being Sold For $1.3 Million (cbsnews.com) 290
OpenSourceAllTheWay writes: Elusive street artist Banksy's famous "Girl With Balloon" artwork was on sale at a Sotheby's auction in New York inside what looked like a normal, if slightly old fashioned painting frame. As soon as the auction concluded — the artwork was sold to a bidder for a cool $1.3 Million — a whirring noise started coming from the artwork hanging on the wall, and "Girl With Ballon" started moving down inside its frame, coming out the bottom of the frame in shredded strips. In what must be an art world first, the artwork suddenly self-shredded in front of hundreds of stunned auction attendants. It appears that — somehow — Banksy or some other prankster installed a battery powered paper shredding mechanism in the bottom of the artwork's frame that can be remotely triggered. In a tweet on his Twitter account, Banksy posted an image of the destructed artwork and wrote "Going, gone, gone...", potentially mocking the practice of auctioning famous artworks off for large sums of money. The question now is precisely what — if anything — the buyer of the artwork gets for his or her money, and whether "Girl With Balloon" is worth more or less than before now.
Art experts say it is worth 2x shredded (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Art experts say it is worth 2x shredded (Score:5, Insightful)
Which tells you everything you need to know about how specious and capricious the valuation model is for the art market.
Capricious yes, specious not entirely. Art is about things like communicating ideas and finding new ways to express them. I can't see much that is newer art than doubling the value of a work by shredding it in public. It says so much about the arbitrary way that people value things. There can have been no greater shock than having just bought a new work and watching it apparently disappear before you. Being so rich you can own and take away something that was originally given to the public by being put out as graffiti and yet not being able to own it because the artist (maybe? - he seems to have been at least tipped off) manages to control and change the presentation of his own work.
IMHO being able to arrange something like this shows that Banksy actually is worth the money.
Re: (Score:3)
Capricious yes, specious not entirely. Art is about things like communicating ideas and finding new ways to express them.
More like giving the finger to people with too much money in ways they do not get....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"fake news", whatever it originally meant, now means "I the person hearing this am to cretinous to process this new information; if it was true I would have to change my whole world outlook and I am fully incapable of even doing that partially". Under that definition for some of the basement dwellers here, this almost certainly counts as fake news.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it would simply be 'not news' since it is a factual report of something that happened as opposed to something fake, eg. lies.
Is language difficult for you?
Re: Art experts say it is worth 2x shredded (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that the shredding added value because now the art ( which is well accepted and liked ) has added a value of a statement or act.
like a famous gun that killed someone, it's value increase due to the action it was involved in.
personally, I think it was brilliant. and just the opportunity to watch it happen will give me joy on how wonderful creativity can be.
I don't know about 2x but definitely worth more (Score:5, Interesting)
This is art that the artist, presumably, updated after being sold.
He's publicly updated it especially for the buyer. You don't know if it was specific to this buyer or if there were other options to the shredding depending on the mood of the artist.
I think it's fair to say it's now worth more.
Re:I don't know about 2x but definitely worth more (Score:5, Interesting)
Some other factors to consider:
If you look at photos of the post-shredded picture, you see that it is only half shredded (the upper part with the balloon is unshredded) which holds the picture together, and that the image of the girl is still intact, just hanging together in strips. So any claim that is is "destroyed" is factually false. At worst it is "damaged". If the buyer wanted to they could reframe it, with the strips carefully glued down and only close inspection would tell the difference.
Bansky has used this image many times. This is not his only "Girl with Balloon" image, but it is now his most famous one. How can that not add to its value, even if you dismiss the high end art world as pretentious gits? Fame has always been associated directly with value in art.
Looking at the post-shred state it does look like a modern conceptual art installation piece (whether you respect that or not is irrelevant). This piece now has a story: the piece of art is what Banksy intended it to be, a dynamic object that changed its state upon be acquired (but without the acquirer knowing about the state change in advance). If the buyer decides they are upset about the final state of the piece, they might be able to get the purchase contract rescinded on the grounds that what they were buying was not fully disclosed, but that depend on the fine print of what they agreed to when they registered to bid. But I bet if they are upset they can resell it for more than they just paid. Famous, you know.
Last I checked there did not seem to be any statement by the new owner.
Several posters have asserted here that high end art is a hobby for people and organizations with more money than they know what to do with. And this is true pretty much (give or take a few value-laden terms) [artsy.net].
Re:I don't know about 2x but definitely worth more (Score:5, Insightful)
So any claim that is is "destroyed" is factually false. At worst it is "damaged".
If this was actually the work of Bansky himself the artwork is now not so much "destroy" or "damaged" as it is "completed".
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Art experts say it is worth 2x shredded (Score:4, Insightful)
Meh, nerds will pay a fortune for used, damaged stuff that is somehow famous. Props from movies and TV shows, stuff that's been in space, parts of famous machines, letters written by notable people, classic cars etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That Purple Haze - its all in your brain. It’s just that lately things don’t seem the same.
Re: (Score:2)
That Purple Haze - its all in your brain. It’s just that lately things don’t seem the same.
Purple Haze [wikia.com] is also the S1, E10 episode of Eureka [wikipedia.org]
Re:Art experts say it is worth 2x shredded (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, that's true of the market for everything. The most precious commodity there is for human survival is air, but there is nonetheless the cliche "Free as air."
Market prices in an ideal economy reflect efficient distribution of resources like paint, canvas and skilled labor, without passing any ethical or aesthetic judgment on the use to which they are put. Take for example, this item [amazon.com]. It has no utility value, and it's taste is questionable, but the fact that it can be sold for $90 justifies putting the resources into making it rather than, say, medical prosthetics or water purification equipment for some poor village.
The great virtue of the market economy is that it works, not that it makes any sense. It only makes sense in a circular fashion; if you define what is sensible by what the market economy chooses to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Norway is not a member of the EU, but it is a member of the EEA so it has to obey all the regulations about commerce and immigration. It is also the best place in the world to become a millionaire if you aren't one already.
Isn't the "art" market (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Isn't the "art" market (Score:5, Insightful)
Not just that, it's an opportunity to pick up some excellent money laundering instruments.
At this point I wish for the glory days of the 90%+ marginal tax rate about a dozen times per day.
Re: (Score:3)
Crap like what?
It's actually got a bunch of nerds yourslef included debating the meaning of art. Was the art destroyed or completed? Was the shredding an inherent part of the work? Does the buyer have recourse? Is it worth more?
Is it art?
Given how much trolling goes on here I'm surprised at the number of people who don't seem to appreciate that they have just been trolled massively.
It's provoked thought and discussion. Achievement unlocked.
Re: Isn't the "art" market (Score:2)
Re: Isn't the "art" market (Score:2)
Actually, you're wrong about the tax benefit, or rather, who benefits.
https://www.dailymotion.com/vi... [dailymotion.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So if he also had set the shredded paper on fire in addition, it would be worth, say, 5x now? The mind boggles.
Re: (Score:3)
I sort-of agree with the experts. It looks like a standard Banksy picture, which is cute, but nothing special. The shredding of it is part of the message, and shows that the artist actually put some thought into it.
The thought is contempt for the person who spent so much on a run-of-the-mill painting--but I sort-of agree with that too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Every time I read something like this, I can't help but think of Frasier.
Same newsfeeds (Score:2, Insightful)
How come news sites all cover the same jackass stories. Don't they realise we see the very same content on every site we go to? Why don't I just go direct to AP?
Re: (Score:2)
How come news sites all cover the same jackass stories. Don't they realise we see the very same content on every site we go to? Why don't I just go direct to AP?
Visitors and hence the ensuing discussion is different on each site
Re: (Score:2)
But software Easter eggs are not destructive. A better analogy would be paying good money for software that eats itself when you update it. This may explain Windows.
at $1.3 Million they have the funds to sue in cour (Score:2)
at $1.3 Million they have the funds to sue in court
Re: (Score:2)
Banksy gets the $1.3M (minus seller fees), so she's got the funds to defend a suit in court.
Re: (Score:2)
My Armani will be representing itself, thank you very much.
Re: at $1.3 Million they have the funds to sue in (Score:2)
There's certainly room for stretches of imagination. The bidder can probably refuse to purchase based on then item materially different than advertised, this cannot be "harmed". That is probably the extent of it. Southebys will certainly not legally enforce the bid, but probably give first refusal.
The bidder will almost certainly buy it anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a (weak) argument to be made that the shredding was PART of the art installation.
Great art is that which evokes emotion (Score:5, Interesting)
The original image is that of a child losing a balloon to the wind. Any parent who considers it feels a sinking in their stomach knowing how upsetting this is for the child. Great art is that which can make you experience an emotion. At the moment the shredding began, the buyer was immediately inserted into the body of that little girl losing the balloon. The buyer thought they were going to acquire a prized Banksy art piece and suddenly it was stolen from their hands by the wind, just like that balloon.
That's just one level of how this piece works. Secondarily, it sparks the exact debate filling posts here on Slashdot- is this valuable art to begin with if the value is increased by 'damaging' it? Banksy has been teasing the art world with this critique for over a decade and this piece is perhaps the epitome of that argument.
Finally, Banksy is a financial genius building demand for her work with stunts like this. Banksy has artificially controlled availability of her work to preserve the demand and high prices. Here, it seemed as though one of Banksy's iconic paintings was going to be available for a simple exchange of cash -- but not as easy as it would appear! The work committed suicide to escape the collector! And so the hunt continues.....
Re: (Score:2)
Sue for what?
The action house had no reasonable way of knowing and the item was as described, but actions are caveat emptor. And Banksy didn't device the buyer: someone else owned it.
One could also quite reasonably argue that it was part of the artwork.
And what a phenomenal piece of performance art it was!
Re: (Score:2)
The action house had no reasonable way of knowing and the item was as described
Nevertheless, the action house or seller would be responsible for any loss that happens to the item before the buyer takes possession of it. Bids in an auction aren't UNconditional: they're offers to buy based on the viewing of the item and representations made by the seller --- even if the seller agreed a certain bid one: if the item gets stolen by a robber running in and grabbing it from display or destroyed by a sudde
Re:at $1.3 Million they have the funds to sue in c (Score:5, Interesting)
Was it lost? They sold a work of art from Banksey. That is, a work of art as Banksey intended for it to be. They just didn't know Banksey intended for it to be shredded. Nevertheless, it is still what it was represented to be.
According to at least some in the art world, it is worth MORE now than it was, so the buyer can't claim lost value.
The buyer wanted a piece of art depicting a child losing a balloon. The work turned out to be evocative enough that he actually feels at a visceral level like a child that has just lost a balloon.
Re: (Score:2)
How can you claim that?
It was represented as a complete & undamaged painting. It was sold as a complete and undamaged painting. The paper shredder embedded in the frame was hidden, and thus not part of how it was represented. If you buy a priceless vase and then the sculptor walks on stage and smashes it with a hammer, you don't think that's an issue?
The buyer should absolutely be able to reject the item, as materially different from what they b
Re: (Score:2)
It IS undamaged. The shredder functioned just like it was built to function. The paper is shredded just as the artist intended for it to be shredded. Sometimes, art is surprising. It is supposed to provoke thought and make us question what we know. As such, this piece has proven fit for purpose.
Interestingly, the more legal action the new owner might take, the more he proves that the work functioned as intended.
You cannot apply utilitarian criteria to something that is not utilitarian in nature.
Re: (Score:3)
The paper is shredded just as the artist intended
That's the bit that impressed me. Damn thing actually worked. He should go into business selling shredders.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you just whooshed.
Re: (Score:2)
Nevertheless, the action house or seller would be responsible for any loss that happens to the item before the buyer takes possession of it.
What loss? The work was and remains a Banksy artwork. The built in shredder was clearly always a part of it and it worked as designed. Auctions are caveat emptor and as long as the auction house doesn't fail to reveal anything they could reasonably have known about.
if the item gets stolen by a robber running in and grabbing it from display or destroyed by a sudden natu
So to get rich (Score:2)
Re:So to get rich (Score:5, Insightful)
No you need to be original. You can't just copy someone else's disdain.
Amazing part (Score:5, Interesting)
What I find amazing is that there doesn't seem to be a video showing actual shredding. Just the aftermath.
Re: (Score:2)
What I find amazing is that there doesn't seem to be a video showing actual shredding. Just the aftermath.
Why is that amazing? Who shoots video of paintings that just sold at an art auction?
Re: (Score:3)
First of all, people shoot videos of any random thing, and there was a room full of people. Secondly, you don't have be filming the painting. You could have a phone in your hand, and then start recording as soon as you see it happening. Thirdly, someone knew it was going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
These are the rich - they don’t use the phones themselves, they tell Jeeves to do it. But Jeeves’ hands were full holding Missus’ half caff, half decaf venti soy dulche cappuccino and a biscotti.
Re: Amazing part (Score:3)
It's really slow. [nbcnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That makes it even more amazing that video doesn't start until half of the artwork is hanging out.
Re:Amazing part (Score:4, Informative)
The artist posted this himself: https://www.instagram.com/p/Bo... [instagram.com]
Video here: (Score:2)
Banksy's "Balloon Girl" shredded in the auction! [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
What I find amazing is that there doesn't seem to be a video showing actual shredding. Just the aftermath.
High end auctions are typically quite private events. I wouldn't be surprised if videoing the proceedings will get you "kindly asked to leave".
Re: (Score:2)
I take that back. Banksy himself videoed it. There were plenty of cameras at the event.
right in TFA (Score:3)
Instagram [instagram.com]
Re:Amazing part (Score:5, Informative)
https://youtu.be/ShcX_Zvn9WU
WAKE UP SLASHDOT
I can't believe Sothebys' Was Surprised (Score:5, Interesting)
While a very cool hack and worthy of banksy, I have to question as to whether or not Sotheby's was surprised.
For this to have worked, the frame must be quite heavy to allow the shredder mechanism to be hidden within a hollowed out area and not be noticed by being heavier at one end. Along with that, the canvas must have seemed to be mounted in an atypical fashion so that the feed and guides were invisible. Finally, I presume that the shredder was controlled by something like a cell phone - I presume there would be a big honking battery in there because I would have to think would be days/weeks between receiving the art, having it on display and then starting the auction.
As I said, very cool hack, but I can't believe that Sotheby's was surprised by it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just take the core out of a regular shredder, and add some batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
The artist hand-built the shredder into the frame. Auto-shredding frames are not something you buy. I wanna know who changed the batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the top and sides were filled with batteries, with the shredder and maybe some lead shot at the bottom to balance it out?
Heavy and bulky frames are the norm for expensive artworks, they don't just stick these things in a frame from Ikea.
Re:I can't believe Sothebys' Was Surprised (Score:5, Informative)
Finally, I presume that the shredder was controlled by something like a cell phone - I presume there would be a big honking battery in there because I would have to think would be days/weeks between receiving the art, having it on display and then starting the auction.
As I said, very cool hack, but I can't believe that Sotheby's was surprised by it.
Apparently it was in storage for some time, but it was authenticated a short time ago by Pest Control [pestcontroloffice.com]. That would have given them the opportunity to change or charge batteries. Whether or not Sotheby's knew is anyone's guess. I suppose it is possible that Pest Control shushed up the Sotheby's people responsible for supervising them, and perhaps the auctioneering staff didn't know.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. Thank you.
Re:I can't believe Sothebys' Was Surprised (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, I'm pretty sure that Sotheby's was aware to at least expect *something* out of the ordinary, if not exactly what was going to happen. Note also it appears to have stopped shredding with the image partially intact and still in the frame in a manner that still allows for display, probably by design so that the buyer is going to be upset either. Quite the opposite in fact; they now have an extremely famous piece of art that is now an extremely famous piece of performance art as well - instant appreciation in value, for those that are into that kind of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, I presume that the shredder was controlled by something like a cell phone
Why? What a waste of battery. A simple 433MHz receiver sitting idle would do it. The battery would last for years. Banksy was in the room at the time of the auction and videoing the process, so at the very least if it WAS a cell phone based system then it wasn't triggered by the phone Banksy was holding.
I agree on the weight though.
Re:I can't believe Sothebys' Was Surprised (Score:5, Informative)
For this to have worked, the frame must be quite heavy to allow the shredder mechanism to be hidden within a hollowed out area and not be noticed by being heavier at one end. Along with that, the canvas must have seemed to be mounted in an atypical fashion so that the feed and guides were invisible. Finally, I presume that the shredder was controlled by something like a cell phone - I presume there would be a big honking battery in there because I would have to think would be days/weeks between receiving the art, having it on display and then starting the auction.
I disagree.
First hardwood frames are REALLY heavy, like surprisingly so. The shredder mechanism isn't going to be an office-type shredder which can handle 6 sheets at once and has a service life of thousands of sheets. It had to shred half a thing once ever. So, it could be of a much lighter construction; it's not like banksy had to worry about it getting blunted through use.
For the power source, a stack of primary lithium AAs would be more than adequate. And they have a very long shelf life (95% after 20 years).
http://data.energizer.com/pdfs... [energizer.com] (page 14)
Triggering is an interesting one. Banksy was clearly there or sent someone there since he's subsequently posted a video of the shredding. So, the triggering could have been local either by RF or infra-red. That leads to a lot of interesting options. Sensors based on those are much, much lower power than a cell phone. And you could do something like wake up for a second every hour to listen for a signal, then either deep sleep or stay alert depending.
It would take some decent EE nouse to design that to last for a long time, but then again a smoke alarm can last a decade off a lithium PP3, and this thing could have had a lot more battery power in it.
Wow. (Score:3)
Being erstwhile ignorant of the definition (Score:2)
Word of the day: erstwhile
Today I looked that word up.
Tomorrow, erstwhile will be the erstwhile word of the day.
CNN has video footage while it was happening (Score:2, Informative)
Here: https://www.cnn.com/style/arti... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's after it happened
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the actual shredding from Banksy himself: https://www.instagram.com/p/Bo... [instagram.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
They paid for a different kind of art (Score:2)
So what the buyer got for 1.3 million dollars was unique first-of-its-kind performance art....
Re: (Score:2)
This means Banksy was in the audience (Score:2)
It makes you wonder if they were the winning bidder?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Could have been. He must also have been tasked to video the entire process. Or maybe it was just Bansky I mean it's not like anyone would recognise him.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bo... [instagram.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Given the video Banksy posted on his Instagram... https://www.instagram.com/p/Bo... [instagram.com]
Worth more now (Score:2)
If only Tom Wolfe were alive for that moment! (Score:3)
There has always been a prank element in modern art. Remember those Warhol pieces that were nothing but giant stenciled prices? What are those going for today, if indeed they are still being traded?
There has also been art that was intended to be ephemeral, like Christo’s shrouded landforms. Those were not for purchase, though. Did the buyer of this piece know it was about to self-destruct.
I don't know about art (Score:2)
But I know what I like and I like that.
Sotheby's Knew. (Score:2)
Sotheby's had to be in on it.
- Works up for auction are inspected beforehand, primarily to authenticate. A frame with a shredder mechanism should have been noticed.
- Auctions usually place works on an easel or stand. This was the only one hung on a wall.
- It was the last piece to be auctioned that day.
Sotheby's knew (Score:4, Interesting)
I find it impossible to believe that Sotheby's didn't know a thing about this. Any real art curator would have noticed something odd with the frame immediately. I also do not believe that the thing sat there for months/weeks standing by to be triggered (especially cellular trigger) and maintained enough charge to shred anything. This would mean the art curator would have to have been complicit in this too. This would be career ending for an art curator, so it is far more likely that Sotheby's knew about this the whole time.
I expect that the buyers will sue Sotheby's pretty quickly after this. Even if the remains are now worth double, the work that was sold has been irreparably damaged/destroyed. It can easily be shown that Sotheby's knew or should have known about this. If the buyers don't sue, either Sotheby's buried a clause in their buyer Terms & Conditions, or the buyer was in on this too.
Either way, this is an elaborate stunt that reveals Banksy as a sellout...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The buyer is probably ecstatic because they can sell it for much more now that people are claiming it's worth even more now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It hasn't been destroyed. It is now exactly what the artist intended, just like any other work of art that hasn't been damaged.
Had rough handling damaged the shredder such that the work didn't self shred, it would then be damaged and so, the subject of a lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
If art was considered property of buyer and buyer has no recourse to not execute purchase then artist or whomever destroyed it could be in a lot of pain, soon.
Especially when you consider that it hasn’t been that long since you could buy a Caravaggio for that price.
Re:He didn't have much moral credibility before th (Score:5, Insightful)
Shitty stunt? I say performance art of the highest order.
Bravo!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He didn't have much moral credibility before th (Score:4, Interesting)
Look at it this way. Banksy got (among other things) a bunch of tech nerds yelling at each other about the meaning of art rather than vi versus emacs, Linux vs windows or republicans vs democrats.
What is the point of art if not to provke emotion?
Just look at the audiences faces in his video (he posted it recently). A 12 year setup for 3 seconds of some of the most epic trolling the world has seen.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had such little credibility for my works to be worth millions.
Re: (Score:2)
All that means is that the people who buy this art are also pretentious arrogant shitheads who don't care about the art itself, but about the cultural value surrounding the artwork (i.e. they don't want to own artwork because they like the art, but because they like being seen as someone who likes art, which is a very different thing).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A girl I was dating some years ago tried to browbeat me into agreeing that Jackson Pollock's work wasn't a total pile of shit by arguing from authority (she had an art degree). She was a pretentious twat. Epic boobs, though.
-jcr
That’s why I would have kept my mouth shut - during the conversation, of course.
Re: Interesting.. (Score:3)
In the US, from the perspective of common law, the buyer would technically have no recourse in a purely civil claim unless he could establish that he suffered harm that can be quantified in dollars... and that he actually DID suffer a net loss. So, he might still have an actionable claim if he suffered indirect harm whose cash value exceeded the instant profit from the art doubling in value... but it would be an uphill battle to quantify the cash value of an emotion like "disappointment".
There's also &
Re: (Score:2)
It simply completed its transition to its final intended state.
This work of art was clearly a process (including a performance), not a thing.
A brilliant artistic commentary on our and the universe's entropic fate, and our inability to stop it no matter how much money we throw at it.
Or a cheap prank but clearly in the general style of the prank artist Banksy. whatever.
Either is a legitimate interpretation of this artwork.
If you don't get this, you are among those stuffed shirts bein
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhhh! Spray paintings on street corners are "pseudointellectual and highly pretentious art". Good to know. I bet you're one of those people who say every two minutes in a modern arts museum "***insert stupid laughter*** I could do that myself".
Re: (Score:2)
Art by assholes, for assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm shredding my tax documents now. I'm gonna be a billionaire!
That only works if you’re President.