A lot of admiration for whoever (plural gender neutral) is Banksy.
Banksy shredder: 'Girl with Red Balloon' painting shredded itself after selling sold at auction for $1.4 million - The Washington Post
Printable View
A lot of admiration for whoever (plural gender neutral) is Banksy.
Banksy shredder: 'Girl with Red Balloon' painting shredded itself after selling sold at auction for $1.4 million - The Washington Post
So much creativity in unexpected ways. Who thinks of this?
Watch the Documentary "Exit through the gift shop".
I love what Banksy did at Disney Land..
I can't help thinking he had something to do with the purchase. I also wonder what you could tack on top of that 1.4mil if you flipped it?
Great stuff.
The reaction of the people in the room is worth every penny.
Banksy painted a rat on a bank clock at the end of our block here in NYC. The rat was running anti-clockwise on the clock's dial. The bank was being torn down to build yet another luxury high rise. 14th and 6th. Busy corner. As far as I know, no one saw the rat being painted.
There is no other working artist with the consistent vision and audacity of Banksy. Chapeau!
Sotheby's was clearly in on it. So convenient it was the last item and it hung on a wall instead of an easel. Plus it'd be inordinately heavy with the mechanical shredder in the frame
Yes, that it only shredded half is key. I saw no indication that the people scrambling around it were able to turn it off and there was no visible electrical connection. As a half shredded piece, it immediately becomes even more Banksy than it was.
Art is great like that. Much better than actual money.
Likely true, which would be unfortunate given Banksy's stance against commercialism. An artist who doesn't want his art to be sold, and calls all sales unauthorized, and who makes a big deal about shredding his art if sold at auction as a form of protest would be in a precarious spot (at least in terms of his reputation) if he worked with an auctioneer on a value increasing stunt.
I could see where the auction house was so interested in getting a Banksy to sell, they would have agreed to a list of conditions without knowing what was going to happen or even if something was going to happen. And based on Banky's history, I would bet the more likely scenario is that the winning bidder was Banksy himself.
Banksy works have sold at auction before, this is not the first.
Invalid URL
It's lot number 67
Invalid URL
Here is the catalog page for the artwork. They claim the work was executed in 2006, and acquired by current owner in 2006.
Typically when an artwork goes to auction, you drop it off several months before the auction. Sotheby's will have it authenticated by whatever means is used for the artist, photographs it for the catalog, and then gives the write up.
It's possible that Sotheby's was in on it, but unlikely, since it raises several credibility issues for the auction house, plus as seller, you are also making reps and warranties. If the auction house has an 'interest' in the work, that also needs to be disclosed. As you are probably well aware, they had issues in the past with this, and I doubt they want to skirt very close to that line.
The frame is 7 inches deep which is highly suspicious. It's possible Banksy bought the work back but in that case he is no different than the money grubby Damien Hirst.
But come to think of it,,,,
Banksy has already set up an office What is Pest Control?
which handles all of Banksy business. If you think Banksy is anti-establishment, you are wrong. All he has done is cut out the dealer to maximize profits for himself. Mind you, there is nothing wrong with that.
Never confuse the romance of art with the business of art.
Brilliant.
I imagine the purchaser (& co.) will have to create an enclosure to preserve the latest revision. Can't have the lower shreds exposed and flopping about.
Definitely. Like I said, art is often better than money.
When financial guys in NYC get wind of pending investigation by the feds, they usually go on an art shopping spree (see: Steven Cohen @ SAC Capital.) Quick way to bury some money without a shovel.
The galleries handle new artists like real estate. Dealer "discovers" a new artist. Schedules a show. Calls their top buyers/collectors and invites them to a preview. The paintings at the opening are going to be $5000 a piece, but the dealer will sell them at the preview at $2500 a piece (I am making up prices - add zeros as you see fit.) Usually 80% of the pieces hung on the wall get sold at $2500. Then the show happens and the rest sell at $5000 to second tier collectors. Then some people are getting boxed out - people who actually like the work, museums, other institutions - so the dealer says well there might be some early buyers who would be willing to part with their work. The dealer "checks" and says yes, there are a few available for $7000. So then the top tier collector have spent $2500 to make $4500, minus the dealers fee on two sales, etc. Next thing you know, the artist is selling work for $10,000 a piece. Onwards and upwards. Just like the way realtors sell apartments in tall buildings before the building is built.
Note that the actual skill of the artists matters not a whit. That's why when you go to a museum show, you'll look around and see all these pieces by recently famous artists and wonder who the heck are they fooling. The reality is that a lot of them are just devices for moving money around, and because the museums often collect what is selling when it comes to contemporary art, the quality of the work ends up being entirely beside the point.
I am sure this is old news to a lot of people here.
In the old days, the art world was used to launder money, but recently with the adoption of MLD4 in EU (soon to be MLD5) and Swiss joining the UBO registry, those days are over.
They are even beginning to crack down on the Geneva Freeports.
(I think you are wrong on SAC, he actually likes art)
I wouldn't doubt that he likes art. I hear he has some really nice work in his collection, so he isn't just shopping randomly.
The more I think about this and discuss it, the more queasy I feel.
Banksy definitely was in on it. So he's (once again) criticizing and undercutting the commerce of the art world while also profiting from the publicity.
The auction house was probably in on it. So, ditto. Plus now Banksy and Sotheby's are colluding.
The victim at the end of this is the buyer. Although - who knows? - maybe the buyer was also in on it. In which case the entire thing is a fabrication and the only audience being duped is us.
Whether the duped buyer comes out ahead financially is not the issue. The buyer bid on a whole work of art, and ended up with something else entirely.
And maybe you don't care about the obscenely wealthy buyer. But that's a kind of situational morality that's hard to justify. Whether (s)he is rich or poor, (s)he was a victim of a prank.