Silly pics...what'cha got??....maybe NSFW

[Holman]

In a lot of ways, this is the least complicated instance of how something like could go down. The painting took its second form just seconds after it was bought, creating an art moment that will be forever part of the history and meaning of the piece. As mentioned, this adds to its value and seems especially Banksian: weird, anti-institutional, and high-profile.

Suppose Banksy had somehow contrived a piece that looked like a normal framed painting but then suddenly faded completely away a year or two from now? Or a piece that completely disintegrated into dust after a decade?

Does buying a work of art come with a guarantee that it isn't pre-programmed to disappear, taking its collection-value with it?

[ImLawBoy]

Adding to the fun, as has been discussed Banksy likely made the work more valuable with his stunt. If you're the owner and you didn't want him to do that, you could probably push for criminal charges for destruction of property. Your civil recourse, though, would be limited to some kind of emotional damages (good luck, since you were auctioning the painting off anyway), since you can't very well sue Banksy for damages associated with the reduced value of the work.

[ImLawBoy]

In a lot of ways, this is the least complicated instance of how something like could go down. The painting took its second form just seconds after it was bought, creating an art moment that will be forever part of the history and meaning of the piece. As mentioned, this adds to its value and seems especially Banksian: weird, anti-institutional, and high-profile.

Suppose Banksy had somehow contrived a piece that looked like a normal framed painting but then suddenly faded completely away a year or two from now? Or a piece that completely disintegrated into dust after a decade?

Does buying a work of art come with a guarantee that it isn't pre-programmed to disappear, taking its collection-value with it?

You might be able to push for some sort of fraud claim here, in that you were tricked into thinking you were purchasing something permanent when you weren't. That would likely only work if you were buying it directly from the artist, as an auction house without knowledge of this wouldn't be committing fraud.

As these items are almost certainly insured for a large amount, there would likely be a legal battle there. The buyer would want to make a claim, but that insurer would fight that saying that the destruction/dissolution was part of the art to begin with.

[GreenGoo]

In a lot of ways, this is the least complicated instance of how something like could go down. The painting took its second form just seconds after it was bought, creating an art moment that will be forever part of the history and meaning of the piece. As mentioned, this adds to its value and seems especially Banksian: weird, anti-institutional, and high-profile.

Suppose Banksy had somehow contrived a piece that looked like a normal framed painting but then suddenly faded completely away a year or two from now? Or a piece that completely disintegrated into dust after a decade?

Does buying a work of art come with a guarantee that it isn't pre-programmed to disappear, taking its collection-value with it?

I don't know, but I would think that property law would answer yes, unless the buyer knew it was pre-programmed to disappear when they bought it. Is self destruction a typical, normal and known behaviour of art? If not, I don't think it's reasonable for the buyer to assume it is when doing their best to make an informed purchase. I don't think buyer beware applies to acts of malicious destruction by the seller, or worse, in this case, by a previous owner and creator.

While art is special in terms of value, it's not particularly special in terms of property law.

I'll happily stand corrected if someone knows otherwise.

[Daehawk]

Crappy art is always overpriced.

[GreenGoo]

As these items are almost certainly insured for a large amount, there would likely be a legal battle there. The buyer would want to make a claim, but that insurer would fight that saying that the destruction/dissolution was part of the art to begin with.

I'm sympathetic to the "it's part of the art" argument, even though his intent was the destruction of the art. Performance piece and all that.

Where I start to lose sympathy is when it's done on the sly, without knowledge to the buyer (or even seller in this case!). That the seller didn't know it would be destroyed and the buyer didn't know it would be destroyed, seems pretty f**cked up right there.

We don't accept that a clock radio can be destroyed by the manufacturer (at least not yet) if they don't like what's happening to their clock radio. There is some equivalency in software licensing, but it's not a perfect comparison.

Art makes the whole thing more complicated, imo.

[GreenGoo]

Crappy art is always overpriced.

Art is as valuable as the market decides it is. That's how subjectivity works.

[Isgrimnur]

[Holman]

Crappy art is always overpriced.

Art is as valuable as the market decides it is. That's how subjectivity works.

And I feel pretty sure that Banksy's shredder is meant to comment on "value" in the art market.

[Blackhawk]

While it may not be destroyed, and may be more financially valuable, I'd think there'd be a strong argument that the stunt fundamentally changed the artwork in such a way that the original doesn't actually exist anymore, while a new piece of art made out of its pieces does.

[Kraken]

Also, we haven't touched on it yet (or I missed it) but I wonder what the legal ramifications are of this act of vandalism. The buyer sure didn't know they were buying a soon to be destroyed item. Does that matter? Not that I expect the police to be involved, unless the art community wants them involved, which seems to be no.

The buyer is under no obligation to complete the transaction, since the art was damaged while still in the care of the auction house.

The bidder is under no obligation to complete the purchase, but they would be an idiot not to.

Banksy's shredding it *is* the art. It's worth far more now than it was before.

It ain't vandalism when the artist does it.

Pop art + performance art = fine art. It was a brilliant move.

[Holman]

While it may not be destroyed, and may be more financially valuable, I'd think there'd be a strong argument that the stunt fundamentally changed the artwork in such a way that the original doesn't actually exist anymore, while a new piece of art made out of its pieces does.

Yeah, I question the word "destroyed" here. The painting now has separations. Meanwhile, its presentation has provoked discussions of modern art far from the usual venues, even among disgruntled computer-gaming nerds.

Something happened here, but it wasn't simple destruction.

[Daehawk]

Its both a new piece of Banksy art and destruction of private property.

[GreenGoo]

Pop art + performance art = fine art. It was a brilliant move.

I can't speak to Banksy's mind, but the limited amount I've heard from him is that he intended to render it "destroyed".

The end result of his performance piece seems to be completely unintended. Whether you think that's brilliant or not is in the eye of the beholder I guess.

I kind of feel like it's the result of popular artist plus a public's infatuation meets semi-random destruction = wow, amazing. I certainly like his painting better now than before, but he's probably doesn't have me in mind when he creates.

I'm sure he was commenting on some aspect of art (Holman suggests it's a commentary on value. Banksy himself seems to have implied an issue with re-selling, rather than inherent value) but the end result sure seems contrary to his intent.

If a popular artist takes a dump that looks vaguely like Lincoln, is it art? More to the subject, is it brilliant?

[Holman]

Here is the Philadelphia Flyers' new mascot. His name is "Gritty."



He is apparently a Meth Muppet.

Gritty doesn't care about haters like me or you.


link

Gritty will eat your children.

[GreenGoo]

He's no NFL cheerleader.

I wonder if he gets benefits?

[Daehawk]

Maybe the Banksy thing was a set up..if even real.

Look at the shredded pic. The art is in front of the frame there..in the front not in front I suppose...but the shredded part is way back near the back. Also is the length of the entire art right?

https://boingboing.net/2018/10/09/myth- ... eddin.html

[GreenGoo]

I don't get it. Is the conspiracy that the entire auction house was in on it? He might want to be Andy Kaufman, I wouldn't know, but he's got a long way to go if so.

In the end I don't care one way or the other. The piece is still going to be more valuable than it was before.

As Holman and Blackhawk (I think) said, it's got the whole world talking about it, so either way it's a big win for the artist.

[Paingod]

Good to see they got Gritty some non-slip shoes.

Banksy: I'm betting museums and galleries the world over are quietly double-checking their frames.

[LordMortis]

Edit:

WRT Banksy, I'm not interested enough to research the history, but can I assume s/he was not standing to make 1.2 million from that painting? How does that happen? How does that whole thing go down? And quite frankly, I find the work so much more interesting after the fact. Now it has a context. Now it has a dimension. It's not worth a million to me by any stretch of the imagination, but now it's interesting enough to be worth something and specifically a lot more than it was before the gavel was hit.

Edit 2:

Also I'm sure it's just me but I look at Shredded girl losing her Balloon and I see baby DJT.

[Daehawk]

Gritty seems a cool mascot but he looks a bit scary. i wonder how small kids take him.

[LordMortis]

[Isgrimnur]

Race you....

[dbt1949]

I'd have won.

[Daehawk]

Easy to win hard to repeat it.

[Daehawk]

[Holman]

Gritty seems a cool mascot but he looks a bit scary. i wonder how small kids take him.

When he first appeared, everyone in Philadelphia thought it was an awful choice.

Then social media went all "Look at stupid Philadelphia's stupid mascot!!," and immediately Philadelphia went "Fuck you! We love our Gritty!!"

I expect a plurality of kids in Gritty costumes this Halloween.

[Holman]

I'd have won.

Plummeting is cheating.

[Daehawk]

[Isgrimnur]

It's spreading...

[EvilHomer3k]

How much press would they have gotten with Louie the Bear? None. Gritty has given them more press than they got in their entire existence. Everybody knows who Gritty is now.

[Archinerd]

Gritty is basically a furry orange reincarnation of The Burger King.

[Daehawk]

We already know its not a good idea to park in front of a fire hydrant. Now we see its not good to block a construction zone.

[Unagi]

I'd have won.

[tjg_marantz]

Porters Lake, Nova Scotia in case anyone wanted to know where.

[stessier]

[hepcat]

[stessier]

Dad of the year indeed.

[LordMortis]

Speaking of Dad of the year....

Saw this today



Now I can' post my request to downgrade to a customized Jenner in Nick's thread.

[hepcat]

A Caitlyn Jenner mech would be very cool indeed.