$179 million for a Picasso

Mudcat

Toppus Doggus
Only slight problem: the stunt was seen by many as a statement against the commercial art market - Banksy has said he doesn't like the idea of hedge fund managers owning his art - but that painting is now probably twice as valuable or more.

Maybe much more.
 

Matty

Toe Toucher
I saw this and wondered, how many people were in on this. I mean, how do you trigger a shredder remotely after years?
Banksy has his own crew of authenticators that work with auctioneers and curators, it's entirely possible that these people had unsupervised access to the piece mere days before the auction. :light:
 

Mudcat

Toppus Doggus
I'm not sure what you are suggesting there. Banksy has said he installed the shredder into the frame a few years ago.

I'm also not sure who won the auction. I believe that is still a general secret and no one knows. It makes sense - to some extent - that it could be part of the Banksy crew who knew what was going to happen and guessed that the painting was going to jump significantly in value immediately after the bid. But now I'm just inventing conspiracy theories. I don't know for a fact that the painting has jumped in value. I'm just assuming. Certainly that kind of "insider trading" doesn't sound like Banksy's style.

:dunno:
 
Only slight problem: the stunt was seen by many as a statement against the commercial art market - Banksy has said he doesn't like the idea of hedge fund managers owning his art - but that painting is now probably twice as valuable or more.

Maybe much more.
Are other rich guys fine? If you are really against commercial art market, don't take part in an auction for starters. Maybe do it through a $1 (or $5) lottery.
 

Mudcat

Toppus Doggus
Saying hedge fund managers was just an example. I'm sure he just means anyone who views the work as an investment commodity more than a poetic social commentary.

I'm no expert - hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong - but my sense is that the Banksy situation is more complex than you are suggesting. He sees himself as a street artist/satirist for the people. Sometimes the stuff he does on the street - and just leaves there - gets nabbed up by opportunistic citizens and - yada yada yada - it can end up at an auction.

I don't know the full scope of things; I don't know if he does auction some of his stuff in a conventional way as well; but I have heard of people literally removing chunks of public walls to possess his stuff.

Given that - and given the price range we are now getting into - it seems inevitable there will be some hedge fund managers at the end of the line. It's the world we live in.

But he's an artist and artists say shit like that.
 
Honestly, as a buyer. I'd sue. I don't know the provenance of this work, but I assume that there was some sort of ownership interest prior to the sale and that interest was interfered with when the work was altered. The counter would obviously be that this was the whole work, the shredding was a performance component of the artwork that was yet to be revealed. But then to Mudcat's point the value is enhanced. I'm sure it's not surprising but my knee jerk reaction is usually to sue.
 
Top