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
See also: The KLF burn a million ₤ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Qu...
An artwork by Banksy shredded itself after selling for $1.3M at Sotheby’s
51–60 of 301 posts
Re: An artwork by Banksy shredded itself after selling for $1.3M at Sotheby’s
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not artifact of any financial system, this would happen even if we had full communism, just illegally and with barter/favor payments. It is artifact of human nature.
that's a pretty vapid statement. aren't all crimes an "artifact of human nature"? isn't everything we do and create, for that matter? also, how would a stateless society even have the concept of legality?
A "stateless" society does not exist, as long as people live together they need tp assign certain roles, and that is a "state", however rudimentary. And if roles are not assigned by agreement, someone will create them by force.
Re: An artwork by Banksy shredded itself after selling for $1.3M at Sotheby’s
#53Discovered 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.
Re: An artwork by Banksy shredded itself after selling for $1.3M at Sotheby’s
#54Big 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.
Big money art is not just an investment vehicle, it allows collectors to do things that would be difficult or illegal with other assets.
For example: You and a few of your rich buddies buy up as much artwork as you can from a famous but not too famous dead artist. Say, 10 pieces at a million a piece. I sell my friend one of them for 1.5 million and another for 1.7. I buy his for 2 and 3 million. Repeat a few times, and now you've established a pattern that this artist's work is becoming more valuable. After several years, you all sell your paintings for 5-10 million a piece.
Re: An artwork by Banksy shredded itself after selling for $1.3M at Sotheby’s
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
The art isn't in the artifact.
A lot of it is, or nobody would have been buying to begin with.
The art isn't just in the artifact per se, it's in the causal history of it (and surrounding it), and the messages that can be interpreted from those histories. I wish we actually had two separate words for this - one for "art as in, I look at it and it looks moving", another for "art as in, the whole causal context of this work is interesting". Works are usually a mix of the two. Banksy's work was good in both categories, and just gained a lot in the latter. Compare to e.g. Mona Lisa, which is crap in the first category (both absolutely and relative to much better works that can be produced by anyone with a smartphone camera), and its whole value stems from the latter category - the history and context of the work.
Re: An artwork by Banksy shredded itself after selling for $1.3M at Sotheby’s
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not artifact of any financial system, this would happen even if we had full communism, just illegally and with barter/favor payments. It is artifact of human nature.
With a different kind of accounting, people behaviors may change. The wealthy art consumers want status, prestige, and acceptance as one of the ‘cool’ crowd. Or when buying for investment, they expect some will buy from them for those effects. If we make it much more prestigious and ‘cool’ for people to show off their equivalent donations to starving children, fewer will bid for the drawings and more will donate.
As someone who makes most of his money from non-profit organizations, I can say that "competitive donating" is a sport which many of the older rich people will play. The ones who play hardest are typically near the end of their rope and worried that they won't be remembered fondly or won't get into heaven (see: the catholic church).
Re: An artwork by Banksy shredded itself after selling for $1.3M at Sotheby’s
#57Re: An artwork by Banksy shredded itself after selling for $1.3M at Sotheby’s
#58Big 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.
The funniest part is that people would lose their minds if this happened to a Picasso.
Re: An artwork by Banksy shredded itself after selling for $1.3M at Sotheby’s
#59I'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.
Re: An artwork by Banksy shredded itself after selling for $1.3M at Sotheby’s
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
that's a pretty vapid statement. aren't all crimes an "artifact of human nature"? isn't everything we do and create, for that matter? also, how would a stateless society even have the concept of legality?
A "stateless" society does not exist, as long as people live together they need tp assign certain roles, and that is a "state", however rudimentary. And if roles are not assigned by agreement, someone will create them by force.
i think what communists usually mean by a stateless society is that there's no formal document or structure that authorizes a concentration or monopoly of power within any institution.