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.
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."
"Pre-shredded" - would make the whole thing easier, lighter, more reliable, but ... does the mechanism really matter?
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.
imho it would be highly fraudulent to drive the price of his own works up.
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.
"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.QuoteWe'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
I forgot to mention, the shredded/non-shredded canvases are very definitely a different shade. Busted just on this IMHO.
I forgot to mention, the shredded/non-shredded canvases are very definitely a different shade. Busted just on this IMHO.
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)?
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)?
I think that is due to lighting.
Either way, I think we can all agree there is a mechanism inside the frame that’s controlled externally.
You're saying any art project (eg. this prank) that makes him more important as an artist is fraudulent?