Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

artsy.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 301 posts

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

#281

Post by irishcoffee »

spuz wrote: post #265
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Banksy, the anti-capitalist artist (Alleged) anti-capitalism and marketing are not mutually exclusive. Banksy has an eye for publicity, from selling his art for $60 on New York’s streets [1] to parading a painted packiderm [2]. Whether it’s to sell his art (which it does), sell his name (which it also does) or sell his ideas (which it does, too) is orthogonal to it being clever and effective marketing. [1] https://…

Yes, in this case Banksy is clearly trying sell his name and idea, I can't dispute that. But the comment I replied to implied it was done in partnership with Sothebys in order to increase the value of his art and therefore make more money from it. At least, that is how I read it. That kind of 'marketing stunt' is one that just doesn't fit into his MO which makes it hard to believe.

It was the very last peice sold. If it had been sold at the beginning or middle, odds are the whole auction shuts down, at best the tone changes. This was calculated.

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

#282

Post by therealdrag0 »

orbifold wrote: post #193
twunde wrote: post #59

I'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.

Jeff Koons Art ist actually pretty good, I can’t say the same of Banksky. The value of Art is sometimes inversely related to how popular it is, because it then can be no longer used to signal that you „get“ it.

To each their own. I google-imaged Jeff Koons, and I didn't find any appealing to look at or would want around my house (except maybe giant flower puppy :P)

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

#283

Post by gscott »

irishcoffee wrote: post #281
spuz wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, in this case Banksy is clearly trying sell his name and idea, I can't dispute that. But the comment I replied to implied it was done in partnership with Sothebys in order to increase the value of his art and therefore make more money from it. At least, that is how I read it. That kind of 'marketing stunt' is one that just doesn't fit into his MO which makes it hard to believe.

It was the very last peice sold. If it had been sold at the beginning or middle, odds are the whole auction shuts down, at best the tone changes. This was calculated.

Someone had to put in new batteries in it and they took it off the wall right away to show that there was no cord. It is possible the auctioneer himself was not in on it but others had to be.

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

#284

Post by sianns »

nyolfen wrote: post #243
avoutthere wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For an "anti-capitalist", he sure has a lot of books for sale on Amazon.

forsooth, the yeoman protests the carucage, and yet uses his plough of oak from the king's very forest!

It's not the Kings forest.

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

#285

Post by Liskni_si »

kowdermeister wrote: post #252
docbrown wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banksy is not typical, though. As noted in other articles, the auction house stated that the artist gave them the frame as it was an integral part of the artwork. This has been planned for some time it seems.

It's quite possible, but are there batteries that last 12 years?

Yes, li-ion batteries in pacemakers last that long.

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

#287

Post by darawk »

Sharlin wrote: post #77
darawk wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Not really. The level of wealth required to reasonably make a purchase like this is what? 20 m…

Two orders of magnitude above something that’s already a ridiculous amount of money globally speaking. That’s not exactly reasonable , the fact that it’s not that much money compared to the real super-rich people is just a reminder of the unfortunate reality of long-tail economy.

I suppose I don't really understand. Why do you think it is bad to have rich people? It's often stated as if it's tautologically true, or self-evident. What do you think is the harm caused by that?

Would the rest of us be better off if we simply deleted the money of the rich?

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

#288

Post by uzbit »

fpgaminer wrote: post #211
ljm wrote: post #201

Part of me feels like this stunt is clever because the nature of the performance improves the value of the work. So it's self-destructive in the technical sense of the term but it was designed in such a way to essentially transform the piece. While shocking in the moment, as the pictures of the scene show, the work has three separate qualities: the original significance of the piece, the new meaning it attains after…

> And on an extra level, I have started to wonder how such a piece could be represented through programming. The website that rots, pixel by pixel, when it isn't viewed; or the application that subtly corrupts itself over time. I suppose that's also already true today. Unmaintained software rots; the OS moves on and the software no longer runs. DRMed software has its servers shut down. Online games get shut down. Etc…

After playing an hour+ of browser emulated Mario Kart 64, and then reading this, it seems that worthwhile art (or software) will be kept alive until it languishes in the cultures mind.

Perhaps this is the statement of the piece, albeit on a shorter timescale. When does a piece of code execute for the last time? When does a piece of art last get appreciated?

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

#289

Post by theoh »

coldtea wrote: post #250
theoh wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Art was never about difficulty of reproduction." While it's true that a skilled forger can effectively copy an old master painting, it's a pretty rare skill to have at a really high level. "Painting factory" copies from China are kitsch and definitely lack nuances that matter in the original. But the skill of making a facsimile (a copper engraving of a painting for an edition of prints, for example) is something tha…

> While it's true that a skilled forger can effectively copy an old master painting, it's a pretty rare skill to have at a really high level. Not that rare. It also depends on the artist. More artists that are not pre-19th century masters are fairly easy to replicate, while their work still sells for millions. > "Painting factory" copies from China are kitsch and definitely lack nuances that matter in the original. T…

I'm not sure I follow your thinking about kitsch, but's a very contested term.

Master art forgers represent an existential threat to art "connoisseurs", it's like what they do is an exploit aimed precisely at fooling a connoisseur's judgement. For obvious reasons they rarely try to pass off new concepts or compositions, just the superficial styles of painting etc. It's like they have a style-transfer filter but no working model of the source artist's thought processes.

Pastiche (which does often attempt to synthesize whole new works) is usually identifiable and not intended to deceive, but AGI will probably eventually blur that distinction as more and more of the characteristics of an artist's work can be captured in some kind of model.

It's not necessarily true that a derivative work is always worth less than the original, particularly if you include something like appropriation art. Elaine Sturtevant was an interesting example of imitations being taken very seriously:

'In 1964, by memorization only, she began to manually reproduce paintings and objects created by her contemporaries with results that can immediately be identified with an original, at a point that turned the concept of originality on its head. She initially focused on works by such American artists as Roy Lichtenstein, Claes Oldenburg, Jasper Johns, and Andy Warhol. Warhol gave Sturtevant one of his silkscreens so she could produce her own versions of his Flowers paintings, and when asked about his technique, once said, "I don't know. Ask Elaine."' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Sturtevant

The work of making a superb pastiche is very highly respected in the art world. See this fictitious 1930s-style animation from a few years ago:

https://www.cartoonbrew.com/shorts/imitation-of-life-sneaks-...

This topic is really fascinating but OTOH the art world is a horrible phenomenon on a social level. It's not a place where deep thinking happens, at least not in public.

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

#290

Post by codeulike »

codeulike wrote: post #30
crooked-v wrote: post #2

> Banksy’s iconic Girl With Balloon (2006) attracted feverish bidding in the room and on the phones, racing past its high estimate of £300,000 to hammer at £860,000, or just over £1 million ($1.3 million with fees). As the gavel slammed, a siren rang out through the salesroom and everyone stood stunned as the Banksy canvas slid through the frame that it was contained in and emerged underneath—but shredded. I'm impres…

The implication is that the frame was a recent addition and that Banksy or an accomplice was in the room to trigger the shredder at the right time

Having thought about it a bit, a shredder is a complicated and unreliable machine for a stunt like this. I reckon there was a roller hidden in the frame with (half) a pre-shredded painting on it. The roller then rolls in the main painting while dispensing the shredded version. Much simpler, and easier to test.
Post reply on HN