Slashdot Mirror
Banksy Artwork Self-Destructs At Auction Right After Being Sold For $1.3 Million (cbsnews.com)
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.
Which tells you everything you need to know about how specious and capricious the valuation model is for the art market.
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?
at $1.3 Million they have the funds to sue in court
I need total disdain for my profession and those surrounding it?
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
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.
What I find amazing is that there doesn't seem to be a video showing actual shredding. Just the aftermath.
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.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
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.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
As an erstwhile collector of art, a nerd, and a wannabe evil genius, I am simultaneously appalled, amused, and envious. Bravo, sir. Well played.
A "shitty stunt" that likely has increased the value of the work for the buyer?
Some art-market watchers have suggested the work -- which shows a girl reaching toward a heart-shaped balloon -- could be worth even more in its shredded state.
The entite "art' scene is a bunch of pretentious snobish drug addict pricks with way more money than brains, in a huge dick comparison and circle jerk, with not a single person in there having even a single clue. Just like wine "experts", "audiophes" and the likes.
The more he can expose how much of a joke they are, and the more pain they are having during it, the better. Bonus points for makin money off of it.
Banksy gets the $1.3M (minus seller fees), so she's got the funds to defend a suit in court.
Word of the day: erstwhile
Today I looked that word up.
Tomorrow, erstwhile will be the erstwhile word of the day.
Here: https://www.cnn.com/style/arti...
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Well, not exactly. There's no amount of money that's going to protect her here, the social media post is too incriminating.
It depends on if the the person receiving the painting presses charges. They probably won't because the valuation of it went up as a result, but what banksy did was cut and dry breaking the law. The moment it was sold it was no longer banksy's property to do with as she wanted, which makes her actions destruction of another person's property valued at 1.3M. It would be like if someone built you a house and then right after selling it to you, burned it down.
This isn't legal by any stretch of the imagination, or should be.
Banksy is a he you tool
The only thing I dislike more than artists who make pseudointellectual and highly pretentious art intended (like Banksy) are the people who buy this kind of stuff. Respects to banksy. Too bad there isn't a video of the actual moment when the painting goes through the shredder.
The only thing I dislike more than artists who make pseudointellectual and highly pretentious art (like Banksy) are the people who buy this kind of stuff. Respects to banksy. Too bad there isn't a video of the actual moment when the painting goes through the shredder.
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!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Shitty stunt? I say performance art of the highest order.
Bravo!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Each shredded piece of paper is now worth 1 million dollars.
Indeed. Absolutely, fucking brilliant.
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 sudden natural disaster or other casualty before delivery is made to the buyer, then the buyer can say the item changed from what they agreed to buy, so they no longer agree to a sale --- and the seller or auction house best have some insurance policy to help repay them for the loss: which is whatever the lost sale is minus salvage value of what's left of the item (if anything).
just an excuse for rich folks with too much money to spend a day out? Crap like this is what makes me wish for the glory days of a 90% marginal tax rate. If you're gonna shred your money anyway might as well spend it on roads and schools.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You're such a fucking moron. Of course Sotheby's is insured and of course they won't need their insurance for it. This is art. They'll ask the buyer if he still wants it. If yes, he'll get it, if no, they can auction it for 2 million pound.
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 & independently the possibility of criminal prosecution ("conversion", for example, might be a tort... but in most jurisdictions, it can ALSO be a criminal offense under certain conditions). The catch with the criminal angle is that the buyer purchased "experimental art" from someone KNOWN for doing things like this, so Banksy could semi-legitimately argue that the unanticipated public shredding was itself integral the art & what was purchased.
TL/DR: legally, it's the kind of case only the lawyers would collectively win. If the buyer is unhappy, their best recourse would honestly be to just flip the painting to someone else & walk away. At most, a vengeful buyer might spend a fortune, waste time testifying in court, give Banksy a metaphorical black eye... and be blacklisted as a potential art buyer going forward. "Experimental art" is, by definition, kind of fucked up by "normal person standards", and that applies to BOTH artists AND patrons.
So what the buyer got for 1.3 million dollars was unique first-of-its-kind performance art....
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.
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.
Look at people's faces in the video. I'm pretty sure no cash is changing hands, unless maybe the buyer is interested in keeping it this way. It was a spraypaint stencil to begin with so I don't know shredding it really detracts from the value, certainly not the display value. It's a unique piece of art and if I had it I know it would bring a smile to my face every time I looked at it.
doesn't it remain his\her (original owners) to do as they please until the monies transfered and the paperwork done?
Duchamps distal phalanges are pinching his pelvic girdle in his grave. Too bad the old f****r didn't make his Fountain flush itself at Sotheby's.
It makes you wonder if they were the winning bidder?
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
There is a (weak) argument to be made that the shredding was PART of the art installation.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Lulz. SJW pronouners gotta put women first because they have the qualification of possessing vaginas.
Please never sit on a jury or vote in any election. You are either a too-smart college freshman who falsely thinks he really is that smart or a complete fucking idiot.
Each strip is now worth 1.4 million
Windows 10 did the latest update and shredded the only user file.
No. Just because some morons now claim it is worth 2x does not make it so. You are simply wrong. Furthermore, destroying something that is not yours is simply illegal. Oh but your honor when I ran ove his wife, the life insurance he got was worth a million dollars so we are cool right?
Idiot.
I like this concept.
A portable shredder that could be on standby for 12 years and work correctly on remote command is worth the 1.2M. The shredded Banksy is just gravy. Buyer must be ecstatic.
News For Nerds
Stuff That Matters
None Of The Above
Or you just whooshed.
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 bid on, if they so choose. (However I suspect they will actually keep it... as you say, it may be valued even higher now)
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
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).
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Sounds like a good start to me to help humanity recalibrate its system of values. Can we extend this to the Louvre, and work our way down?
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 bid on, if they so choose. (However I suspect they will actually keep it... as you say, it may be valued even higher now)
How do you know?
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Now it open the market for those that prefer to enable scanlines :)
Read the fine print. License must not have permitted transferring the work.
I support your assertion and say the shredding is 100% part of the installation.
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.....
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
The art was not destroyed.
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 being pranked by this work.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
It's as if you, in the same sort of shortsightedness displayed by Banksy, missed how his whole statement about commercialization of art backfired when his "performance art" caused the object to be valued at twice as much. His statement about art literally turned into him shitting on art itself. There's nothing brilliant about it, and it's entirely undeserving of a bravo.
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.
Banksy's "Balloon Girl" shredded in the auction!
And it's as if you, who could not be more ill-placed to speak authoritatively on the matter, are insisting upon an intent which is solely attributed to your own musings.
Banksy got to eat, son.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I wish I had such little credibility for my works to be worth millions.
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.
But I know what I like and I like that.
It's as if you, in the same sort of shortsightedness displayed by Banksy, missed how his whole statement about commercialization of art backfired when his "performance art" caused the object to be valued at twice as much. His statement about art literally turned into him shitting on art itself. There's nothing brilliant about it, and it's entirely undeserving of a bravo.
You really think someone thinking about his art and its place in the art world like Banksy wouldn't foresee that the price would increase, in particular when it is half shredded? That's simply an additional level of commentary that you didn't get
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Instagram
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
My Armani will be representing itself, thank you very much.
I had a sucky sig.
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 natural disaster or other casualty before delivery is made to the buyer, then the buyer can say the item changed from what they agreed to buy,
Those are all external. The self-shredding was part of the artwork.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
It sounds to me like the destruction was remotely triggered moments after the sale. Thus the artwork did not destroy itself. A person destroyed it via remote control.
It was represented as a complete & undamaged painting.
Was it? Auctions are cavet emptor, provided the auction house discolses anything it is reasonably expected to have known. Given the rarity of hidden shredders, I thik it's a fair assumption that it was reasonable for them to not have known about it.
It was sold as a complete and undamaged painting.
Was it? It was sold as:
Additionally
The buyer should absolutely be able to reject the item, as materially different from what they bid on
It's no though. It is and remains a genuine Banksy. The shredding was materially always part of it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Banksy gets it. He is trying to tell everyone.
His wife was also transitioned to her final state.
If the art 'transformed' after the purchase was made, then it's a misrepresentation of what's being sold. Ford doesn't get to come into my laneway and spraypaint the truck yellow.
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...
That would probably actually increase the value of existing pieces, as they'd be "art from before Banksy sold out".
search for auto-destructive art. Some was sold before it destructed. >50 year old idea.
LOL for this article though - captcha = "divided"
Banksy is a he not a she.
If, to protest fishing, you throw a salmon at a politician... is your art somehow wrong, for doing the thing you dislike, to avoid more of it?
Probably not.
I don't think you understand art or ideas or culture very well, Carl.
Most amusingly, Banksy has you upset and vocal, supporting the position he claims to support, and you think his art was "shortsighted".
Banksy is shit. A vandal. So he's "vandalised" his own "work."
And someone still gets to launder money through this piece of junk.
Sorry, "installation."
I've seen 10 year old kids draw stuff like this. The only reason it is "valued" so high is because of the stuff shirt, nose in the air morons that pay that much for this. Oh well...not my money, really don't give a rip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
What is there was a bomb in the artwork?
I'd agree with Seth. That the shredder was built into the frame is convincing evidence that this was always part of the piece itself, just a part that hadn't previously revealed itself.
I'm curious who the seller was, and how it was considered to be worth that much given it was just a print. That's dodgy as hell.
Fairly it's worth that much now though, just on notoriety as well as the artist's name and reputation.
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.
The shredder was built into the frame years ago (according to the artist). So how did he trigger the frame? Any sort of wireless listener would have run out of battery. The tech here is actually pretty interesting.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
...the whole dang point was......what???
Didn't see much mention of this, but the whole fine art system is basically a way for the really rich to trade wealth without taxation or regulation. The galleries, museums and auction houses play their role in making sure the prices stay high, including just making up bids, refusing to sell to certain people and so on. It's a great way to launder money too.
And Bansky is playing right into it. If they really didn't care about that system or capitalism, they would refuse to let any of their art to be sold at auction or not allow any one piece to be valuated for more than the average yearly wage in a given country (as an example).
And this is a perfect example. The owner of the destroyed piece can keep it around and when they have a really good day on the market, they loan it to a museum, which gladly says "well, it's now worth ten million because of the novelty, so we value your donation at 1 million" and poof, there's 1 million they don't have to pay taxes on thanks to their kind donation. Rinse, repeat. It's a scam for the super rich, nothing more.
If he remote controlled it, he destroyed property he didn't own.
"She"? You know that for a fact, or you just showing off your "woke" credentials?
Transience and mutability have always been factors in street art, it is often quickly destroyed, defaced, modified or enhanced.
Therefore destruction is very much in keeping with this form. However I think there might be more to this.
In Banksy's video, the blades are clearly parallel to the picture surface and they would not cut it.
When we see the 'shreds' come out, they look strange, they shows signs of being rolled up. There is also space below the blades. How would the shredded part pass out of the bottom cleanly, they would not, they would collect in that void. That void is large enough for two 'rolls'. A roller to collect the actual picture and roller to unroll shreds out the slot.
It reminds me of the magic trick of printing, unprinting bank notes. It could even be a clue to an inspiration with fits with his narrative.
Well, that goes for Shit in a Can as well. The intent was still there. And you can debate whether a probable result beats intent, which may be the point made by the artist.
Probably it may be sold by x2. Worth? for me, before, almost nothing, after, nothing
The stuff that came out of the bottom looked like paper, not canvas.
Nerds aren't the ones doing this my friend.
Sure its easy to blame nerds for everything, but you can't here.
My inclination would have been to have used a counter weight to power the roller pushing the painting through the blades. Then you only need a battery to operate the trigger to release the counter weight. I mean if you're building it from scratch and expect not to use it for years mechanical sounds preferable to electrical to me. This might also explain why only half the paper was shredded.
That's just your personal speculation, though. It's more likely that people who spend millions on art actually care for it.
Damn you Bansky!
Those are all external. The self-shredding was part of the artwork.
Acts of deliberate sabotage before transfer by the artist who commissioned the auction house to sell the work are even STRONGER reasons
for the buyer to declare the sale invalid and back out.
It's probably not happening in this case only because the art experts and the buyer's advisors believe this actually increases the uniqueness and value of the piece.
No, it is damaged. It is a destroyed copy of "Girl with Balloon". The item description for the auction (eg what the buyer was bidding on) included the phrasing: "mounted on board, in artist's frame", which is clearly no longer valid.
In fact the artwork has subsequently been re-titled as "Love is in the Bin", a NEW ORIGINAL ARTWORK, that was created "live" during the auction.
The buyer CHOSE to go through with the purchase, even though it was not what they originally bid on. Meaning they were not obliged to.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/entert...
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
And... you think the shredded painting still meets the above description?
It clearly does not.
It's no longer mounted. It's no longer in a frame. The dimensions no longer accurately describe a bunch of shredded strips.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
The buyer CHOSE to go through with the purchase, even though it was not what they originally bid on. Meaning they were not obliged to.
No, we have no idea if the buyer was obliged since it was never adjudicated. The buyer chose not to contest it given that the work doubled in value according to experts.
The very fact that it's been recognized as a new artwork, worth double the value, means Sotheby's would be quite stupid to insist on the sale.
It would be in their interest to re-auction it and make more money, if the woman decided not to go through with the purchase.
Really don't know why you are so adamant that the buyer should've been forced to go through with the purchase. It changed into a new item during the auction.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
I'm not so sure why you are convinced it changed into a new item. That's not even a physically rational belief. It certainly changed state, and everyone learned something about it's nature, but it was the same item.