Banksy Shreds Painting After It's Auctioned Off

[Essence Lumin]

IMHO, what Bansky did was destroying other peoples property on purpose.
If I had bought that artwork I would go to the police.

It might be a problem to argue in court. If a manufacturer destroyed a TV after purchase they have destroyed the purpose of the TV. But if a piece of art is destroyed then the argument would need to be made about what the purpose of the art was.

 

[Plurabelle Laszlo]

IMHO, what Bansky did was destroying other peoples property on purpose.

Some people say that about his graffitis, too.

 

[Kara Spengler]

What is it with you always making everything about yourself?

When I talk about Banksy's approach to art and how he takes the fact into account that his work won't last forever, I'm not talking about a random other guy or what you did in the 80s, I'm talking about Banksy.

Maybe your artist made art the ordinary way that requires some physical object to hang around - but Banksy doesn't art in that manner. Nobody gives a shit about your painting.

WTF? She was talking about how she would react if a print she owned was shredded.

 

[Sid]

Some people say that about his graffitis, too.

If he would paint something unsolicited on my apartment wall, I would press charges. And would remove it after that.
He simply has to act within the law. Artist or not.

Added: If he wants to paint on a wall, fine. Buy (or arrange permissions for) a wall first.
If an artist wants to paint on a canvas, he needs to buy a canvas first too.

Here is an artist at work about a 10 minutes walk away from my apartment building.
He made sure to have all the permits first. And that's the way things should go if you don't own the wall.

 

[Plurabelle Laszlo]

If he would paint something unsolicited on my apartment wall, I would press charges. And would remove it after that.
He simply has to act within the law. Artist or not.

You be you. I would be delighted and never move out again.

Legal aspects are only one tiny fraction of what is going on here. Most street artists are constantly violating rules. Messing with property, questioning the concept of property, playing with the concept of "art as investment" is part of it. I personally think that is what controversial art -should- do. Even though it of course puts artists at risk. It's up to society and to the individual how much of this art they are willing to tolerate - and their often very revealing reaction -is- part of the artistic process, too.

I personally value norm-breaking acts like Pussy Riot's performance at a church, Banksy's Guantanamo-inmate at Disney World or yes, this hilarious and multi-facetted act of reclaiming and destruction.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

IMHO, what Bansky did, was destroying other peoples property on purpose.
If I had bought that artwork, or was the owner of the auction house, I would go to the police.

That was my first thought, too -- that this is criminal damage, and it must have occurred to Bansky and his associates, too. This is why I'm wondering who sent the piece to auction. I don't think we know who the seller is.

I'm wondering if the seller is not, in fact, Bansky himself, possibly acting through an agent. That would remove his criminal liability, assuming (as I think is probably the case, that the seller owns the painting until payment is received).

 

[Emma krokus]

it raises an interesting question about who owns art...

 

[Sid]

it raises an interesting question about who owns art...

I think the one that has it rightfully in possession, just like a chair, fork or a book. It was once intellectual property when designed, but once sold it is the property of the seller buyer. Except the right to duplicate unauthorized.
In a neighboring city there was a water installation made by an artist. When the city wanted to tear it down because of restructuring the vicinity, the artist went to court. The city won. They were the formal owner of the water installation and could proceed. They didn't need to rebuild it elsewhere.

 

[Essence Lumin]

I'm wondering if the seller is not, in fact, Bansky himself, possibly acting through an agent. That would remove his criminal liability, assuming (as I think is probably the case, that the seller owns the painting until payment is received).

Some people have speculated that the buyer was Bansky, possibly acting through an agent. Or that the whole thing was staged for the media.

 

[Kara Spengler]

What was the trigger for the shredder?

Given how close the timing was I assume someone sent a signal. Which means they were destroying someone else's property.

If it was just bad luck that it went off then Banksy is probably not in trouble. It was just bad luck.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

Banksy "commenting" on the nature of art and the art market is a major theme of their work (and has a long history in modern art, going back at least to the Armory Show where Duchamp submitted a signed urinal as sculpture).

This incident has a lot of unknowns. Who sold the work? Who bought the work? Was it insured?

It would be a bit obvious that something was off. I have hung a lot of paintings, and the mechanism might not be visible, but it added to the weight and changed the center of gravity of the work. It would be clear to the art handlers that something was inside the unusually deep frame with the sealed back. With Banksy, that would add to the intrigue.

Having the mechanism go off right after the auction indicates that Banksy or a proxy was watching (and probably operating a remote). It also made the ownership question complicated. The painting was in the middle of a transaction: the gavel fell, essentially creating a contract between the buyer and the auction house as agents of the seller that would be completed at the transfer of payment and physical custody of the painting.

If Banksy was the seller, they gave the buyer space to back out since there was no transfer yet. They could decide then to complete the sale or not.

If Banksy was the buyer, then they would be fine legally if the sale is completed, since that would transfer title to the party responsible for shredding the painting. The seller still gets paid.

If Banksy was the buyer AND the seller (which I would bet real money is the case) then the only party who stands to lose is the auction house. As long as they get their fees, everyone is made whole.

If Banksy was neither the buyer nor the seller, then there is some legal exposure (but it would be an interesting question since European law grants more rights to the artist after a sale than most of the US aside from California and New York). But the incident would, as noted, potentially increase the value of the work. Most people active as collectors of modern art would be hesitant to press the issue absent a complete loss (say, burning the painting to ash). If anyone were to submit an insurance claim, then we would have a messy legal situation, which would be more complicated if the value goes up.

Banksy is almost defiantly the seller, at the very least. Any other buyer in the high end market would have had the work cataloged and documented for insurance purposes. The mechanism adds weight and bulk, and it would have been noticed no matter how they tried to conceal it. Plus Banksy says the shredder was placed "in case it ever went to auction" but had to know that the batteries would still be good for the stunt to work.

And despite the many comments here, I would push back at the characterization of collectors in the modern art world as uninterested speculators. In Columbus especially, we have a number of collections donated to the Columbus Museum of Art and the Wexner Center that were personally curated by wealthy collectors. You can tell that Columbus is more "new money" because our cultural institutions tend to be more committed to modern art, while Cincinnati and Cleveland have more classical art. Wexner in particular (founder of Limited Brands, which has owned Victoria's Secret, Lane Bryant, Bath & Body Works, Abercombie & Fitch, and a number of others) has personally built a collection which he then donated to the museum on the OSU campus that is named for him. (Wexner was also in the news recently for quiting the Republican Party after a conversation with Obama). Many collectors are passionate and knowledgeable about modern art, and interested in more than just the dollar value of their collections.

 

[Essence Lumin]

What was the trigger for the shredder?

Given how close the timing was I assume someone sent a signal. Which means they were destroying someone else's property.

If it was just bad luck that it went off then Banksy is probably not in trouble. It was just bad luck.

It wasn't bad luck. Banksy said he arranged the whole thing.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

I'm of two minds here: If he is trying to make a statement about the art world, that's all well and good, in particular if he is not the seller. I'm curious about it's history, in whose hands it landed, how and why.

Yet, I can't help but think that once it was sold, it was no longer his to destroy. Now, if he's the buyer, well then, I guess he is entitled to do with it as he pleases. If not the buyer, then it was kind of a shitty thing to do and its increase in value would have little merit to me, if I was a buyer. But then, I don't dabble in buying art for hundreds of thousands of dollars. If I buy a piece of art it is because I want that piece of art, not because I am trying to make a profit. But then, perhaps, that is the whole point.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

And it is worth noting that, intentionally or not, the shredder only cut the bottom half of the work. I suspect that it will be removed from the frame and attached to a backing sheet. The owner can at that point have it returned to the original frame with the device disabled (I would remove the batteries for long-term storage at the very least) or place it in a new frame, preserving the mechanism separately. It is not really that difficult as conservation work goes as long as you don't try to hide the traces of the cutting at the lower half of the work.

 

[Essence Lumin]

Yeah, it's not like it shredded it into little dots like better shredders do.

 

[Rose Karuna]

Initially when I saw this on the news my reaction was a bit like Wolf's, plus (dude, someone just shredded 1.4 million dollars) plus this However my husband, also watching the news with me, was like, wow, that's really awesome performance art. He presented pretty much the same case that Beebs did and even though I was I did understand what he was saying. I just don't think I had the same appreciation for the art/act of art that he did.

 

[Nika Talaj]

And it is worth noting that, intentionally or not, the shredder only cut the bottom half of the work. I suspect that it will be removed from the frame and attached to a backing sheet...

Weeel, I dunno, depends on how the owner feels about the act of shredding. If it were mine, I would preserve it exactly as is, with the painting dangling from the shredder. I would then have a totally unique version of this (otherwise not particularly interesting) work. I mean, the original painting of the girl letting her heart balloon fly is, to me, a little Hallmark-ish.

Given the way Banksy talked about setting this up originally, I kinda felt that s/he constructed this then let it out into the wild. I'd be surprised if Banksy were the seller. Wouldn't amaze me if Banksy were the buyer, tho.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

Legal aspects are only one tiny fraction of what is going on here...

The great God Primus would like to have a word with you!!!

But really, it sounds like the buyer was okay with it, so I'm fine with it. Performance art is cool and all, but not above the law.

 

[Beebo Brink]

When you think about it, what people are really buying is "the Banksy experience." Because really, the original was okay but that ain't no million dollars worth of image there (yes, a totally subjective opinion!). It's value lies in its proximity to that specific artist and he delivered even more of an experience than anyone expected, directly to that piece, in a way that simply can't be duplicated. He truly made that a unique and exceptional print telling quite a story. And that's part of what art is about -- the story.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

When you think about it, what people are really buying is "the Banksy experience." Because really, the original was okay but that ain't no million dollars worth of image there (yes, a totally subjective opinion!). It's value lies in its proximity to that specific artist and he delivered even more of an experience than anyone expected, directly to that piece, in a way that simply can't be duplicated. He truly made that a unique and exceptional print telling quite a story. And that's part of what art is about -- the story.

Right. His fans seem to be cool with it, so I think it's fine. I don't think something like that would be okay to do in other situations, but I'm not his target audience, so I'll gladly drop it.