Banksy Shreds Painting After It's Auctioned Off

[Beebo Brink]

(Lot's of stuff, jumbled all together in no particular order.)

So let me see if I can discuss this in a linear fashion of my own.

This is the internet. This is a discussion forum on the internet that often focuses on controversial topics of politics and society. There will be lively and raucous debates and sharp disagreements and personal attacks and no one -- beyond Cris -- can control that dialogue. The VV1 community is quite mild compared to some areas of the internet and sharper than others. Be mindful of your own comfort level because no one else can judge what is right for you, and by all means bring up valid criticism of community interactions, just recognize that not everyone is going to see it your way.

I don't either dislike or like you; you're much too complicated a person for such an easy reaction. You have a long history with this community, and when you're on an even keel, you contribute to it. When you're off the rails, you generate consternation because no one here is able to do anything to either help with your serious issues, yet we're pulled into the maelstrom anyway. I can feel compassion for the inner turmoil and despair that you wrestle with constantly, as well as feel frustration that an online discussion forum is not a healthy place for you to be at those times.

All the rest, not interested in addressing.

 

[Free]

Not all that different from SLU, wouldn't you say?

 

[Free]

Except for the bacon reactions...

 

[Ashiri]

VV.one forums: Performance art at its finest.

 

[Pancake]

Not all that different from SLU, wouldn't you say?

Does that mean our bingo cards are transferable?

 

[Free]

Does that mean our bingo cards are transferable?

 

[Plurabelle Laszlo]

Trying to redirect this back on topic for whatever it is worth. I really have to disagree with the statement "this is like burning books" . It is not. Burning books is an act of aggression directed AGAINST an artist. It is deeming their work unworthy and/or dangerous, "entartet", it's an act that is meant not only to destroy art but also the human being behind it, and the ideas represented by this art. What Banksy did was completely different. It was his decision to destroy his own work, a performance act, maybe an act of protest or tongue in cheek trolling against the insanity of the "art industry", with all the already mentioned references to his specific form of art included. Maybe you can call it a dick move against a dickish industry that decides whose art is worth millions and who has to struggle for survival. But it is definitely not comparable with a fascist act of destruction.

 

[Essence Lumin]

Trying to redirect this back on topic for whatever it is worth. I really have to disagree with the statement "this is like burning books" .

Maybe if the author burnt their own books...

 

[Soen Eber]

[note: it's hard writing this with the right tone: I've had to edit this repeatedly for those who might be replying soon after initial post].

There is no equivalency between your hypothetical incident and what Banksy did with his own print at an art auction. None.

There IS an equivalency. WolfEyes was relating how she imagines the owner of the now-shredded painting might have been feeling with how she would have felt if her ex had shredded her print instead of merely stealing it. It was not Banksy's print anymore, he had already sold it, unless I'm misunderstanding the timing.

Anyways, at that level of art collecting it's not about the art so much as the ego boost. That, and being able to barter it for something else of value privately without paying taxes is what is propping up the "celebrity" art market (in my uninformed opinion).

I think we also have to understand that everyone here does try to bring their "A" game to the forums when they comment and are sincere, but not everyone is consistently at an "A" level. Even normal people have off days and underlying issues. That doesn't mean we should shut up and say nothing; it's a question of approach and consideration, as Beebo consistently illustrates.

My own post immediately following was actually the one that was off-topic, yet it wasn't dinged because of (a) rule of funny, (b) rule of short), and (c) I hold back a lot so I never got anyone (much) annoyed with me. There's a lot about my life that I don't reveal because I'm too chickenshit to do so.


EDIT TO ADD: The equivalence with burning books has me confused, though.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Here's the whole incident:

 

[Free]

Honestly? It's one of his tamer works. It deserved to be shredded.

Put this on your wall:

 

[Beebo Brink]

There IS an equivalency. WolfEyes was relating how she imagines the owner of the now-shredded painting might have been feeling with how she would have felt if her ex had shredded her print instead of merely stealing it. It was not Banksy's print anymore, he had already sold it, unless I'm misunderstanding the timing.

Hmm.

(ponders)

Nope, I still don't quite buy it, but if I squint and turn my head sideways to the left (ouch), I can see a connection whizzing by the intended target.

For the Banksy art, the context of who made the artwork is critical and the transaction of selling it (then destroying it) was integral to the dynamics of the sale itself (both the venue of the auction house and the exorbitant price of the sale). There are none of those dependencies in WolfEye's situation. She owned something of value that she had obtained from someone else. It could have been artwork, or a car, or a washing machine. The nature of the object was irrelevant. Someone else -- who had no right to that possession -- stole it/damaged it/whatever. There was no subtext to its removal, it wasn't a statement about the possession or about an exchange of the possession from one owner and what that means or even about the specific value. It was petty theft (or not so petty depending on the valuation).

Those details matters. Those details are the point of what happened to the Banksy print.

And just in case my own motives in posting are misunderstood, I find these distinctions fascinating. I'm not discussing them because I'm trying to beat WolfEyes over the head for some forum faux paus or chime in on someone else's personal exasperation with WolfEyes. I just vehemently disagree with her interpretation. For the reasons stated above.

 

[Cristiano]

The painting was something of value that was obtained from someone else. A person paid for the painting because they valued it. Someone who no longer had any right to it (the artist) chose to destroy it to make a statement. How is that different from what you've just explained, @Beebo Brink?

 

[Pancake]

I think an important part of the discussion that seems to be missing is the context of the comment in the conversation and how Beebo or Destrius could have perceived it as unrelated because of that placement.

Maybe they didn’t, I don’t know, but the placement, the hypothetical nature and context of it being a response not a stand alone example have to be considered if you guys are going to debate whether or not the examples are similar.

I imagine that a stand alone “I can empathize with the buyer because I once lost a piece of art” would be perceived differently than (paraphrased)

1. Destroying art is like burning books
2. Not in this case because the artist destroyed his own work and is a graffiti artist
1. Well I once owned art that was stolen, and I would be upset if it were destroyed
3. That’s not the same thing


Context matters and in this context the conversational line was about the equivalency to burning books, and the anecdote didn’t back up that claim.

In any case, whether Beebo felt the hypothetical example of personal property being destroyed was equivalent or not, it’s odd to me that is the post in the thread that is being dissected and not the response she received in turn. I guess we all See things differently and focus on individual parts, but no post exists in isolation.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

A person paid for the painting because they valued it

I'm not sure -- and from what I've read, I think it's an open question -- whether in English law title to an auctioned item passes to the person who wins the auction at the time the auctioneer's hammer falls or when the transaction completes. I'd have said the latter, in which case the winner of the auction may be disappointed but isn't actually out of pocket, Indeed, he may be delighted since art experts are saying the piece's notoriety as a result of this incident increases its value considerably.

One way or another, I can't see Southeby''s enforcing the sale if the buyer doesn't want the damaged picture -- indeed, I suspect they'd prefer it if he doesn't want it, since they would presumably rather collect the fee on the higher price it's likely to command if they get to sell as it now is.

Furthermore, t's by no means clear from the reports who sent the piece to auction --- was it a collector or was it Banksy himself, through an intermediary? If it was Banksy, then he can destroy his own property if she wants to. If it was a collector, then clearly he no longer wanted the piece and the worst that can happen to him is that he now has to wait a bit longer for the proceeds of its sale, though the fact it's now worth considerably more than it went for on this occasion will doubtless be some comfort.

 

[Beebo Brink]

The painting was something of value that was obtained from someone else. A person paid for the painting because they valued it. Someone who no longer had any right to it (the artist) chose to destroy it to make a statement. How is that different from what you've just explained, @Beebo Brink?

Because you can't divorce a piece of performance art from the performance artist. And you can't divorce a piece of performance art from an art house auction and the people who pay large sums of money for possessions that are of subjective value that is integrally tied up with reputation of that specific artist for doing exactly what he's valued for doing.

It's all a unit -- all tied together. And whether you think it's a dumb stunt or an outrage or hilarious, reducing this to "I owned something valuable and now it's broken" misses the defining context. The art world itself is an insane, crazy-making dreamland.

If the new owner had screamed bloody murder and refused to pay the auction house for his new shredded artwork, the story would have gone one way. But apparently the value of the art has actually increased and I would presume the new owner is thrilled. That's another story.

The fact that there IS a story -- either way -- is what makes this different.

With a normal damaged possession, there is only one outcome. Bummer, I've been robbed. Even ripping a Van Gogh off the wall of a museum and hacking it to pieces has nothing to do with the Banksy sale. There's no subtext.

 

[Beebo Brink]

One way or another, I can't see Southeby''s enforcing the sale if the buyer doesn't want the damaged picture -- indeed, I suspect they'd prefer it if he doesn't want it, since they would presumably rather collect the fee on the higher price it's likely to command if they get to sell as it now is.

Exactly! This wasn't random mayhem. That this happened immediately, right in the auction house, is critical to the interpretation of this incident. The print wasn't destroyed a week later, in private. It was destroyed as part of the sale. It was destroyed to bring comment to the sale itself, not just the artwork.

And it was destroyed in such a way that the new owner didn't actually lose anything of objective value, as in money.

At most, all they lost was the opportunity to own artwork of extremely subjective value. Which might be galling if you really really wanted the original piece, non-shredded, but so much of art these days is bought purely as investment or for corporate collections. Devoid of sentiment and delighted by the very act of "destruction" that inflated the value of the piece. Some vandalism, eh? If the art is worth MORE in a shredded condition, what does that say about the original "valuable" art itself?

At the very least, that's it's all in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Imnotgoing Sideways]

I still refuse to buy [ no-mod, no-copy ] items in SL.

Wait... This isn't about me, right? Not to say a parallel doesn't exist or anything. Okay, how about this...

If an engineer from Toyota were to carve his initials into your driver side door one night, would you still lean toward the eye of the beholder? Or, is this thread not about you?

*Glad I drive a Dodge. OOPS!

 

[Sid]

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.

 

[Free]

If an engineer from Toyota were to carve his initials into your driver side door one night, would you still lean toward the eye of the beholder?

On the interior portions of the door where I can't see it, or exterior - right into the paint next to the door handle?

Or, is this thread not about you?

You must be fun at face to face discussions.