Banksy Shreds Painting After It's Auctioned Off

[Ashiri]

Spoiler: Solutions!

I haven't yet used that, and I really hope I don't want to...

 

[Lady Darnk Juniorette]

You fucking people sometimes, oi.

 

[Beebo Brink]

It wasn't hypothetical. But whatever. I'm done with this since people can't seem to attack the words and not the poster.

My reply to your post was on your words only, not on you at all. Other "people" may have done so, but I did not, and I am not them.

Your example was about a work of art that you owned, and whether or not the value of that artwork was damaged, as any possession might be damaged. Just as you might buy a car and then battle over someone taking your car and wrecking it.

This has no relevance to an incident in which the artist himself destroys his own work as performance art. And -- which loops back into the performance art's point -- actually increases the value of the art. Whether it's a PR stunt or biting satire or cynical exploitation... well, we can't really tell can we?

Well played, Banksy.

 

[Pancake]

I always wonder if the artists who work in temporary mediums, or inherently temporary venues, have a fundamentally different sort of perspective about art than those who think of their work as permanent and unchanging. Ice sculptures for example, or sand, I can’t imagine that much effort for so fleeting a piece of work. The joy of creation, and the very fact that it’s temporary, must be part of what draws them to it.

 

[detrius]

I don't make everything about myself.

You're so lucky the SLU archive isn't ready yet.

What else are we supposed to use if we aren't allowed to use our own experiences to relate ideas?

How about this: when someone points out that Banksy treats art as a transient thing (because he wouldn't do graffiti otherwise) just respond to that argument instead of bringing up an unrelated artist?

The artist was Salvador Dali.

So you had an "authentic framed print of Salvador Dali for $200 USD".

Which one was it? Can you describe or name the picture?

Or are you just going to be outraged because I asked questions?

Nobody gives a shit. That's the problem with the whole world. No one gives a shit about anything.

You're damn right - if you respond to a post of mine and don't even attempt to address the points I make, then I don't give a shit about your paintings - and I also don't care if they're works of Salvador Dali or stick figures drawn by your grandchildren.

Since you obviously don't like me why even bother to quote my posts or say anything to me. That's a statement, not a question.

You don't own this forum. Cristiano does and he's the only one who gets to tell people who to they're allowed to respond to.

I could also just as well ask you why you're posting here if you can't handle anything but 100% agreement.

It's pretty obvious to me I'm wasting my time trying to get through to you.

Do you know what would help with getting through to me?

Actually responding to my arguments.

You've already made up your mind that I'm some kind of horrible person and you have no intentions of changing it.

My face right now.

Nobody called you a horrible person.

Just for the record, Mrs "I don't make everything about myself", we're actually on the same side on most issues.

There's just two things that occasionally make me wish we weren't:

1. Your reading comprehension sucks. You regularly miss or misinterpret the arguments you're responding to. This is just another example of that.
2. You're so thin-skinned that the slightest opposition to yourself is likely to result in a massive meltdown.

There's also nothing "already" about all of this. I've seen this going on at SLU for years - this is just the first time I'm taking some time off to blow a gasket.

Enjoy the weather. It's the only weather we've got.

Whatever that means.

 

[Lady Darnk Juniorette]

You're so lucky the SLU archive isn't ready yet.


How about this: when someone points out that Banksy treats art as a transient thing (because he wouldn't do graffiti otherwise) just respond to that argument instead of bringing up an unrelated artist?


So you had an "authentic framed print of Salvador Dali for $200 USD".

Which one was it? Can you describe or name the picture?

Or are you just going to be outraged because I asked questions?


You're damn right - if you respond to a post of mine and don't even attempt to address the points I make, then I don't give a shit about your paintings - and I also don't care if they're works of Salvador Dali or stick figures drawn by your grandchildren.


You don't own this forum. Cristiano does and he's the only one who gets to tell people who to they're allowed to respond to.

I could also just as well ask you why you're posting here if you can't handle anything but 100% agreement.


Do you know what would help with getting through to me?

Actually responding to my arguments.

My face right now.

Nobody called you a horrible person.

Just for the record, Mrs "I don't make everything about myself", we're actually on the same side on most issues.

There's just two things that occasionally make me wish we weren't:

1. Your reading comprehension sucks. You regularly miss or misinterpret the arguments you're responding to. This is just another example of that.
2. You're so thin-skinned that the slightest opposition to yourself is likely to result in a massive meltdown.

There's also nothing "already" about all of this. I've seen this going on at SLU for years - this is just the first time I'm taking some time off to blow a gasket.


Whatever that means.

 

[Beebo Brink]

I always wonder if the artists who work in temporary mediums, or inherently temporary venues, have a fundamentally different sort of perspective about art than those who think of their work as permanent and unchanging. Ice sculptures for example, or sand, I can’t imagine that much effort for so fleeting a piece of work. The joy of creation, and the very fact that it’s temporary, must be part of what draws them to it.

Even though Mrs. Beebo works with oils, rather than traditionally impermanent mediums, she has explained to me that once she's finished a piece, she has little emotional attachment to it. In fact, in art school, friends usually had to rescue pieces she tossed aside as finished. It was the act of creation, what she experienced during that act, that mattered to her. What she learned, what she felt, where that left her in facing a new piece of art.

Of course, there's no profit in that, which is why she had to get a "real" job.

 

[Free]

I think I've mentioned that I'm a big fan of ephemeral art and artists who work in mediums that lead to their work lasting only a short time. Though much of what Banksy does definitely doesn't work towards permanence, I have trouble thinking of him as an ephemeral artist in the truest sense.

 

[Myficals]

Whether it's a PR stunt or biting satire or cynical exploitation... well, we can't really tell can we?

Given everything I've heard about Banksy (whomever he, she or they are) probably a liberal dash of all three.

 

[Nika Talaj]

I don't follow Banksy very closely, but I do think this shredder thing was brilliant. But I could see people reacting very differently, because It wasn't his painting anymore when he triggered the shredding! Even if he increased its value, what the bidder bought was not a shredded painting.

To me, it seems like a comment on how subjective art valuations really are, and sort of a sociological experiment on Banksy's part. It's also, perhaps, a comment on art ownership in general, as his work has always been. After he created his graffiti, was it owned by the building owner? Or does the artist always retain at least the right to destruction? He has always been mischievous.

I do wonder. Did Banksy expect the increase in valuation? Or is he shaking his head in amazement, or banging his head against the wall, or both?

Also ... Banksy posted a video of this event to Instagram, then deleted it, then after someone posted a capture of it, he restored it. What's really interesting to me is that whoever filmed it should be pretty easily identifiable by the people standing right next to them. Banksy's identity is still not known, and SOMEBODY had to trigger that shredder ... perhaps a close associate, but still, perhaps that's the reason why he initially deleted it.

 

[Essence Lumin]

In this article he is quoted as saying, "The urge to destroy is also a creative urge."

Banksy reveals how he shredded art at auction: 'It was planned for years'

 

[detrius]

I think I've mentioned that I'm a big fan of ephemeral art and artists who work in mediums that lead to their work lasting only a short time. Though much of what Banksy does definitely doesn't work towards permanence, I have trouble thinking of him as an ephemeral artist in the truest sense.

Well, it's not like he's building sand castles, except...

New Banksy piece found on Sussex beach in St Leonards | Culture24

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

Even though Mrs. Beebo works with oils, rather than traditionally impermanent mediums, she has explained to me that once she's finished a piece, she has little emotional attachment to it. In fact, in art school, friends usually had to rescue pieces she tossed aside as finished. It was the act of creation, what she experienced during that act, that mattered to her. What she learned, what she felt, where that left her in facing a new piece of art.

Of course, there's no profit in that, which is why she had to get a "real" job.

I can relate to this. Whenever I make some kind of game or write a story for pure fun, I have a lot of fun making it, but then it's dead to me past a certain point (sometimes before it's done). I can view other people's work as sacred, but I think I always view mine as worthless once it's done or I learned what I wanted to out of it.

A while ago, an artist I follow released a poll asking of people wanted him to actually finish this one movie he was making vs starting something new. I think he was surprised to find out that to his fans, finishing was everything. I understand from his perspective, starting a new project was so much more fun!

So I guess I understand why Banksy was willing to destroy his work, but I still think that actually doing so AFTER it sold in auction was a dick move.

 

[Imnotgoing Sideways]

Why is it that an attempt to empathize with a topic by comparing a personal experience is almost always called 'making it about themself' around here?

 

[Free]

Why is it that an attempt to empathize with a topic by comparing a personal experience is almost always called 'making it about themself' around here?

Why is one person's comment turned into "around here?""

 

[Pancake]

Why is it that an attempt to empathize with a topic by comparing a personal experience is almost always called 'making it about themself' around here?

This is an exaggeration.

First it’s not ALMOST ALWAYS and second it’s not AROUND HERE.

It’s situational.

There are dozens of topics and posts where an anecdotal or personal story is not only welcome but very helpful and furthers the conversation.

And on the other extreme, quoting someone and then rather than address what they wrote, tell a story about what your reaction would have been 30 years ago to a thing that didn’t happen (painting destroyed). but could have.

Now some might not agree with how Destrius felt when that happened or his response, but that’s hardly Almost ALWAYS or AROUND HERE.

 

[Spirits Rising]

It was far more than just a dick move.

Performance art has its place - most art auctions are NOT it.

 

[Free]

Performance art has its place - most art auctions are NOT it.

Most.

 

[Beebo Brink]

Why is it that an attempt to empathize with a topic by comparing a personal experience is almost always called 'making it about themself' around here?

Generalize much? Or did this touch a nerve because you yourself have been called out on doing this time and time again? Either way, fail. One person made this subjective evaluation about what motivated WolfEyes to compare the situation in the OP to a different personal event that offered little or no insights into the topic the rest of us were discussing.

 

[Imnotgoing Sideways]

Generalize much? Or did this touch a nerve because you yourself have been called out on doing this time and time again? Either way, fail. One person made this subjective evaluation about what motivated WolfEyes to compare the situation in the OP to a different personal event that offered little or no insights into the topic the rest of us were discussing.

That's the thing. This act of "calling out" has a history of happening to a few people on SLU, now VV, so "around here". It's a swarming that appears to only happen when people from this forum are involved. It's like there's some sort of aversion to personal experience.

To briefly reflect on when I have been "called out", I would prefer to call it wholly misunderstood, totally ignored, attacked with no basis, and unable to respond because no aspect of the "calling out" made a lick of sense.

Reading the posts in order, I see that WolfEyes protested the act of destroying art comparing it to burning books. Pretty valid, really. In its most primitive form, someone had exchanged money for a tangible object of creativity only for that object to be destroyed.

Then detrius replied with points about the artist and how the artist personally relies on a sense of intangibility.

*Which I consider a cop-out by a pretentious wannabe performance aharteest.

Then WolfEyes furthered their point by referencing some personal history, and a 'what-if' about that event. Which, to me, reinforces their prior opinion regarding the destruction of art.

Then comes the brief influx of personal attacks ("always making everything about yourself" - generalize much?) which I can only guess come from a blatant refusal to understand their sense of reference.

There is equivalency. It looks like a pretty simple formula. [ Art + Destruction = Bad ] People have art. I have art. I think I'm people. A people bought the art. The aharteest broke the art. That must have made people feel bad. I have art too. If someone broke my art, I would have felt bad. People must have felt bad too. I think it's bad to break art.

I don't read enough of WolfEyes posts or reactions to have a good picture of their reputation. Not even enough to assume their gender, even. But, slamming them over reacting to the act of destruction of art in a thread about someone destroying art just seems off to me.

But, you don't like me and I'm sure its far easier to attack posts than consider their context. So, that's okay. I'll just sit here in utter confusion while you proceed to bolster your sense of superiority over me.

While you're at it. I'll just say that I think this Banksy guy is a dick. He may make pretty things but it looks like he prefers to put on a pretentious floor show. To those who appreciate his floor show, I say; break your art.