Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just watch.




Fething awesome.

I think it was intended to stop half way through, the true value if the piece has in no way been diminshed. Though it will need careful display.

Jesus. What an epic level troll!

If you sell something to someone, having deliberately designed that thing so that it self-destructs after it has been bought, isn't that fraud?

Unless the 'winning bidder' is actually Banksy himself (or someone bidding on his behalf)... which is shill bidding and still a crime in UK and EU law.

But I guess "Grafitti Artist Turns Out To Be A Scofflaw" is not exactly news, is it?

Bravo!

 Duskweaver wrote:
If you sell something to someone, having deliberately designed that thing so that it self-destructs after it has been bought, isn't that fraud?

Unless the 'winning bidder' is actually Banksy himself (or someone bidding on his behalf)... which is shill bidding and still a crime in UK and EU law.

But I guess "Grafitti Artist Turns Out To Be A Scofflaw" is not exactly news, is it?

It hasn't been paid for yet so I don’t think that would be the case, it being destroyed voids the contract. Anyway, I imagine it doesn’t count as shill bidding if Banksy was going to ensure he won whatever the amount bid, shill bidding is about inflating the price for another bidder to pay over the odds. And Sotheby’s were probably in on it if so making it a stunt, it wasn’t really for sale.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Duskweaver wrote:
If you sell something to someone, having deliberately designed that thing so that it self-destructs after it has been bought, isn't that fraud?

Unless the 'winning bidder' is actually Banksy himself (or someone bidding on his behalf)... which is shill bidding and still a crime in UK and EU law.

But I guess "Grafitti Artist Turns Out To Be A Scofflaw" is not exactly news, is it?

It hasn't been paid for yet so I don’t think that would be the case, it being destroyed voids the contract. Anyway, I imagine it doesn’t count as shill bidding if Banksy was going to ensure he won whatever the amount bid, shill bidding is about inflating the price for another bidder to pay over the odds. And Sotheby’s were probably in on it if so making it a stunt, it wasn’t really for sale.

It's not destroyed, just changed. This is part of an art movement trying to get our concept of art changed. Banksy, Emin and Hurst (amongst others) are not everyone's cup of tea, but they push the boundaries of what is considered art.

How much do you think it worth now? All the publicity will not have reduced the price some will pay, just to say they own it. Auction price before £1M.... Now....£1.5M? So if the 'winning bidder' doesn't want to pay, the seller reauctions it for more. Sotheby's get more commission , so they win either way, plus more publicity to boot

Honestly I think once you reach Banksy levels of advertising you're not selling art you're selling a brand name - and artists at that level generally know that that is what they are selling. Stuff like this is done to generate attention and chatter (its doing it right now here on the website). Heck Banksy is a name because he's managed to keep himself (or even her self) hidden from the public eye - that mystery alone helps generate chatter and talk and free advertising.


They can go all kinds of nuts like this and get away with it. Heck at this level many of the works of art being bought are being invested in to either protect money and hold its value or on the chance that it increases in value over time. Just the same as buying properties or other types of investment. The bonus with art is that its a lot easier to trade it around and move it around and its a lot smaller to store and keep.

I only mean ‘destroyed’ in the most technical sense, it’s been irreversibly altered from the condition in which it was agreed to be sold without the consent of the owner (assuming it’s not entirely a stunt and it has a genuine owner). Sale of goods laws don’t ponder about the artistic merit of things so much as their material form to enforce contract. If anything the publicity around this will make it worth more, but that wasn’t the point I was making as to the legitimacy of the sale.

Reminds me of why i dislike Modern art - talent is not normally required only showmanship

Whilst Banksy appears to have the talent that most modern artists lack (and often in fact disdain) all this did was increase the value of the remants - which does not appear to be the idea but shows that such "art" is seldom valued for asthetics or ability but rather merely because its considered art by such valueless creatures as art critcics.

Be interesting if his art was actually any good

Could be an interesting case for someone to investigate under sale of goods act....

SELLER: That's not what I sold, it's been irreversibly altered without my permission.
AUCTIONEER: I apologise, we will void the sale
BUYER: The you will. I bid and won that, fair and square. Here is the money for it...
SELLER: I'm keeping it now it's worth more.

Alternatively...…..

SELLER (Banksy):That showed them.
BUYER (Banksy): It did.
AUCTIONEER: Thank you for the 10% commission on the sale

I read that someone involved in the auction (maybe a Sotherbys spokesperson?) estimates the value of the piece (in its new shredded form) has gone up about 80%.

Art is weird. Imagine you were the owner and had the piece on display somewhere. I know for a fact if it was me and my mum came to visit she'd just bin them and tell me off for the mess.

 Riquende wrote:
I read that someone involved in the auction (maybe a Sotherbys spokesperson?) estimates the value of the piece (in its new shredded form) has gone up about 80%.

After all the media attention if got, hell yes it's value shot up. Everyone knows about this particular artwork, now.
It might have been different had it been completely shredded, but to have stopped halfway through like that would just add to it's value for many people.

If it's selling for a million quid, the state of it doesn't matter. It's going in a bank vault as an investment; no-one is going to look at that again.

Based on the “making of”, it’s seems pretty likely that this was a fake shredding. It seems like the blades were not facing the right direction to shred anything, so I’m guessing the real picture is just rolled up inside the frame and a previously shredded picture just rolled out the bottom.

There's a lot of points which indicate that this was a clever stunt.

1. Sotheby's closely examine anything they sell, and would have noticed the odd weight of the frame.
2. Pieces being auctioned aren't mounted on the walls, they are put at the front of the hall.
3. The price was oddly exact.
4. All the things people have mentioned previously about selling damaged goods and the like.

As for Banksy being an artist, I reckon he is, because a lot of modern art is about conceptualism, not technique, and Banksy comes up with good ideas. This is one of them.

But yeah, Art Or Arse is always a good debate though it's probably impossible to come to a conclusion.

I think its possible to come to a conclusion, its just that the world we live in today is so open when it comes to art that some dislike to deny anything as an artistic failure. Plus once you put money into the equation sanity goes out the window (too many critics and rich people rely on the income from bad art that they will justify it like mad to ensure that their stashed art remains high value).

I think its also perpetuated by the fact that art is a very badly taught subject at many schools. Few art teachers take or have th time in the system to actually teach students the mechanics of how to even draw, let alone moving onto the concepts of composition. The result is that several generations have grown up with the idea that art is like magic - you have to be born with it to achieve it and its a skill no one can learn (oddly people don't believe that you have to be born an electrician though)

The opening line of E.H. Gombrich's The Story of Art, published in 1950 is 'There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists'. Art is about interpretation, in the mind of the artist and of the viewer. The precise technique isn't as important (otherwise how do you define "art" when it includes cave paintings, stonecarving, metal c asting, painting, singing, composing, playing a musical instrument, writing, acting, spoken word performance and whatever else I've missed out?).

Drawing isn't art. It can be used to create art, but it isn't necessary.

The market for artworks does distort things, though. You could argue that a good fake of a Rembrandt is just as good as the one actually painted by Rembrandt (Perhaps you can argue that Rembrandt did the actual Art when he originally imagined the painting, but plenty of famous artists did different versions of the same painting, or got their apprentices to do the boring bits), but only one of them is worth millions of quid. The price doesn't define it as art. Which is something that Banksy has addressed in his works. This one, where he destroyed the work without destroying its value, or when he sold original works ("worth" tens of thousands of pounds) from a stall in New York for $60 each.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Drawing isn't art.

And numeracy isn't engineering. But if you can't even do basic arithmetic, you're not an engineer. And if you can't draw a picture of a thing and make it actually look like that thing, then you're not an artist.

(With the proviso that 'thing' in this context doesn't necessarily have to be a physical object.)

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
The opening line of E.H. Gombrich's The Story of Art, published in 1950 is 'There really is no such thing as Art. There are only artists'. Art is about interpretation, in the mind of the artist and of the viewer. The precise technique isn't as important (otherwise how do you define "art" when it includes cave paintings, stonecarving, metal c asting, painting, singing, composing, playing a musical instrument, writing, acting, spoken word performance and whatever else I've missed out?).

Drawing isn't art. It can be used to create art, but it isn't necessary.

The market for artworks does distort things, though. You could argue that a good fake of a Rembrandt is just as good as the one actually painted by Rembrandt (Perhaps you can argue that Rembrandt did the actual Art when he originally imagined the painting, but plenty of famous artists did different versions of the same painting, or got their apprentices to do the boring bits), but only one of them is worth millions of quid. The price doesn't define it as art. Which is something that Banksy has addressed in his works. This one, where he destroyed the work without destroying its value, or when he sold original works ("worth" tens of thousands of pounds) from a stall in New York for $60 each.

Its a tricky one - one element that was addressed in the previous post was that a large proportion of famous and acclaimed modern art only requires performance (often in its promotion and the slavish adoration of art critics) and not actual skill or talent in elements such as draughtsmanship, composition or other formal elements - indeed the art world/critics are often extremely dismissive of any such ability in favour of concept only.

for me it is sad to see the disdain that "realistic" art is held in as opposed the near worship of conceptual art.

Whereas the ability to "sell" you work was always part of a successful artists skill set, I feel that the loading has massively changed so that the ability to sell your art or the concept behind it when there is no actual skill involved in say drawing a red square or promoting an untidy bed. Yes notoriety sells and like the fashion industry - the more outlandish and talent less creations generate the most press, partly due to the fact that "Anyone could do it".

Whilst there are extremely talented painters who could and can reproduce a Rembrandt, very few people in the street could so - whereas much modern art produced is what a child or chimpanzee could do (and has done) and is also marketed as such for the shock value!

I recall a programme where such lauded artists as Tracey Emin hosted a arts programme and delighted in highlighting the fact that they had no discernible artistic skill set, couldn't draw, paint etc - but what they could do was sell a concept - in fact again she was happy to pour disdain on such skills.

Tracey Emin has life drawing skills..,.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/may/25/tracey-emin-drawing-art

NSFW pics are involved!

I don't think you can equate being an artist wih being an engineer, and thereby say that if you can't draw you can't be an artist.

Lots of art in the widest sense isn't even pictorial, sculpture, poetry and music, for instance. There there's a whole genre of abstract art, which includes modern stuff and the kind of dreamtime art produced by Australians thousands of years ago.

Not to mention that drawing isn't even required with non-abstract visual/pictoral art - many painted artworks are made without drawing guiding linework beforehand. Especially in the case of live landscapes or portraits, where there isn't even time to make any concept sketches.

A degree of skill is required for any art, I suppose. The skill required will depend on the artwork in question. With some of the more ... avant-garde works, I suppose the skill is simply the imagination required to conceive of the piece.

Whilst there are extremely talented painters who could and can reproduce a Rembrandt, very few people in the street could so - whereas much modern art produced is what a child or chimpanzee could do (and has done) and is also marketed as such for the shock value!

I suppose the thing there is that I could have produced "Unmade Bed", but I didn't. And I don't think I would have come up with a justification or message that the piece conveys. Also, context is important; the one of the flashing lightbulb relies on the fact that you're viewing it in a gallery - a space for viewing art - and not just in my living room. Agsin, that's saying (to me) that Art is in the mind of the Artist and Viewer, not its own thing; if I look at something and think "that's Art, that is", then it's Art.

Most of it's stuff I don't want to look at and wouldn't spend a quid on (never mind a million or so), but it gets people thinking about something, then fair play to them.

Personally I think if you have to write an essay to justify a bit of "art" that is your unmade bed transported to the gallery then its not really art. Yes it might make you think about something, but on that score a journal article can do the same. When we define art as something that generates an emotion or thinking or such it gets so thin a definition that it loses all real meaning

 Overread wrote:
Personally I think if you have to write an essay to justify a bit of "art" that is your unmade bed transported to the gallery then its not really art. Yes it might make you think about something, but on that score a journal article can do the same. When we define art as something that generates an emotion or thinking or such it gets so thin a definition that it loses all real meaning

I totally agree with you, one particular example I absolutely can't stand, is this load of bilge I get the honour of passing everyday on the Tube.



What is it? It's just eggs. Yet this article from the Guardian gives it 5 stars while actually saying very little about what it's meant to be. It states the piece "enlarges the egg as a nucleus of conflict" and creates an image “of fertility, strength, birth and futurity, but also of (over)production, consumption, exploitation and fragility”. I just don't get it at all, I really don't.

Now don't get me wrong, I understand art isn't just pretty pictures (although personally I do prefer those), but when you put 20' fiberglass eggs on a disused Tube platform and discuss how it creates a nucleus of conflict and think your average commuter/tourist/drunken mob getting home from Holborn at 3am is going to think of it the same way, that in my eyes isn't art.

 Overread wrote:
Personally I think if you have to write an essay to justify a bit of "art" that is your unmade bed transported to the gallery then its not really art. Yes it might make you think about something, but on that score a journal article can do the same. When we define art as something that generates an emotion or thinking or such it gets so thin a definition that it loses all real meaning

That is a personal reaction, of course.

Tracey Emin didn't write an essay to justify "My Bed". She let the piece speak for itself. People may have come along later and demanded an essay, but I don't think they got one from her.

It could be said that that invalidates the artwork to the extent that its meaning is created by the interpretation of the viewer as well as the intent of the author.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
A degree of skill is required for any art, I suppose. The skill required will depend on the artwork in question. With some of the more ... avant-garde works, I suppose the skill is simply the imagination required to conceive of the piece.

Whilst there are extremely talented painters who could and can reproduce a Rembrandt, very few people in the street could so - whereas much modern art produced is what a child or chimpanzee could do (and has done) and is also marketed as such for the shock value!

I suppose the thing there is that I could have produced "Unmade Bed", but I didn't. And I don't think I would have come up with a justification or message that the piece conveys. Also, context is important; the one of the flashing lightbulb relies on the fact that you're viewing it in a gallery - a space for viewing art - and not just in my living room. Agsin, that's saying (to me) that Art is in the mind of the Artist and Viewer, not its own thing; if I look at something and think "that's Art, that is", then it's Art.

Most of it's stuff I don't want to look at and wouldn't spend a quid on (never mind a million or so), but it gets people thinking about something, then fair play to them.

Indeed but Rembrandt also had to concieve of his painting, the sitter, the pose, the idea behind it, any message he was trying to convey etc and many in the art world only conside that conceptual artists think about their art - which is patenrly not true, its just that more conventional artists also have to use skills to create their composition as well. People did and still do think about depictions in conventional art.

The cynic in me also speculates that many conceptional artists just come up iwth BS to sell what ever they create in five minutes knowing that unlike a conventional artist the "skill" in the creation is so much harder to judge than a conventional artist. They have it much easier in that way


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Personally I think if you have to write an essay to justify a bit of "art" that is your unmade bed transported to the gallery then its not really art. Yes it might make you think about something, but on that score a journal article can do the same. When we define art as something that generates an emotion or thinking or such it gets so thin a definition that it loses all real meaning

That is a personal reaction, of course.

Tracey Emin didn't write an essay to justify "My Bed". She let the piece speak for itself. People may have come along later and demanded an essay, but I don't think they got one from her.

It could be said that that invalidates the artwork to the extent that its meaning is created by the interpretation of the viewer as well as the intent of the author.

Apparently she was defending it....

Emin ardently defended My Bed against critics who treated it as a farce and claimed that anyone could exhibit an unmade bed. To these claims the artist retorted, "Well, they didn't, did they? No one had ever done that before

Or "I am famous" so what ever i do will sell.

What do you think about photography? Is it a medium of art?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What do you think about photography? Is it a medium of art?

Knowing professional and amateur photographers as well as my own attempts I would say yes, the ability to decide and compose a image is at least as impressive as a conceptional artist and then there is often a process that is executed where the image is manipulated and refined to create a whole new piece of art - which again requires skill.

Again then they require the same skills to "sell" their art.

I have yet to see a peice of conceptual art require a modicum of any measurable skill.

Another point worth thinking about is that many conceptualist modern artists are classically trained, but have to some degree rejected classical forms.

I have in mind Mondrian and Philip Glass (composer.)

Tracey Emin attended a design school and a prnting school -- a lot of her work is based on fabrics and textual elements.