Discussion in 'photography, graphics & art' started by cybershot, Oct 6, 2018.
A Banksy Painting 'Self-Destructed' After Being Auctioned for $1.1 Million
Sounds like something JML would sell. *The fantastic remote shredding photo frame from JML* " Tired of the same old picture in the same old frame? Simply press the remote shredding device and the discreet in build shredder destroys the existing picture which you can then replace with a nice new one!" ONLY FROM JML!
Auto-destructive art – Art Term | Tate
Back when I was being interviewed for art school many years ago, I'd planned on my interview piece being rigged with fireworks to explode during the interview.
Chickened out of it sadly.
Double sadly as that particular institution declined to offer me a place as I was "too poor"
It’s hilarious! They’re actually wondering if it could be worth any more now!
Performance art with huge publicity, sir.
It's fantastic. I love it. Look at their faces...
They'll pawn it off as performance art though and the shredded pieces will become even more valuable...cos it's true ART.
Banksy must have been piss ing himself laughing...
Whatever you think of the man and his art, that's fucking hilarious
The added notoriety of it should be good for at least another $200k.
Banksy just can't get away from the filthy lucre. No matter how hard he tries...
Third world war tried to make something that destroyed the stylus and made you shit yourself at the end of side 2 of their first LP (1970). Debord's memoires had a sandpaper cover designed to scratch or ruin coffee tables other books etc (1959).
Well ahead of the game again eh robin?
He could try burning a million quid like Drummond and Cauty!
Indeed. See my post above.
Some Durruti Column KP cover in sand paper too no?
I vaguely remember reading that traditional Navajo sand paintings were destroyed - swept away or allowed to be blown away at the end of the day they were made.
I used to into this stuff 20odd years ago.
Can't remember much these days though.
Should have been a cross-cut shredder if he was serious, or an incendiary device.
As if the people at the auction house didn’t know.
“Oh yeah, lets hang this painting in a suspiciously large frame on the wall and plug it into the mains”
The frame had built-in lights all as part of the piece. It's not beyond reasonable doubt imo.
Still worht it for the looks on their faces though
Dissapointed in that DC stunt. An album named after a SI cartoon with a cover nicked from a debord 'book'.
Should have shown him transferring their money to ISIS or something if it's all about the looks.
I thought that too....
Probably but it's brilliant.
I think it's likely to be a statement about how some people are willing to pay stupid amounts of money for artwork.
Should've got noted performance artist Jeremy Beadle involved.
You expected something more than a surface meaning from banksy?
Why is the shredded paper grey compared to the as yet unshredded top part?
Is the actual picture simply being rolled up inside the frame, whilst a pre-shredded photo copy is rolled out at the back?
what is light? - Google Search
I think it's backlit.
Yeah lights in the frame as a pretext for supplying power to the shredder
Would have been better if it had happened away from the spectacle, when hung on the wall/stored in the investment warehouse of whatever rich fucker bought it (though don't know how that would technically be achieved if its not guaranteed to be plugged in). I do like the faces in that photo though.
I love it.
I love the idea behind it...the finger to the art world...the faces of the crowd...
Because he's right.
It's all rubbish.
It's all the emperor's new clothes...
Fair play to him for showing them how ridiculous the Art World is.
(Not art.....But The ART World)
Separate names with a comma.