EEVBlog #1131 - £1M Banksy Artwork Shredded! HOW?

[EEVblog]

A look at how the Banksy artwork "Girl with a Balloon" shredded itself moments after being sold for £1M at a Sotheby's auction.
How long did it sit idle waiting to be triggered?, and was this actually possible?

[Mr. Scram]

Also discussed below.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/painting-that-shred-itself/

[Bud]

Why is a little rectangular opening on the back plate he was installing? Was it replaced after testing with a solid one 

Also does the shop look something like a paint artist's studio? Looked more of a screen printing shop where they wash screens

[Bud]

The damn thing would weight a ton with a shredder, motors and battery pack. Two people removed it from the wall. Two people. How it could possibly be overlooked its abnormal weight 

[PartialDischarge]

Clearly there was someone in the auction room to activate the thing, what brings my question. I'm not an expert on RF remotes but how long would a commercial receiver live on batteries?

This model https://www.linxtechnologies.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/rxm-fff-lr.pdf takes 5mA, so a big battery would be needed to power it for a few years (as the video says).

[Mr. Scram]

Clearly there was someone in the auction room to activate the thing, what brings my question. I'm not an expert on RF remotes but how long would a commercial receiver live on batteries?

This model https://www.linxtechnologies.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/rxm-fff-lr.pdf takes 5mA, so a big battery would be needed to power it for a few years (as the video says).

It could be a two stage deal, where the device periodically checks whether an activation signal is sent. Primary cells can last a pretty long time too, as was discussed in the other topic.

[PartialDischarge]

It could be a two stage deal, where the device periodically checks whether an activation signal is sent. Primary cells can last a pretty long time too, as was discussed in the other topic.

ok, so if it was done this way then it was a custom made design, maybe someone from eevblog was in on it 

[wilfred]

Why is a little rectangular opening on the back plate he was installing? Was it replaced after testing with a solid one 

Also does the shop look something like a paint artist's studio? Looked more of a screen printing shop where they wash screens

Banksy isn't a paint artist. I heard this was a screen print.

[W9GFO]

I agree that the device was probably built within the last year but I do not believe that there is a real shredder in it. A commercial shredder does not produce cuts like that, the strips are too wide. I think there is a pre-cut canvas and the original canvas. Most likely it can also be reset, which gives purpose to the other motor.

[wilfred]

The damn thing would weight a ton with a shredder, motors and battery pack. Two people removed it from the wall. Two people. How it could possibly be overlooked its abnormal weight 

I think two people were handling it because it weighed a million pounds.

[Mr. Scram]

I agree that the device was probably built within the last year but I do not believe that there is a real shredder in it. A commercial shredder does not produce cuts like that, the strips are too wide. I think there is a pre-cut canvas and the original canvas. Most likely it can also be reset, which gives purpose to the other motor.

If you look at the video he posted himself you see it's a row of exacto style knives. Mysteriously, they do seem to point in the wrong direction.

[Mr. Scram]

The damn thing would weight a ton with a shredder, motors and battery pack. Two people removed it from the wall. Two people. How it could possibly be overlooked its abnormal weight 

You seem to suggest they're not used to unusual art pieces.

[W9GFO]

I agree that the device was probably built within the last year but I do not believe that there is a real shredder in it. A commercial shredder does not produce cuts like that, the strips are too wide. I think there is a pre-cut canvas and the original canvas. Most likely it can also be reset, which gives purpose to the other motor.

If you look at the video he posted himself you see it's a row of exacto style knives. Mysteriously, they do seem to point in the wrong direction.

Yeah, they point in the wrong direction and they are in the wrong location inside the frame in order to get the correct result. Those exacto blades are only there to mislead people from realizing that the original was just rolled up while a pre-cut copy was rolled out.

[Mr. Scram]

Yeah, they point in the wrong direction and they are in the wrong location inside the frame in order to get the correct result. Those exacto blades are only there to mislead people from realizing that the original was just rolled up while a pre-cut copy was rolled out.

Is there any solid evidence that points that way? There is an offset between the plane in which the unshredded piece moves and the plane in which the shreds appear, but it's all a bit circumstantial.

It would demote the thing from a somewhat daring artpiece to fairly mundane media stunt.

[W9GFO]

Is there any solid evidence that points that way?

• The device presented as being what shredded the artwork could not actually shred the artwork - so it is fake. (That much is a certainty.)
• There is a metal box in the correct location to house the required rollers. (True beyond a reasonable doubt.)
• There are additional motors aside from what may be contained in the metal box - likely for unrolling/re-rolling the artwork. (Speculation.)
• The resulting shredded artwork is not consistent with the output of commercially available shredders. (True as far as I know)
• Why show a fake shredding mechanism if there is a real one? To mislead from the real trick, which is that the original is uncut. (The conclusion that I have reached)
• Lastly, shredding the actual artwork (in Sotheby's possession) could present legal problems, but just rolling it up - not so much.

[W9GFO]

...There is an offset between the plane in which the unshredded piece moves and the plane in which the shreds appear, but it's all a bit circumstantial.

I don't believe the offset is evidence either way. The offset is just a result of the necessity of paper needing to be pressed between rollers in order to move it.

It would demote the thing from a somewhat daring artpiece to fairly mundane media stunt.

I agree, well maybe not about the mundane part. Still a good stunt.

[Mr. Scram]

• The device presented as being what shredded the artwork could not actually shred the artwork - so it is fake. (That much is a certainty.)
• There is a metal box in the correct location to house the required rollers. (True beyond a reasonable doubt.)
• There are additional motors aside from what may be contained in the metal box - likely for unrolling/re-rolling the artwork. (Speculation.)
• The resulting shredded artwork is not consistent with the output of commercially available shredders. (True as far as I know)
• Why show a fake shredding mechanism if there is a real one? To mislead from the real trick, which is that the original is uncut. (The conclusion that I have reached)

The conclusion all hinges on the device shown not being a real shredder, but showing something with a bunch of knives people know and can relate to in a video could very well be a little bit of showmanship. Worse things happen for very mundane reasons. Extra motors could also be a sign of wanting to make sure something gets pulled over knives properly.

Without a look at the actual mechanism, it's all conjecture. If I were the new owner, I'd make very sure no one would be able to inspect the mechanism if it really is a rollup type deal. That's assuming it even was a real sale.

[W9GFO]

Without a look at the actual mechanism, it's all conjecture. If I were the new owner, I'd make very sure no one would be able to inspect the mechanism if it really is a rollup type deal. That's assuming it even was a real sale.

Right, and he could always say that the video shown was taken during the design phase and not the final version. Not that I would believe that, but a lot of people would. I think it was a bit lazy on his part to not mount the blades in a plausible manner. If he had done so no one would be questioning if the art actually got shredded.

[Fungus]

I agree that stopping half way down is deliberate. That way the "art" stays intact.

You wouldn't want it all over the floor in pieces.

That's assuming it even was a real sale.

Could easily be fake, which is why it went so high.

OTOH Sotheby's commissions high. 20 percent on the first $100,000 and 12 percent on the rest. It's an expensive prank if the buyer was fake.

[Howardlong]

Very soon after the news, I made a comment on my FB feed that it would be an impressive feat of engineering for it still be working 12 years later: as such, I consider it highly unlikely that this had been sitting like this for 12 years waiting for the right command.

Keep in mind the technology available in 2006. The subsequent video released which indirectly suggests it was shot 12 years ago was in 16:9. Now while it's possible, I struggle to believe that the footage is 12 years old. Put into perspective, in 2006, almost all video was still on tape. The iPhone had yet to be announced. Most non-professional video recording was still 4:3 in standard definition.

If you look at Banksy's bio on Wikipedia, he wasn't selling anywhere near £1m works back in 2006, far from it, he wouldn't have had the resources to create a relatively high quality video.

I'm pretty convinced that while the picture may be an legitimate screen print, the frame was created really quite recently.

My thoughts on whether it really was shredded (as opposed to being wound up in a hidden roll) is that it was shredded. The motion of the top and shredded bottom correlates too well for it to be two separate pieces, in my opinion of course!

Irrespective, the whole debacle is amusing.

[Mr. Scram]

I agree that stopping half way down is deliberate. That way the "art" stays intact.

You wouldn't want it all over the floor in pieces.

That's assuming it even was a real sale.

Could easily be fake, which is why it went so high.

OTOH Sotheby's commissions high. 20 percent on the first $100,000 and 12 percent on the rest. It's an expensive prank if the buyer was fake.

If it buys you this kind of exposure it's an absolute bargain. Even a billion dollars of advertisments won't get you that far.

[Mr. Scram]

Very soon after the news, I made a comment on my FB feed that it would be an impressive feat of engineering for it still be working 12 years later: as such, I consider it highly unlikely that this had been sitting like this for 12 years waiting for the right command.

Keep in mind the technology available in 2006. The subsequent video released which indirectly suggests it was shot 12 years ago was in 16:9. Now while it's possible, I struggle to believe that the footage is 12 years old. Put into perspective, in 2006, almost all video was still on tape. The iPhone had yet to be announced. Most non-professional video recording was still 4:3 in standard definition.

If you look at Banksy's bio on Wikipedia, he wasn't selling anywhere near £1m works back in 2006, far from it, he wouldn't have had the resources to create a relatively high quality video.

I'm pretty convinced that while the picture may be an legitimate screen print, the frame was created really quite recently.

My thoughts on whether it really was shredded (as opposed to being wound up in a hidden roll) is that it was shredded. The motion of the top and shredded bottom correlates too well for it to be two separate pieces, in my opinion of course!

Irrespective, the whole debacle is amusing.

The two pieces being in sync could be easily explained by having the two rollers meshed together with gears.

[Fungus]

The two pieces being in sync could be easily explained by having the two rollers meshed together with gears.

I think it would be more like one of these:



Would you really do it that way? It would explain the fake 'teeth' (they're just for show in the video) and it would make it all more reliable (shredder might fail or cut weirdly, rollers give perfect result every time).

We'll probably never know for sure.

[Bud]

I think any battery would be flat from self discharge and aging after several years, let alone 12 years.
As to the mechanism stopped half way - if it was weak battery , we' d see movement progressively slowing down and not coming to an abrupt stop.
Also the metal box/plate that we speculate might be a commercial shredder has what appear to be machine screws on it. Those are high quality screws not your regular ones. This may be an indication a professional machinist was involved in the build (just a wild guess).

[coppercone2]

you could glue strings along the back of the painting in the middle of the strips. THen you can tie the strings to holes in a dowel. Then you can rotate the dowel so the strings are coiled up and torn away from the painting (say from hot glue or such) as the painting is pulled towards the blades.

This way you could only use one roller and 1 motor with direct drive no gears.

the blades might be sharp enough that the canvas tears on them but I agree it looked kinda strange.

Do people think the painting is rolled up for technical reasons or just because they watched that movie about the art thief?

the mechanism I imagined would probobly work if the blades are sharp enough and it would be extremely cheap and light. The main weight from all this crap comes from the tensioning assembly. If you use detachable strings then you get rid of all of that. It only needs to work once for 30 seconds.

might be as simple as lining strings up on the back of a sheet of paper and pouring wax on it. i don't know if I am explaining myself well. Think of a kite.

I don't think its that crazy because artists are nuts.

The thing in the picture, the cutting assembly, kind of looks like something to psychologically fuck with the person thats inspecting it more then anything, it looks like it was inspired by the SAW films or something..

[Fungus]

Those are high quality screws not your regular ones.

That won't be a problem when you're planning to pay Sotheby's $125,000 for hosting your prank.

[Mr. Scram]

I think any battery would be flat from self discharge and aging after several years, let alone 12 years.
As to the mechanism stopped half way - if it was weak battery , we' d see movement progressively slowing down and not coming to an abrupt stop.
Also the metal box/plate that we speculate might be a commercial shredder has what appear to be machine screws on it. Those are high quality screws not your regular ones. This may be an indication a professional machinist was involved in the build (just a wild guess).

As has been mentioned a few times before, primary cells can last a long time. You see batteries lasting for three or four decades in test equipment, albeit with modest energy requirements. Twelve years isn't that impressive in comparison.

[tpowell1830]

The simple solution to resolve how this was done is for the new owner to have a professional person to dis-assemble the frame and determine exactly how it was done. If the new owner is legitimate, and if they paid over a 1 million pounds, I would think that they are serious, we should have an answer in short time. At any rate, I smell bullsh*t. 

Opinion time: I agree with Dave that this was done recently and those blades in the Banksy video are only meant to fool the most gullible among us. The blades were not used to shred the canvas. I also noticed the difference in planes of the actual painting and the part coming out the bottom of shredded canvas. Therefore, IMO, this could be a pre-cut canvas and the actual canvas is still rolled up on a separate roller.

If we do not hear from the new owner with a video or some other evidence showing this mechanism being dis-assembled, then the conclusion that I would come to is that the new owner is Banksy or a co-conspirator.     

The fact that everyone is talking about this is probably what was intended, read: publicity stunt. Although it is humorous, it is just another run at the system to get attention for Banksy. (narcissism)

[Fungus]

Opinion time: I agree with Dave that this was done recently and those blades in the Banksy video are only meant to fool the most gullible among us.

Either that or...  a wink to the other half of the population, letting them know that the video is fake.

[Mr. Scram]

The simple solution to resolve how this was done is for the new owner to have a professional person to dis-assemble the frame and determine exactly how it was done. If the new owner is legitimate, and if they paid over a 1 million pounds, I would think that they are serious, we should have an answer in short time. At any rate, I smell bullsh*t. 

Opinion time: I agree with Dave that this was done recently and those blades in the Banksy video are only meant to fool the most gullible among us. The blades were not used to shred the canvas. I also noticed the difference in planes of the actual painting and the part coming out the bottom of shredded canvas. Therefore, IMO, this could be a pre-cut canvas and the actual canvas is still rolled up on a separate roller.

If we do not hear from the new owner with a video or some other evidence showing this mechanism being dis-assembled, then the conclusion that I would come to is that the new owner is Banksy or a co-conspirator.     

The fact that everyone is talking about this is probably what was intended, read: publicity stunt. Although it is humorous, it is just another run at the system to get attention for Banksy. (narcissism)

As I've said before, there are reasons for any new owner to keep his mouth shut. Any action showing the mechanism could lead to a hefty devaluation, depending on the exact nature of the device.

[Bud]

I think any battery would be flat from self discharge and aging after several years, let alone 12 years.
As to the mechanism stopped half way - if it was weak battery , we' d see movement progressively slowing down and not coming to an abrupt stop.
Also the metal box/plate that we speculate might be a commercial shredder has what appear to be machine screws on it. Those are high quality screws not your regular ones. This may be an indication a professional machinist was involved in the build (just a wild guess).

As has been mentioned a few times before, primary cells can last a long time. You see batteries lasting for three or four decades in test equipment, albeit with modest energy requirements. Twelve years isn't that impressive in comparison.

we are talking about energizing at least two motors, not powering  your smoke detector.

[Mr. Scram]

we are talking about energizing at least two motors, not powering  your smoke detector.

We're probably not talking about a single AA battery either.

[Bud]

That is right, the high ESR of a single failed battery in a series will limit the current to the load so the other healthy cells will not deliver full performance

[drussell]

The simple solution to resolve how this was done is for the new owner to have a professional person to dis-assemble the frame and determine exactly how it was done. If the new owner is legitimate, and if they paid over a 1 million pounds, I would think that they are serious, we should have an answer in short time. At any rate, I smell bullsh*t. 

Or, you could just watch the artist's video that shows building the shredder... 

Even if this wasn't the actual shredder used, I don't think any of this was a surprise.

It was obviously a pre-planned set-up and the auctioneers knew about the ploy in making this artistic statement.

[tpowell1830]

The simple solution to resolve how this was done is for the new owner to have a professional person to dis-assemble the frame and determine exactly how it was done. If the new owner is legitimate, and if they paid over a 1 million pounds, I would think that they are serious, we should have an answer in short time. At any rate, I smell bullsh*t. 

Or, you could just watch the artist's video that shows building the shredder... 

Even if this wasn't the actual shredder used, I don't think any of this was a surprise.



It was obviously a pre-planned set-up and the auctioneers knew about the ploy in making this artistic statement.

As a matter of fact, I watched the video and it is BS, did you watch Dave's video, doesn't sound like you did. As far as preplanned, I doubt Sotheby's would allow that.

[Mr. Scram]

That is right, the high ESR of a single failed battery in a series will limit the current to the load so the other healthy cells will not deliver full performance

Which is why it possibly stopped halfway, or some mitigation was built into that. Whatever the case, twelve years should be doable.

[drussell]

we are talking about energizing at least two motors, not powering  your smoke detector.

Standard alkaline cells easily hold over 80% of their charge at the 10 year mark.  I have some AAAs that have install-by dates of 2003 in my main multimeter right now and they're still going.  I bought that case of cells (I think it was a 10 x 72 pack, Duracell ProCells) in the mid 1990s and I'm constantly amazed that the few that I still have left are actually still good.   

They're down to about 50% or so last time I tested a set in the peppermill...

[Bud]

I agree on Sobethe's not being involved, they are elite auction company, not street hipsters

[BrianHG]

WHY is it when I watch that video, why are there snaps to so many different video camera sources from different angles with perfectly consistent audio.  Why does video camera choreography seem to be so perfectly set-up with just the right angles and moments to generate a keyed up stimulated effect?

Come on, everything about this screams staged!

[drussell]

As far as preplanned, I doubt Sotheby's would allow that.

Even knowing the fact that it was the final item in the auction and that it was hung on the wall rather than being brought in and put on a stand as is normally done for artwork?!

Ok, sure...  I'm sure everyone at Sotheby's was completely unaware.   

[tpowell1830]

I think the people with cameras knew the outcome, but if this was a real auction that Sotheby's did and they were aware of the outcome, they lost a tremendous amount of credibility in doing this. The person bidding a million would have to be in on it too, because if I spent a million on a painting and I found out Sotheby's was implicit in destroying it, lawsuit pending. Even knowing this was a stunt and no one actually lost, Sotheby's lost credibility in participating.

[drussell]

I think the people with cameras knew the outcome, but if this was a real auction that Sotheby's did and they were aware of the outcome, they lost a tremendous amount of credibility in doing this.

Why?  The shredding is part of the artistic work.

The person bidding a million would have to be in on it too, because if I spent a million on a painting and I found out Sotheby's was implicit in destroying it, lawsuit pending. Even knowing this was a stunt and no one actually lost, Sotheby's lost credibility in participating.

Why?  After all the brilliantly orchestrated publicity this has received, the work will probably hold or increase its value more now than if it were "just' some spraypaint on canvas in a ridiculously bulky frame.

[tpowell1830]

I think the people with cameras knew the outcome, but if this was a real auction that Sotheby's did and they were aware of the outcome, they lost a tremendous amount of credibility in doing this.

Why?  The shredding is part of the artistic work.

If it were advertised beforehand and everyone knew, different story, but Sotheby's are not artists, but business men.

The person bidding a million would have to be in on it too, because if I spent a million on a painting and I found out Sotheby's was implicit in destroying it, lawsuit pending. Even knowing this was a stunt and no one actually lost, Sotheby's lost credibility in participating.

Why?  After all the brilliantly orchestrated publicity this has received, the work will probably hold or increase its value more now than if it were "just' some spraypaint on canvas in a ridiculously bulky frame.

If the buyer wanted the painting for the art, then the art is shredded, so the money is not the issue. The value of art is not just money.

[Bud]

So then the Art should be attributed to the implanted technological solution. not the painting

[Mr. Scram]

So then the Art should be attributed to the implanted technological solution. not the painting

I think that's trying to make absolute what obviously isn't.

[Koen]

ok, so if it was done this way then it was a custom made design, maybe someone from eevblog was in on it 

The absence of reply from mikeselectricstuff on this thread is enough evidence to me !

[jancumps]

When in doubd, it's usually the simplest answer. 100% staged.

[Mr. Scram]

When in doubd, it's usually the simplest answer. 100% staged.

9/11 was a hoax?

[jancumps]

When in doubd, it's usually the simplest answer. 100% staged.

9/11 was a hoax?

No, 11/9

[SparkyFX]

The question can also be if the shredder is not only a shredder, but part of the actual art and it´s therefore artistic freedom to do so... in case of auctioning.
Obviously destroying an object after auctioning is kind of foul play by most people´s understanding - unless it is art.

On the side of the auctioner if no checking or testing is allowed/required, why bother? Whatever surprise is found within the frame, it will be part of the auction and the bidders are responsible to know what they buy there.

All in all that was an interesting PR stunt, for sure. I´d probably not have noticed at all if not for that news, as it would not make much difference to me if it was sold for 1, 2 or 20 million pounds.

[darrellg]

Dave's video was included in a Boing Boing article on the subject.

https://boingboing.net/2018/10/09/myth-busting-the-self-shreddin.html

[tridentsx]

I am surprised no one else seems to see when the auctioneer triggers the shredder just after selling the piece. Its at 1:59 in Daves video.
The auction house is obviously in on it and the shredding is part of the art installation. Its not a Mona Lisa its modern art reproducible by spraying over a stencil.

[W9GFO]

I am surprised no one else seems to see when the auctioneer triggers the shredder just after selling the piece. Its at 1:59 in Daves video.
The auction house is obviously in on it and the shredding is part of the art installation. Its not a Mona Lisa its modern art reproducible by spraying over a stencil.

...or it is a button which must be pressed to simultaneously end the online auctions.

[MrMobodies]

Watch carefully and there is that delay at 2.00 into the video on the shredded paper coming out.
No delay on the movement inside the frame.

It makes me think there was another partially pre shredded copy in there supported a roller at the back of the frame.

Another supporting fact:
As the leg to the upper body moves down in the frame it shows more to the right on the "shredded" output.

[Brumby]

WHY is it when I watch that video, why are there snaps to so many different video camera sources from different angles with perfectly consistent audio.

It would seem you have not done any multi track video editing...
Perfect audio is easy.  Just use ONE source that has the best audio track and let that run for the enitire clip.  No switching.  You then get all the other video clips you have available, put them in their own tracks, ignore the audio and synchronise as best you can.  You then cut to the best video at any given point in time.  It's actually very straightforward and a clip like this could be edited in a few minutes.

Why does video camera choreography seem to be so perfectly set-up with just the right angles and moments to generate a keyed up stimulated effect?

It would seem rather obvious to me that Banksy would have several cohorts in the audience, each shooting their own video.  That way, you would have cameras all around the room - and if something dramatic happened, there would be a better chance it would get captured on camera.  Multiple cameras also mitigates the risk of camera failure and capturing boring crud.  As mentioned above, you then edit for the best result.  It's not rocket science.

Come on, everything about this screams staged!

Certainly Banksy was well involved and had the scene prepared.  I don't know about Sotheby's processes, but I don't see where their involvement is suggested, let alone proven - and given their reputation, I cannot for a microsecond believe they would agree to such a stunt.  If Sotheby's were complicit in any way, then I would consider that extremely bizarre.

[BrianHG]

Another supporting fact:
As the leg to the upper body moves down in the frame it shows more to the right on the "shredded" output.

Good point.  Not to mention that the shredded strands coming out are practically ironed flat.  No bends, warping, or twisting due to slight blade errors which happen to thicker canvas like material being shredded.  It's coming out too perfect.

[Fungus]

When in doubd, it's usually the simplest answer. 100% staged.

So... which is simpler?

a) Make a rigged painting for auction, plant a few people in the crowd with smartphones to record it and have a remote control to set it off at the right moment.

or

b) Make a rigged painting for auction, plant a few people in the crowd with smartphones to record it, have a remote control to set it off at the right moment, and coordinate a whole load of people in suites with a serious job to do and no interest in your silly prank, get them all to be perfect actors, rehearse it with them, hope none of them talk afterwards, etc.

 

I cannot for a microsecond believe they would agree to such a stunt.

Nor me.

You can bet they have a lot of lawyers at Sotheby's and no Sotheby's lawyer would agree to "destroying" a painting after sale.

(what if a real buyer wins the auction?)

[Fungus]

It makes me think there was another partially pre shredded copy in there supported a roller at the back of the frame.

Another supporting fact:
As the leg to the upper body moves down in the frame it shows more to the right on the "shredded" output.

The shredded version is further back in the frame so it makes sense they don't line up.



"Pre-shredded" - would make the whole thing easier, lighter, more reliable, but ... does the mechanism really matter?

[Howardlong]

I've changed my opinion, I agree, there's an apparent unexplained discontinuity between the shredded part and the unshredded part. I don't think there's a shredder in there at all, just two rolls, one to roll up the unshredded version and the other to unroll a pre-shredded version.

[nctnico]

If the shredded version was rolled up then the shreds would be curly as well but notice how straight they are. Except for the first part which has clearly been sitting between two rollers. There still is a chance that the artwork contains two copies and there is an undamaged version still in it. Time will tell. I hope they'll manage to recover/restore the artwork because it is a very powerful image.

[glarsson]

The shredded version (if that is how it was done) doesn't need to be stored rolled. It could have been stored flat behind the unshredded one. When triggered the unshredded rolls down round a pin and up behind "itself". At the same time the shredded version is pushed out. There is enough depth in the frame for this arrangement.

[Fungus]

I hope they'll manage to recover/restore the artwork because it is a very powerful image.

Not gonna happen. It will vanish forever.

[Fungus]

If the shredded version was rolled up then the shreds would be curly as well but notice how straight they are.

Sure: "If"

But there's no reason for that and it would probably make the mechanism bulkier.

[rrinker]

 The shape of the beginning of the shredded portion explains any apparent 'discontinuity' - between the width of the frame and then the fact that the canvas has to be pressed back over the roller and knives to slice it to come out closer to the back of the frame, you've easily covered the 'missing' bit.

 Absolutely no way Sotheby's was in on this. If they knowingly participated in something like this, their reputation as one of if not the foremost fine art auction houses in the world would be destroyed.  Banksy himself, certainly involved. The previous owner - almost certainly. We don't know a whole lot about this person, Does this person even exist? Maybe it's just Banksy himself. How did this go down? Guy went to Sotheby's, says I want you to sell my Banksy original for me - yes it's real, Banksy gave it to me in 2006 - maybe Banksy even backs this up. How's that for a conspiracy theory - there is only one person involved, namely Banksy. There is no 'previous owner'.

The real question is - will the thing be opened up, and if so, will it be shown, or just kept quiet? 2 minute teardown!

[NivagSwerdna]

2 minute teardown!

"Don't hang it on the wall, tear it apart"

[MrMobodies]

I didn't think that the shredded paper was rolled up but a roller turned by a motor to roll and support the partially shredded paper out.

2 minute teardown!

"Don't hang it on the wall, tear it apart"

I guess that is what would have happened to the bidder (a big hole in their wallet) if they had to pay for it.
Assuming the bidder was not in the prank.

[Koen]

If Sotheby's weren't in on it, if Sotheby's didn't notice a thing, if the previous and next owner weren't in on it, if Banksy had no rights to this print anymore, if security is lax : I wonder if someone will feel inspired to destroy an unique masterpiece seconds after the hammer next.

[nctnico]

I hope they'll manage to recover/restore the artwork because it is a very powerful image.

Not gonna happen. It will vanish forever.

What makes you think that? The price got an extra 0 added to it within seconds after buying so it is the best art investment ever.

[Fungus]

I hope they'll manage to recover/restore the artwork because it is a very powerful image.

Not gonna happen. It will vanish forever.

What makes you think that? The price got an extra 0 added to it within seconds after buying so it is the best art investment ever.

The 'buyer' had to be in on it.

If somebody from the public got their hands on it they might take it apart and post videos on Youtube proving Banksy's video was a lie. Banksy can't allow that to happen so he has to arrange for a friend to 'buy' it.

[W9GFO]

The 'buyer' had to be in on it, too, IMHO.

If somebody from the public got their hands on it they might take it apart and prove Banksy's video was a lie. Banksy can't allow that to happen so he has to arrange for a friend to 'buy' it.

Maybe not, taking it apart to reveal how it was done would devalue the piece.

[Fungus]

Maybe not, taking it apart to reveal how it was done would devalue the piece.

Key word: 'Maybe'.

There's a definite possibility it could happen.

[agtrbt]

i remember 18650 batteries back to the year 2006 worked like garbage, the best of them were ~2000 mah and dont expect long storage life or cycle life and way harder to procure than now

[Mr. Scram]

i remember 18650 batteries back to the year 2006 worked like garbage, the best of them were ~2000 mah and dont expect long storage life or cycle life and way harder to procure than now

Primary cells have been available for literally centuries. Why would they opt for what I presume would be modern rechargeables?

[johnwa]

i remember 18650 batteries back to the year 2006 worked like garbage, the best of them were ~2000 mah and dont expect long storage life or cycle life and way harder to procure than now

Primary cells have been available for literally centuries. Why would they opt for what I presume would be modern rechargeables?

Yeah, Energiser L91 LiFeS2 AAs were available back then, we use them in a standby application, rated life is 20 years. Peak power output is probably the limiting factor, rather than energy storage capacity, these achieve around 4W/cell, so it would be possible to run a shredder motor from a manageable number of these.

However, I don't necessarily agree that the mechanism has been installed for all that time, although it would be technically possible.

[SparkyFX]

The 'buyer' had to be in on it.

If somebody from the public got their hands on it they might take it apart and post videos on Youtube proving Banksy's video was a lie. Banksy can't allow that to happen so he has to arrange for a friend to 'buy' it.

Then good ´ol banksy might have a legal problem, imho it would be highly fraudulent to drive the price of his own works up.
I am sure you can buy your own work back at whatever value you are willing to pay, therefore it would not be a viable fraud in itself (there is no direct financial advantage in buying back at a higher price than market value) but at the same time the value of his other works changes price tags as well.

At the same time revealing the mechanism or the truth might be a legal way out of the problem -> to not influence pricing too much. Anonymous or not...

It would be like a stock manipulation by the owner of a company.... smoking weed in front of cameras, talking bullshit all the time and such things shortly after talking about buying back stock at a fixed rate above market value.

edit: after thinking about it for a few more minutes, i would say that this is an interesting discussion. Should such a case ever be in front of a court (forseeable for the artist), there are only a couple of options.
a) painting was destroyed: they get an expert for art that either concludes
  a1) shredder is part of the artwork and worked as intended (nothing new in our little circle, see buzzwords "planned obsolescence", "right to repair" and such)
  a2) painting destroyed, by common understanding a cut painting is a destroyed painting
b) painting was not destroyed, only a cut copy was rolled out, then the painting itself was unaltered (does the remote work in reverse?)
c) artists consider themselves not part of the society and see destruction as art in itself, with questionable outcome

Remind, banksy is known from the graffiti scene, in which point c) is often answered different by most people, i guess this is the root of the idea to actually alter something in a way people could see as destruction. So if the market value goes up, it would not be destruction, if it goes down it would. Good luck defining destruction based on market value now. I assume he has a good laugh on that one.

[rrinker]

 Assuming the original really was shredded - even el-cheapo shredders do crosscuts, not just long straight strips. Something strong enough to shred the canvas SURELY would do crosscuts. It's obvious that the knives Banksy showed in his video couldn't possibly be the actual cutting mechanism. but some sort of system like that with the blades pointed in the proper direction could produce the observed result. Or maybe under that metal frame was just a set of rollers geared together, one winding up the actual piece and the other unrolling the strips out the bottom. That wouldn't even need much power.

[Mr. Scram]

Then good ´ol banksy might have a legal problem, imho it would be highly fraudulent to drive the price of his own works up.
I am sure you can buy your own work back at whatever value you are willing to pay, therefore it would not be a viable fraud in itself (there is no direct financial advantage in buying back at a higher price than market value) but at the same time the value of his other works changes price tags as well.

At the same time revealing the mechanism or the truth might be a legal way out of the problem -> to not influence pricing too much. Anonymous or not...

It would be like a stock manipulation by the owner of a company.... smoking weed in front of cameras, talking bullshit all the time and such things shortly after talking about buying back stock at a fixed rate above market value.

edit: after thinking about it for a few more minutes, i would say that this is an interesting discussion. Should such a case ever be in front of a court (forseeable for the artist), there are only a couple of options.
a) painting was destroyed: they get an expert for art that either concludes
  a1) shredder is part of the artwork and worked as intended (nothing new in our little circle, see buzzwords "planned obsolescence", "right to repair" and such)
  a2) painting destroyed, by common understanding a cut painting is a destroyed painting
b) painting was not destroyed, only a cut copy was rolled out, then the painting itself was unaltered (does the remote work in reverse?)
c) artists consider themselves not part of the society and see destruction as art in itself, with questionable outcome

Remind, banksy is known from the graffiti scene, in which point c) is often answered different by most people, i guess this is the root of the idea to actually alter something in a way people could see as destruction. So if the market value goes up, it would not be destruction, if it goes down it would. Good luck defining destruction based on market value now. I assume he has a good laugh on that one.

It's not illegal to buy your own work. Buying a bunch of your own stock isn't illegal either, and it should be noted that art isn't at all as regulated as the stock market. If anything, this is like advertising your own work. There's nothing fraudulent about that and certainly not highly.

The only question is whether it constitutes vandalism and whether the owner was aware. I'm not even sure of the former as the shredder has always been a part of the artwork, at least that's the story. Whoever bought it bought the artwork as a whole, including the pieces he was unaware of.

[Gyro]

It looks as if the buyer is going ahead with the transaction...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-45829853

The European woman who bought the piece, who does not want to be named, said: "At first I was shocked, but I realised I would end up with my own piece of art history."

Doesn't sound like a description of the artist himself, even if he(/she) is anonymous. 

[thm_w]

"Pre-shredded" - would make the whole thing easier, lighter, more reliable, but ... does the mechanism really matter?

It matters because its the one thing Dave may have got wrong in his video, and we love criticizing him .

Pre-shredded makes sense on too many levels, for liability as well as SparkyFX notes, you can just reverse the rollers and the painting returns to its original state.
I wouldn't be too surprised if the motor control is bi-directional and could roll/unroll the shredded copy.

We've had a number of #Banksy print owners contact us today asking if they shred their artwork will it be worth more. Please, Please DON'T. The events of the last 24hrs are a very unique piece of art history.

https://www.indy100.com/article/banksy-shredded-print-painting-girl-with-balloon-shred-sothebys-backfired-self-destruct-8575161
 

[Fungus]

imho it would be highly fraudulent to drive the price of his own works up.

Huh?

You're saying any art project (eg. this prank) that makes him more important as an artist is fraudulent?

Maybe he should have quit painting 20 years ago, just to avoid legal problems.

[Fungus]

The only question is whether it constitutes vandalism and whether the owner was aware. I'm not even sure of the former as the shredder has always been a part of the artwork, at least that's the story. Whoever bought it bought the artwork as a whole, including the pieces he was unaware of.

Maybe he bought it knowing this would happen. He could have known in advance and that's the reason he paid 1 million for a painting that everybody else though was worth 300 thousand (the initial valuation).

Banksy could have told a few known collectors that "It'll be worth bidding on, trust me..." and that's the reason the price went so high.

[Koen]

March 2106 : Le Louvre exhibits this long lost print. As the curtain drops, the canvas rises from the grave as a truly intact piece revealing the artist one true message : art never disappears, it lives within us. People rejoice. The war is over.

[Brumby]

So, has Banksy opened up a new angle on Performance Art?

[Kleinstein]

"Pre-shredded" - would make the whole thing easier, lighter, more reliable, but ... does the mechanism really matter?

It matters because its the one thing Dave may have got wrong in his video, and we love criticizing him .

Pre-shredded makes sense on too many levels, for liability as well as SparkyFX notes, you can just reverse the rollers and the painting returns to its original state.
I wouldn't be too surprised if the motor control is bi-directional and could roll/unroll the shredded copy.

We've had a number of #Banksy print owners contact us today asking if they shred their artwork will it be worth more. Please, Please DON'T. The events of the last 24hrs are a very unique piece of art history.

https://www.indy100.com/article/banksy-shredded-print-painting-girl-with-balloon-shred-sothebys-backfired-self-destruct-8575161
 

If the mechanism would be reversible - the fun would be to also have the reverse part on video. With a precut version hanging behind and rolling up the "original" this would be a pretty simple way to build the mechanics, though less of a performance if the "original" is still intact.

For the batteries, there is no need to use an electric drive for the shredder. For long time a simple mechanical spring mechanism might be pretty durable. However the rather constant speed suggest an electric drive.

My guess would be the previous owner was part of the plot - possibly to a point that such a stunt was plant from the beginning an the batteries just changes before. At least the mechanism needed quite some extra length of the canvas on the lower end.

[Howardlong]

I’ve just been to see it this afternoon. Sotherby’s have opened it to the public today and tomorrow.

I only have an IOS device with me and I haven’t figured out how to upload pics from IOS to the forum, so here is a link to a few photos to at least try to understand how it works a bit more: https://1drv.ms/f/s!Ak3HU3AygNouhbwV2E51SdaPmNgAmw

I have some cellphone video too but lighting isn’t good. As well as quite limited lighting, the piece is behind acrylic glass, and side views are limited by the support structure. But you are allowed to walk all the way around it.

My view having seen it wih my own eyes from about 1m away? The shredded canvas isn’t the original picture canvas. The vertical registration, together with the depth offset, says it can’t be, unless it’s elastic.

You’re taken into a dark room with the piece lit from above only in groups of about 30 or 40 at a time, with a 2 minute time limit.

Cameras beyond a cell phone were no allowed: I took an LX10 point and shoot pocket camera which has an f/1.4 lens on a 1” sensor, pretty much as good as it gets for low light in this form factor, but was told to put it away as soon as I took it out of my pocket by one of the five security guards in the room.

Of course everyone was using a cellphone.

There was about a half hour wait when I went, and be aware that there is plenty of queue jumping whether or not you were entitled. Please, visitors to Britain, understand that queues are there for a reason, because we still have manners and respect for others, and self-entitlement in the queue department is pretty much asking for a firm verbal response.

[Bud]

The rectangular opening in the back plate is still there! How come noone looked through it and not noticed the stuffed parts of the mechanism inside? I do not get it.

[AndyC_772]

Given the materials used in the artwork, how plausible is it that the artist could produce an duplicate to shred which is so nearly identical to the original that it stands up to scrutiny?

It was made with spray paint; expressive, perhaps, but not particularly controllable. Presumably somewhere there's a high resolution image of the original artwork, which could be compared with the shredded version to see if they're actually the same?

[Howardlong]

I forgot to mention, the shredded/non-shredded canvases are very definitely a different shade. Busted just on this IMHO.

[TheSteve]

I forgot to mention, the shredded/non-shredded canvases are very definitely a different shade. Busted just on this IMHO.

Yep, you captured that very nicely in your pictures.

[W9GFO]

I forgot to mention, the shredded/non-shredded canvases are very definitely a different shade. Busted just on this IMHO.

I think that is due to lighting. The original is behind glass under a spot light, the shredded part is not under glass and is illuminated by indirect AND reflected light.

I can't think of a good reason why they would be different shades anyway, it is not like this thing was displayed in direct sunlight for several years.

[Howardlong]

The entire item was all behind glass of some sort, both the main picture and the shredded. You can see the reflections in both.

[Howardlong]

Here's some lower res versions for inline on-forum viewing (don't know why some are showing wrong orientation).

[mc172]

I just don't get why this is a thing. Who cares?

Er, wasn't the whole idea that he didn't want his art sold, yet it's now an exhibition piece with massive media attention, with a price tag to enter, and is hence being sold (or at least rented)?

[Howardlong]

I just don't get why this is a thing. Who cares?

Er, wasn't the whole idea that he didn't want his art sold, yet it's now an exhibition piece with massive media attention, with a price tag to enter, and is hence being sold (or at least rented)?

Frankly the art part of it doesn't interest me, it's the engineering, including the implied claims, and the realistic engineering viability.

I know I am not alone in taking family electrical appliances apart when I was young to try to understand them. Much the the same applies now.

[Howardlong]

I just don't get why this is a thing. Who cares?

Er, wasn't the whole idea that he didn't want his art sold, yet it's now an exhibition piece with massive media attention, with a price tag to enter, and is hence being sold (or at least rented)?

To add, entry to the exhibit is free of charge.

[Fungus]

I think that is due to lighting.

It might also be because it passed though a dirty/oily roller.

But I believe that the "pre-shredded" method is much easier to implement and therefore more likely.

[Fungus]

Seems weird that Sotheby's would put it on display. Doesn't the buyer want it?

Now we're back to the theory that Sotheby's was in on it all along and the auctioneer does push a button just after the hammer falls.

(watch the video at 0:36)

[Howardlong]

The buyer is still proceeding with the purchase.

I’m not convinced Sotheby’s were in on it.

Either way, I think we can all agree there is a mechanism inside the frame that’s controlled externally.

But I don’t believe the mechanism, specifically what powered it, was put in twelve years ago. Far more likely shortly before the sale, the frame was dismantled to facilitate the stunt.

[Fungus]

Either way, I think we can all agree there is a mechanism inside the frame that’s controlled externally.

Not me. I think it was listening for an auctioneer's hammer, combined with certain keywords to arm the device. 

(for the last 12 years)

[SparkyFX]

You're saying any art project (eg. this prank) that makes him more important as an artist is fraudulent?

No, yet my post may imply it. Sorry, it was not meant this way. Arrangements between bidder and owner to drive the price up might be fraudulent, but hard to regulate, i don´t know enough about it. The piece itself is not any different by doing so.

Nevertheless, in the moment art hits commerce, popularity influences price.

[Fungus]

You're saying any art project (eg. this prank) that makes him more important as an artist is fraudulent?

No, yet my post may imply it. Sorry, it was not meant this way. Arrangements between bidder and owner to drive the price up might be fraudulent, but hard to regulate, i don´t know enough about it. The piece itself is not any different by doing so.

What if Banksy is both bidder and owner? Is it still fraud?

[thm_w]

Seems weird that Sotheby's would put it on display. Doesn't the buyer want it?

Now we're back to the theory that Sotheby's was in on it all along and the auctioneer does push a button just after the hammer falls.

(watch the video at 0:36)

Art owners often don't care about having pieces in front of them, its all about hoarding their money somewhere. They can sit in big warehouses near shipping ports to avoid paying tax: https://www.npr.org/2018/02/15/585971962/why-a-lot-of-very-expensive-art-is-disappearing-into-storage

If you can find some footage of another auction during that day where the auctioneer does not press a button, that would be strong evidence. But a quick search did not find other footage from auctions that day.

[Howardlong]

Seems weird that Sotheby's would put it on display.

Marketing, it can only add to the item's notoriety and value.

What if Banksy is both bidder and owner? Is it still fraud?

Apparently, the buyer is a woman. she could, of course, be an agent for the buyer.

[DrGeoff]

Looks like additional wires heading up to the top of the frame and possibly down the sides.
Antenna?
Or maybe a concealed receiver power-up mechanism that could have been activated during a pre-auction inspection of the lots (eg a couple of magnets located in the right places at the back)?
Then the primary cells and mechanism could have been there a bit longer than Dave suggests based on the lifetime of a receiver continuously powered.

[free_electron]

-fixed-. pasted wrong link.
the directors cut.

shows a different cuttng mechanism ( rotary blades )

but . note how he holds his soldering iron .... 

[orin]

Then the primary cells and mechanism could have been there a bit longer than Dave suggests based on the lifetime of a receiver continuously powered.

The receiver doesn't need to be continuously powered.

I'd have a system where it has two states - deep sleep and armed.  In deep sleep, it powers up for a few milliseconds every few minutes.  If it gets a signal, it goes into the armed state where it listens more frequently, or even all the time for the trigger signal.  If it doesn't get triggered for half an hour or so, it could go back into the deep sleep mode.  There would have been more than enough time to send such an arming signal in this case.

Let's say your receiver uses 20 mA and you listen for 10ms each second.  On average, you are now only using 200 uA.

Alternatively, depending on the RF chip, it might be better to send out an "I'm listening now" signal and then power up the receiver just long enough to get a response.  Some of these low power RF chips use less current to transmit than receive!  If you don't know when your message is coming in, you have to power your receiver up long enough to receive two messages to ensure a message will be within your receive window - assuming a continuous stream if messages.  So if you use less current to transmit and your messages are the same length, the poll method can actually use less power.  It's certainly generating less useless RF on the part of the transmitter.

These sort of techniques are how a lot of low power wireless devices manage to run on coin cells.  You spend most of your time in some deep sleep mode and run the radio at very low duty cycle.

[Fungus]

the directors cut.

Wrong video?

Maybe this one:

[Fungus]

The roller mechanism, the downwads step, etc., are consistent with a real shred:





Also: The effort needed to fake that mechanism is on a par with building a real one. Why fake it?

(Yeah, the soldering iron scene is probably faked - like the scalpel blades were)

[NivagSwerdna]

You have to admire the nice machining.  And especially the drive belt. Engineering Art.

[glarsson]

That must have added quite a bit of weight. Didn't someone at Sotheby's wonder why the painting was as heavy as a bronze statue?

[Howardlong]

ROFL!

[glarsson]

ROFL!

Someone had been reading eevblog and decided to have some fun.

[Fungus]

ROFL!

Someone had been reading eevblog and decided to have some fun.

I'm sure that's done on purpose.

If you want a laugh, try googling shutterstock soldering.

[free_electron]

ROFL!

there's the xacto blades again ...

[Bud]

Am-Tech paid big buck for this promotion. did they exist 12 years ago?

[Howardlong]

The shot of it “working in rehearsals” was taken on a pretty modern smartphone.

Does anyone still think the complete shredding mechanism and its power source has been there since 2006?

[station240]

Am I the only one that noticed the chewed up belt in the early part of the video ?

Follow up video Dave ?

there's the xacto blades again ...

I think the xacto blades are a booby-trap for whoever tries to open the back of the frame with it in an upright position.
Notice the entire metal bar holding them down is in no way fixed to anything.

[thm_w]

The roller mechanism, the downwads step, etc., are consistent with a real shred:

Also: The effort needed to fake that mechanism is on a par with building a real one. Why fake it?

(Yeah, the soldering iron scene is probably faked - like the scalpel blades were)

yes looks like I was wrong and it actually cuts. This thing is incredibly complex given the end result.

[Howardlong]

I am still not at all convinced the shredder’s in the frame at all.

I don’t know why I didn’t notice it before, but there is what looks like a small window in the back, that was also there when I saw it in person at the weekend: I was fixated on the bottom of the frame.

[Fungus]

yes looks like I was wrong and it actually cuts. This thing is incredibly complex given the end result.

To me it all looks custom made/machined.

[Bud]

  https://youtu.be/vxkwRNIZgdY

[Bud]

The video does not prove much though, there may be copycats fabricating all sorts of things for fun. Certainly the person either had no knowledge how to use soldering iron or it is all part of the prank.

Edit: did we have 1280x720 digital video 12 years ago?  The quality of the video fragments is very consistent through the video, though supposedly there was 12 years time difference between shooting them.

[W9GFO]

The roller mechanism, the downwads step, etc., are consistent with a real shred:

...Also: The effort needed to fake that mechanism is on a par with building a real one. Why fake it?

Yes, that is exactly the type of mechanism I would expect to see that would actually shred the canvas. I believe it most likely that the real artwork was shredded, still some room for doubt on that though and I am not at all convinced that the "it didn't go as planned" story is real.

Taking into account the way the soldering iron was held and the existence of those exacto blades I would suggest that whoever was tasked with creating the "build video" added the row of exact blades for visual effect. At any rate, the person or persons that built the mechanism are not the same as who filmed it.

[W9GFO]

To me it all looks custom made/machined.

Agreed, but not about the "incredibly complex" part. It is far simpler than an ordinary inkjet printer but uses a lot of the same parts.

[W9GFO]

I am still not at all convinced the shredder’s in the frame at all.

I am. There must be rollers inside the frame to roll out the canvas. The real shredding mechanism is a series of pizza-cutter style blades adjacent to one of the other rollers. There is no additional challenge in placing that into the frame vs just rollers without the cutters.

[NiHaoMike]

Edit: did we have 1280x720 digital video 12 years ago?  The quality of the video fragments is very consistent through the video, though supposedly there was 12 years time difference between shooting them.

1080p has been around for more than that.

[W9GFO]

Am I the only one that noticed the chewed up belt in the early part of the video ?

You can see a couple pictures later that the pulleys and belt had been upgraded. There must be a lot of pressure between those rollers to require that much torque to make them turn.

Right before the cover is put on you can see the other motor with a narrow belt leading to the bottom of the frame. It looks like it's purpose is to drive the out-feed roller.

About that back cover, there is a clear window in it. You would be able to see the battery and wires inside the frame via that window. Not to mention that the slot at the bottom of the frame is also clearly visible.

[Howardlong]

The video does not prove much though, there may be copycats fabricating all sorts of things for fun. Certainly the person either had no knowledge how to use soldering iron or it is all part of the prank.

Edit: did we have 1280x720 digital video 12 years ago?  The quality of the video fragments is very consistent through the video, though supposedly there was 12 years time difference between shooting them.

Agreed, while 720 was available, the rehearsal segment around 2:35 taken in vertical 16:9 has only been a thing since smartphones introduced it about five or six years ago. There wasn’t even an iPhone in 2006, and the first iPhone wouldn’t even take video. The first smartphone able to take 720 video was released in 2009.

We also need to take a look at the means available to the artist in 2006, while he could undoubtedly resource this now, his income would not have realistically funded this back then, let alone the means to record this at such good definition.

The slit for the shredded version is very close to the back of the frame, but this doesn’t seem to match the various video claims.

Then there is the vertical registration mismatch. The slit exit is about an inch behind the picture. When I aligned pictures of the unshredded version to the half-shredded version, you’d expect there to be a significant discontinuity due to the additional depth offset going past the roller. That discontinuity isn’t there when you compare various reference points.

[mc172]

At the end the thing gets shredded entirely in one take.

It's all a load of bollocks.

[Howardlong]

Needs an x-ray image taking, but then we wouldn't be able to spend all this time speculating!

[Fungus]

I am. There must be rollers inside the frame to roll out the canvas. The real shredding mechanism is a series of pizza-cutter style blades adjacent to one of the other rollers. There is no additional challenge in placing that into the frame vs just rollers without the cutters.

The blades look exactly like the blades in an office paper cutter.

[Fungus]

Needs an x-ray image taking, but then we wouldn't be able to spend all this time speculating!

Seems pretty obvious to me that the thing in that video is real. Faking it would be an awful lot of work.

The only lie is that it's been dormant for 12 years.