Live data from Hacker News

An artwork by Banksy shredded itself after selling for $1.3M at Sotheby’s

artsy.net

171–180 of 301 posts

Re: An artwork by Banksy shredded itself after selling for $1.3M at Sotheby’s

#171
post #18

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.

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 r…

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.

Re: An artwork by Banksy shredded itself after selling for $1.3M at Sotheby’s

#172
post #18

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.

Personally I think it's just as likely he's riffing on the ridiculous ways some behave having discovered a Banksy on the outside wall of some property in order to sell.

Whichever, or even if he is an evil capitalist villain, complete with white cat, laughing at our expense, I still like his messages and style.

Re: An artwork by Banksy shredded itself after selling for $1.3M at Sotheby’s

#173

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…

> is a sorry effect of the financial system we use or the way our society assigns ‘coolness’ score to people and activity.

Sorry, but if you think this is a modern, western, or somehow unique situation in human history you’re lacking a lot of context. This is just how humans work.

A good percentage of people appreciate art, a small percentage of people like flaunting their wealth, and between these two groups societies have elevated artists and art since we stopped roaming the plains and start building cities.

Re: An artwork by Banksy shredded itself after selling for $1.3M at Sotheby’s

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There appears to be a light inside. Compare the unshredded top to the bottom in one of the pictures from the front. https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-bristol-45770028 It probably used that power source.

The light appears to not come from the inside: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Std3LfVx41c&t=33

You're right. Still photos can be deceiving...

Re: An artwork by Banksy shredded itself after selling for $1.3M at Sotheby’s

#176
post #18

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.

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 r…

He also supports terrorist groups like Hamas.

Re: An artwork by Banksy shredded itself after selling for $1.3M at Sotheby’s

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think two orders of magnitude is a reasonable level of wealth inequality.

What gives you the right to decide what other people do with their stuff? How would you feel if someone came along and said "I don't think two orders of magnitude is a reasonable level of wealth inequality, so I'm taking everything you own to give it to poor Africans"? Imagine two people both making $100k/year. One saves/invests half their income, the other saves 0%. In 20 years, one has a million dollars of savings,…

> The saver, by exercising restraint and not consuming everything he produces, has contributed more to the economy by allowing the fruits of his labours to be invested, increasing future productivity.

Is that so? I'm not so sure. How can we know that the spender didn't contribute more to the economy by spending 50k/year more on goods and services?

Re: An artwork by Banksy shredded itself after selling for $1.3M at Sotheby’s

#179
post #18

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.

The funniest part is that people would lose their minds if this happened to a Picasso.

Not if Picasso did it himself...

Re: An artwork by Banksy shredded itself after selling for $1.3M at Sotheby’s

#180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What gives you the right to decide what other people do with their stuff? How would you feel if someone came along and said "I don't think two orders of magnitude is a reasonable level of wealth inequality, so I'm taking everything you own to give it to poor Africans"? Imagine two people both making $100k/year. One saves/invests half their income, the other saves 0%. In 20 years, one has a million dollars of savings,…

The rhetoric here implies that the poster believes there is no middle ground and also poverty is caused by individual, personal flaws (a reasonably close approximation to argue that a rich man is more moral than a poor man inherently because being wealthy is morally good).

>The rhetoric here implies that the poster believes there is no middle ground and also poverty is caused by individual, personal flaws (a reasonably close approximation to argue that a rich man is more moral than a poor man inherently because being wealthy is morally good).

It's not about morality at all; if the universe is deterministic, all behaviour was caused by the big bang, and if it's random, than all behaviour can be traced back to chance. Even in this case that all action is predetermined and nobody is at all responsible for their life (hence the concept of morality makes no sense), in terms of system design it still holds that a system that encourages economically beneficial behaviours (saving/investment) will result in better economic outcomes than a system that penalises them.

The key thing to understand about economics is it tries not to assume any morality. There is no absolute "moral good" (which is trivially provable by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument), value only exists in the minds of people. And the clearest revelation of what people value is what people are willing to spend their time, money and the fruit of their labours on.

Post reply on HN