I like to think it was. But it would take an awfull lot of planning, and some very sleepy and generally lame auctioneers as well, to pull this off with guaranteed succes and without getting caught.

We're talking about a guy who made his name tagging and breaking his art into museums. If anyone could pull it off, he could. I don't even think he needed anyone on the 'inside' so to speak.

The entire event is another Banksy "piece".

In essence, the news story itself is the piece, perhaps.

He wouldn't have needed any help - Occam's razor - his art is in high demand and would be guaranteed to sell. He got lots of publicity out of a little gimmick, cos he's smart and knows how to manipulate his audience with art.

Banksy is a hero of our time, sending up our redundant values and shining light on society's dark spots...

Justified ancients of Moo Moo burnt one million quid, they were doubted too

It happened, people witnessed it, therefore it's real.

If you look at his instagram he details how he built the shredder into the frame "years ago in the event that it was ever put up for auction".

What he's essentially done is taken one piece of art and through performance turned it into another, even more valuable piece of art. Pretty amazing, tho to your point I would find it difficult to believe that the auction house didn't inspect every inch of it before offering it up. Maybe they were in on it too....

ps

1. So he built the frame years ago on the pretense that it might at some point in time be auctioned. How did the frame know it was being auctioned?

2, The strips are worthmore now than they were as a whole piece.

3.

Right, I want to know how the device was triggered. Banksy in the audience with a remote? Or watching on a computer screen typing commands from half a world away? The banging gavel set off a sound sensitive device?

Banksy is the man!!

https://www.theguardian....auction-prank-plan-video

There is something perverse about the fact that partially destroying the picture has made it even more valuable. It is no longer the beauty and meaning of the work that matters. It goes to show what values the 'art collector' class of society holds. I wonder if Banksy's aim behind this little stunt was to expose this.

I guess we could put this shredding increases value to the test.

Come on of course it wasn't real. You think the people who handle the items are going to miss the fact there's a massive slit in one edge of the frame?

The whole thing is nonsense. His art, people bidding stupid money on it, the media circle jerk that ensues whenever he creates another trite piece. Is this really the best we have to offer in terms of modern art?

Yes.
Modern art = public masturbation

As far as i translate it, this is what the artist was trying to say. So in that respect it was efficient.



Would people feel so anti modern art if such large sums werent being paid out for certain pieces? I think that getting upset about peoples art because it has certain monetary values put on it is the other side of the coin to people paying vast amounts for it. A coin that is perhaps missing the point of what art is for.

What is the "point of what art is for" anyway? To make the arra artist wealthy and/or famous? To make political or social statements? To reflect the state of being?

I truly appreciate great skill and craft put into objects designed to inspire thought and feeling-or the same applied to pieces of great aesthetic beauty even- but see very little of any of that in the great majority of contemporary art out there which seems to serve a purpose that only the artist is cognizant of.

Would someone in 1000 years "get" Banksy? His work used to have a lot of contemporary political and social statement- and occasionally statements on the state of art-but it seems now he's simply pandering to the collectors he claimsto disdain with a stunt like this.

Outside of his own cultural milieu, he is anathema. What was the stunt about anyway? Is he mad that his work is a commodity forvery rich people when he himself is one of the very rich? Is he upset that the auction house profits in his absence? Maybe thenhe's angry at his ownutility and reach being an "anonymous" celebrity artist.

It's funny but truly makes little sense. Perhaps it's the opening salvo of the Neuvo Surreal?

Not all modern art is bad. It's just that some people don't seem to understand, in music as much as in visual arts, that you cannot simply copy something that was revolutionary once, and expect it to be just as revolutionary as the real thing. There's a lot of "recycling" going on. But a lot of realy good stuff as well.

Null,

Banksy would no doubt be pleased that his painting/performance brought out your questions.

IMO it's not just art but the commoditization of everything from marriage to spirituality that makes me deeply uneasy.

Couldn't agree with you more.
It is sad that it has seeped so deeply into human behaviour across cultures that it is now accepted as the norm and people who question it are viewed as eccentric or even worse ...heretics.

Yes that's true. Funny, ain't it?

I've come to believe that money is a nothing thing, a mass hallucination that doesn't exist in the natural world.

I think we will need to move beyond money if we are to return to Eden one day and reach harmony and equilibrium with ourselves and our planet.

Art and psychedelics could be away to help humanity to escape this mass hallucination. Well, at least they helped in my case