Banksy pulled off the biggest prank ever

Syl wrote:I dont get this...so if the  painting was sold before it was shredded, has someone lost all that money?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:I dont get this...so if the  painting was sold before it was shredded, has someone lost all that money?

No, because of the prank, and subsequent publicity, the art work has gained several million dollars (or pounds) in worth.  Ironic, eh?

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, because of the prank, and subsequent publicity, the art work has gained several million dollars (or pounds) in worth.  Ironic, eh?

Yet this is the elusive artist who shuns publicity, so I still dont get it.

Syl wrote:Banksy could be a woman then, or a monkey...didnt the etchings of a monkey earn great praise from some toffee nosed art critic once believing the work to be the paintings from a famous artist?

magica wrote:How could it be worth more shredded, I don't get that.

Banksy is definitely male.

Original Quill wrote:

magica wrote:How could it be worth more shredded, I don't get that.

Banksy is definitely male.

Because of the story. It's no longer a staid old painting...it's a piece of living art, with the proof to show it in the cuts.  It's now a painting, and a story.

Why do you say Banksy is a male?

magica wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

magica wrote:How could it be worth more shredded, I don't get that.

Banksy is definitely male.

Because of the story. It's no longer a staid old painting...it's a piece of living art, with the proof to show it in the cuts.  It's now a painting, and a story.

Why do you say Banksy is a male?

I just feel he is male. No proof though.

Original Quill wrote:Yeah, but those assumptions will jump back at you.  Indy car racing was a guy sport, until Danica Partick came along.

Over the years Banksy has tried to maintain his anonymity. He has argued that he needs to hide his real identity because of the illegal nature of graffiti — that he “has issues with the cops,” that authenticating a street piece could be like “a signed confession.”Feb 17, 2013

Original Quill wrote:I don't know.  A few million bucks can change a lot of minds.

The mysterious artist has since authenticated the painting’s scraps and renamed it Love Is In The Bin.
Sotheby’s said after the famous incident that it was “in discussion about next steps” with the winning bidder about what to do.
But the bizarre turn seemed to have only bolstered the piece’s legacy — and value — with Alex Branczik, Sotheby’s head of contemporary art for Europe, dubbing it “the first artwork in history to have been created live during an auction”.
The bidder is apparently willing to take her chances that he is right.
Initial concern for the unlucky new owner of the piece soon evaporated, as art experts tipped the half-destroyed work was probably now worth more.
“The successful bidder was a private collector, bidding through a Sotheby’s staff member on the phone. We are in discussions about next steps,” the auction house said in a statement.

Despite his success and growing prominence, Banksy has managed to keep his identity a closely guarded secret.
Some people are aware of who he is — associates and fellow artists — but have proven to be fiercely loyal to his wishes to stay a secret.
When Forbes magazine estimated Banksy’s personal wealth at around £14 million ($A26 million), he responded with regret, saying he wished his works were worthless.
After Saturday’s stunt, he borrowed a quote from Picasso and wrote on Instagram: “The urge to destroy is also a creative urge.”

Syl wrote:Banksy could be a woman then, or a monkey...didnt the etchings of a monkey earn great praise from some toffee nosed art critic once believing the work to be the paintings from a famous artist?

veya_victaous wrote:

The clip shows a hooded figure putting the finishing touches on the device, before text appears on the screen . . . .

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:Banksy could be a woman then, or a monkey...didnt the etchings of a monkey earn great praise from some toffee nosed art critic once believing the work to be the paintings from a famous artist?

I'm leaning towards a dragon actually . . . . . or maybe a unicorn? Call it a hunch.

Syl wrote:

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:Banksy could be a woman then, or a monkey...didnt the etchings of a monkey earn great praise from some toffee nosed art critic once believing the work to be the paintings from a famous artist?

I'm leaning towards a dragon actually . . . . . or maybe a unicorn? Call it a hunch.

Well he/she/ whoever does exist because the paintings have got to have been created by someone.

What I dont get about this shredded painting, yes, it was a good publicity stunt at the time, the painting being shredded in the auction room, all caught on camera, but now it's just a million strips of waste paper.....how can that be worth anything to anyone?

And if it actually is, does that not show how incredibly pretentious the art world is, something I would have thought Banksy would be dead against.

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well he/she/ whoever does exist because the paintings have got to have been created by someone.

What I dont get about this shredded painting, yes, it was a good publicity stunt at the time, the painting being shredded in the auction room, all caught on camera, but now it's just a million strips of waste paper.....how can that be worth anything to anyone?

And if it actually is, does that not show how incredibly pretentious the art world is, something I would have thought Banksy would be dead against.

It's worth more because it's the Only Banksy Painting That Shredded Itself. If there's only one thing in the world and a lot of people are interested in it, it rises in value.

What cracks me up is that a lot of people who own Banksy prints, hearing of this one's rise in value, have stupidly shredded their own Banksy prints - rendering them worthless.

Not only that, but the value of the prints owned by people smart enough not to shred them went up.

Syl wrote:More money than sense springs to mind....Im not struck on this gimicky art. Give me a good old fashioned painting where one can stand back and admire it any day....but each to their own.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:More money than sense springs to mind....Im not struck on this gimicky art. Give me a good old fashioned painting where one can stand back and admire it any day....but each to their own.

What would Van Gogh's ear be worth, had they kept it in a jar of formaldehyde?  And he was a Dutch master, not some come-lately graffiti scribbler.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What would Van Gogh's ear be worth, had they kept it in a jar of formaldehyde?  And he was a Dutch master, not some come-lately graffiti scribbler.

No doubt Damien Hurst would have made a bloody fortune if he had gotten his hands on it first.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

[Original Quill wrote: "What would Van Gogh's ear be worth, had they kept it in a jar of formaldehyde?  And he was a Dutch master, not some come-lately graffiti scribbler."]

No doubt Damien Hurst would have made a bloody fortune if he had gotten his hands on it first.

Yes.  Covered it in dung or menstrual blood and quadrupled it's worth.

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:
Yes.  Covered it in dung or menstrual blood and quadrupled it's worth.

I don't think those are art by any definition.  That's just shock value, if anything.

Perhaps you don't understand art.  The art in Banksy is in the act...even the act of making it go away.  As he says, even destruction is art in the way that it is done.  Dung?  Menstrual blood?  What intrinsic message is in that?

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Yes.  Covered it in dung or menstrual blood and quadrupled it's worth.

I don't think those are art by any definition.  That's just shock value, if anything.

Perhaps you don't understand art.  The art in Banksy is in the act...even the act of making it go away.  As he says, even destruction is art in the way that it is done.  Dung?  Menstrual blood?  What intrinsic message is in that?

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't think those are art by any definition.  That's just shock value, if anything.

Perhaps you don't understand art.  The art in Banksy is in the act...even the act of making it go away.  As he says, even destruction is art in the way that it is done.  Dung?  Menstrual blood?  What intrinsic message is in that?

Ask Tracey Emin.

“The urge to destroy is also a creative urge”.

Tommy Monk wrote:Did anyone watch the vid?