Banksy: going, going, gone...

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Doones
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#21
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#21
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
I didn't say that the stunt wouldn't stand to someone's financial benefit. I said it wasn't honest, or interesting.
It's interesting you find it dishonest. ITV national news finds it interesting. I and some others on the thread find it interesting. You and others don't.

That's which makes art interesting, don't you think.

As for honesty, well that's up to the lawyers.
0
Doones
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#22
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#22
Also, the artwork isn't destroyed, even partially. It has evolved, developed, and apparently been enhanced.
0
SarcAndSpark
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 year ago
#23
I lol'd!

It's a very Banksy thing to do!

Also Bang Outta Order you're seriously over estimating the fine motor skills of small children- a 13yo maybe!
1
Bang Outta Order
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 year ago
#24
(Original post by SarcAndSpark)
I lol'd!

It's a very Banksy thing to do!

Also Bang Outta Order you're seriously over estimating the fine motor skills of small children- a 13yo maybe!
You're underestimating the skills of a child. It was hyperbolic, but I'm sure a 6 yr old can draw a heart and color it in for starters.
0
Bang Outta Order
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 year ago
#25
(Original post by Doonesbury)
It's interesting you find it dishonest. ITV national news finds it interesting. I and some others on the thread find it interesting. You and others don't.

That's which makes art interesting, don't you think.

As for honesty, well that's up to the lawyers.
You seem to be taking this personally.
Are you Banksy?
0
Bang Outta Order
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 year ago
#26
(Original post by Doonesbury)
“The auction result will only propel this further and given the media attention this stunt has received, the lucky buyer would see a great return on the £1.02m they paid last night.

“This is now part of art history in its shredded state and we’d estimate Banksy has added at a minimum 50% to its value, possibly as high as being worth £2m plus.”



Posted from TSR Mobile
So then what exactly impresses you? He shredded it to make more money, not less. The man's the most fraudulent iconoclast ever.
0
SarcAndSpark
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 year ago
#27
(Original post by Bang Outta Order)
You're underestimating the skills of a child. It was hyperbolic, but I'm sure a 6 yr old can draw a heart and color it in for starters.
I actually spend a couple of weeks in a primary school recently- in year 1 there were definitely children who hadn't even really mastered pen grip and control yet, but even excluding that, drawing a heart is something they have to be taught.
0
Bang Outta Order
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#28
Report 1 year ago
#28
(Original post by SarcAndSpark)
I actually spend a couple of weeks in a primary school recently
pfft dont believe you

(Original post by SarcAndSpark)
- in year 1 there were definitely children who hadn't even really mastered pen grip and control yet
is there something wrong with them...don't lie to me. Every 6 year old can draw and color.
0
Doones
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#29
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#29
(Original post by Bang Outta Order)
So then what exactly impresses you? He shredded it to make more money, not less. The man's the most fraudulent iconoclast ever.
He doesn't make more money from this sale, he wasn't the seller. (Although the future value of his works will probably appreciate in value from the publicity.)

By calling him a fraudulent iconoclast are you saying he's not an iconoclast? In which case you are technically correct because he didn't destroy the artwork - he changed it. :yy:
0
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 year ago
#30
(Original post by Bang Outta Order)
So then what exactly impresses you? He shredded it to make more money, not less. The man's the most fraudulent iconoclast ever.
But not for himself except indirectly by enhancing his reputation.

It is the purchaser who has the enhanced value. Risk passes at the fall of the hammer. If the vendor was party to the stunt, the sale will be voidable at the purchaser's option, in which case the vendor will get the damaged picture back to sell again.
0
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#31
Report 1 year ago
#31
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
AWhat is absolutely baffling to me is that people think this is clever. So he partially destroyed some goods he created, after they were sold. Wow, what a deep reflection on modern society that is. He must be a really thoughtful and introspective soul to come up with something like that. Really makes you think, doesn't it?

:no:
You find it baffling that this is some sort of commentary that might make people think? That, to me, is baffling!

The wall where that Banksy hung whilst it was being auctioned has had some of the most revered and venerated pieces of art in the world hung on it: hushed, lit, whilst enormous bids are placed to own them. What makes them financially 'valuable' in the first place, apart from the obvious things of age, rarity and non-reproducibility? Along comes yet another 'piece' in this conveyor belt, it sells for a huge amount of money and then is suddenly partially destroyed, in front of the audience who were hitherto venerating it? That doesn't make you think of what value means when it's applied to art, both financially and aesthetically? It doesn't make you question the nature of ownership, and the difference between ownership and possession? It doesn't make you consider whether a whole is indeed comprised of its parts, or whether certain items are indeed indivisible (and what makes something indivisible in the first place)?

That you just dismiss all of this is what I find odd, particularly from you, who is usually a bit deeper than your average TSR brat.
1
Bang Outta Order
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 year ago
#32
(Original post by Doonesbury)
He doesn't make more money from this sale, he wasn't the seller. (Although the future value of his works will probably appreciate in value from the publicity.)

By calling him a fraudulent iconoclast are you saying he's not an iconoclast? In which case you are technically correct because he didn't destroy the artwork - he changed it. :yy:
(Original post by nulli tertius)
But not for himself except indirectly by enhancing his reputation.

It is the purchaser who has the enhanced value. Risk passes at the fall of the hammer. If the vendor was party to the stunt, the sale will be voidable at the purchaser's option, in which case the vendor will get the damaged picture back to sell again.
Right. To sell again, for a higher value. It's his work so it's ultimately the value of his work that he's increased by doing this, regardless of who the money goes to. So I don't understand what's so genius about it. It'd be genius if he set it on fire it after it was bought lol. Now THAT would be the most "epic" social commentary ever. But of course, he's a fraudulent iconoclast and doesn't really care, just makes a living off "shocking."
1
SarcAndSpark
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#33
Report 1 year ago
#33
(Original post by Bang Outta Order)
pfft dont believe you



is there something wrong with them...don't lie to me. Every 6 year old can draw and color.
Tbf, it was at the very start of year 1, so some of them were barely 5, but honestly skills vary widely at this stage. Unless someone has shown them how to draw a heart, they won't intrinsically know how (in most cases).

Anyway, I feel like we're dragging the thread off topic.

A 6yo given pens and a ruler could probably create something resembling a Mondrian- that doesn't make the original any less iconic.
0
AperfectBalance
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#34
Report 1 year ago
#34
(Original post by Doonesbury)
Also, the artwork isn't destroyed, even partially. It has evolved, developed, and apparently been enhanced.
I guess that someone could "Evolve" or "Develop" the Mona Lisa by taking a sharpie to it.

The state of people that like modern art is embarrassing
1
Bang Outta Order
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#35
Report 1 year ago
#35
(Original post by SarcAndSpark)
Tbf, it was at the very start of year 1, so some of them were barely 5, but honestly skills vary widely at this stage. Unless someone has shown them how to draw a heart, they won't intrinsically know how (in most cases).

Anyway, I feel like we're dragging the thread off topic.

A 6yo given pens and a ruler could probably create something resembling a Mondrian- that doesn't make the original any less iconic.
im not reading this.
0
Violet Femme
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#36
Report 1 year ago
#36
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
Yeah, it isn't though, is it? It's a pretty stupid and pointless stunt that just involves him in lying about what he was selling.

Everything the guy does is obvious and vapid.
If it is so obvious why aren't you doing it?

Some people are wealthy and successful while others enviously whine about their success on the internet.
0
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#37
Report 1 year ago
#37
(Original post by AperfectBalance)
The state of people that like modern art is embarrassing
All 6.4 million of them in the case of vistors to Tate Modern last year.
0
Doones
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#38
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#38
(Original post by AperfectBalance)
I guess that someone could "Evolve" or "Develop" the Mona Lisa by taking a sharpie to it.
If Da Vinci did it to his own artwork would that be ok?

Alternatively how about smashing a very valuable Han dynasty urn.

Image
0
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#39
Report 1 year ago
#39
(Original post by Reality Check)
You find it baffling that this is some sort of commentary that might make people think? That, to me, is baffling!

The wall where that Banksy hung whilst it was being auctioned has had some of the most revered and venerated pieces of art in the world hung on it: hushed, lit, whilst enormous bids are placed to own them. What makes them financially 'valuable' in the first place, apart from the obvious things of age, rarity and non-reproducibility? Along comes yet another 'piece' in this conveyor belt, it sells for a huge amount of money and then is suddenly partially destroyed, in front of the audience who were hitherto venerating it? That doesn't make you think of what value means when it's applied to art, both financially and aesthetically? It doesn't make you question the nature of ownership, and the difference between ownership and possession? It doesn't make you consider whether a whole is indeed comprised of its parts, or whether certain items are indeed indivisible (and what makes something indivisible in the first place)?

That you just dismiss all of this is what I find odd, particularly from you, who is usually a bit deeper than your average TSR brat.
I haven't said that I dismiss any of your personal thoughts about it, which are what you've set out here. Of course, it is possible for one to have very meaningful reflections on events that are not preceded by any particularly clever or meaningful intention. You are also quite entitled to interpret any art piece as you see fit, and, if you so desire, without any consideration of the author's intent.

My problem is with people declaring Banksy a 'genius' for a prank that, in itself, really doesn't require much thought at all. There's no evidence that there was any more thought behind this than, 'gee, can you imagine how much people would talk about it if I shredded this thing after someone agreed to pay a load of money for it?' It is, in itself, a senseless act of destruction, and I think you give the artist far too much credit in attributing to him and his work your own thoughts about property, value, aesthetics, and all the rest of it.

But, since you ask, no, I am not prompted by this to think about any of the things you mention. I have found it perfectly possible to consider the nature of ownership, value, and the like, without needing to see a stunt like this. Are you telling me that you didn't consider the questions you're raising until you saw this stunt? That you had to see the partial destruction of a sold piece of artwork before you were able to access these thoughts?

I think you really have to strain to find any new, profound points about any of the matters you've referred to in this work. If it happens to have prompted you to reach your own new, profound realisation, that's great for you, but it is not evidence of Banksy's genius.
0
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#40
Report 1 year ago
#40
(Original post by Doonesbury)
If Da Vinci did it to his own artwork would that be ok?

Alternatively how about smashing a very valuable Han dynasty urn.

Image
Also stupid and uninteresting.

'It’s powerful only because someone thinks it’s powerful and invests value in the object'

Yeah, no ****. You think we needed to see you break a precious old artefact to think about that?

Have any of them burnt any books yet, to make some really deep, original points about how easily knowledge can be lost?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you confident you could find support for your mental health if you needed it in COVID-19?

Yes (79)
21.7%
No (285)
78.3%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed