Banksy, artist or vandal ?

[Anon]

4 hours ago, Comrade 86 said:

Seems to me that a few have rather missed Banksy's point. He has an extremely successful career away from his graffiti exploits and if anything, he's thumbing his nose at the art establishment, not trying to join it.

The fact is, he's an activist, pure and simple and makes no claim whatsoever to being a serious artist. The irony is that those who 'tritely' assess his art using the usual hackneyed metrics, are his targets, not his audience. 

 

It's worthwhile noting that shredding this painting caused it to massively increase in value to 15 times its original price. Is it really thumbing your nose at the art establishment if they celebrate and profit from your work regardless of your intentions? What would you say Banksy achieved here, other than making himself and an art collector extremely wealthy?

[Anon]

On 19/03/2024 at 14:22, bcnram said:

Maybe everyone else likes those artists for good reason! 🤷🏽

Why scoff at what others like because it doesn’t fit with your preferences?

Maybe. You make a fair point and it's not like those artists are without merit. On the other hand I don't think popularity is always the best metric when valuing a piece of art or media. Why would anyone bother even discussing them otherwise? We would just all agree that Avatar is the pinnacle of cinema and Mrs Brown's Boys is the greatest British comedy ever produced and have done with it. You don't have to agree with my examples, but surely you have certain works of art or pieces of media whose popularity baffles you?

The second point is far easier to respond to. I scoff because I'm a miserable Bamford.

[Comrade 86]

3 hours ago, Anon said:

It's worthwhile noting that shredding this painting caused it to massively increase in value to 15 times its original price. Is it really thumbing your nose at the art establishment if they celebrate and profit from your work regardless of your intentions? What would you say Banksy achieved here, other than making himself and an art collector extremely wealthy?

Ah, the money. Well that's an unsurprising change of tack, isn't it and one that's consistently at the very root of your complaints. The sense that others of lower intellect and ability, have somehow unfairly got more than you. It's a theme that runs through almost every one of your acerbic little diatribes, which have become increasingly bitter and commonplace as the years have gone by. It's a shame, as whilst you're clearly not as clued up as you believe, you're obviously no fool either. Ah well, such is your life.

As to your question, what has he achieved, well since you ask, precisely what he set out to; that is to illustrate how vacuous a number of those who claim to understand modern art really are. Unwittingly, you've given an example yourself, though typically, your facts are rather muddled, perhaps because you rushed to make the point about the value of the painting, rather than addressing its purpose. For clarity, this painting (Love in the Bin) had already been sold when it self-shredded, but for £1 million, nowhere near the figure you cite. It was the new 'owner' who then resold it three years later for over £16 million, but it doesn't take a genius to understand that Banksy has no sell-on fee. That's not how art ownership works. As an aside, and while we're discussing money and not art, the painting Game Changer (see below), also sold for that kind of sum, but in this instance, Banksy had gifted it to the NHS, with the agreement that it could be sold to help fund NHS initiatives, the clue being in the subject matter. In other words, he didn't make a penny from it's sale. And frankly, if he had, a less green-eyed observer might think fair play for relieving fools of far greater net worth of their often not so hard-earned cash. Not you though, obviously. Perhaps if the government you so fervently supported had done a better job with your taxes, he might not have needed to, but doubtless you'll just label that as 'wokeism', or some other such trite, catch-all label of the kind you evidently favour.

For the record, and as it's no longer a secret, so I betray no confidences in saying as much, Banksy, as many folk have know for decades, is Robert Del Naja of Massive Attack fame. He's also a pal of mine and I can assure you, he's not the person you assume him to be. I could bore you with other good works he's undertaken with the monies derived from the sale of his works, but I've learned now that doing so would only elicit another sneery evaluation of someone you've never met and clearly know nothing about (as well as yours truly, no doubt!), so I shan't bother. Instead, I'll simply wish you a pleasant evening and suggest you Google 'Merde d'Artiste', which may or may not inform your understanding of what the establishment refer to as avant garde, or anti-art and it's place in modern art history.

Edited March 20 by Comrade 86
Game Changer image added

[Comrade 86]

On 19/03/2024 at 14:33, BatRam said:

Banksy is in the same boat. nothing brilliant about his art its just that no one knows who he is so it adds to the mystique of it all

These days, everyone knows who Banksy is and many have for decades.

[Anon]

1 hour ago, Comrade 86 said:

Ah, the money. Well that's an unsurprising change of tack, isn't it and one that's consistently at the very root of your complaints. The sense that others of lower intellect and ability, have somehow unfairly got more than you. It's a theme that runs through almost every one of your acerbic little diatribes, which have become increasingly bitter and commonplace as the years have gone by. It's a shame, as whilst you're clearly not as clued up as you believe, you're obviously no fool either. Ah well, such is your life. 

As to your question, what has he achieved, well since you ask, precisely what he set out to; that is to illustrate how vacuous a number of those who claim to understand modern art really are. Unwittingly, you've given an example yourself,(I didn't claim to understand modern art)  though typically, your facts are rather muddled, perhaps because you rushed to make the point about the value of the painting, rather than addressing its purpose. For clarity, this painting (Love in the Bin) had already been sold when it self-shredded,(I didn't say it hadn't already been sold) but for £1 million, nowhere near the figure you cite.(I didn't cite a figure for the sale) It was the new 'owner' who then resold it three years later for over £16 million, but it doesn't take a genius to understand that Banksy has no sell-on fee.(I didn't claim he did) That's not how art ownership works. As an aside, and while we're discussing money and not art, the painting Game Changer (see below), also sold for that kind of sum, but in this instance, Banksy had gifted it to the NHS, with the agreement that it could be sold to help fund NHS initiatives, the clue being in the subject matter. In other words, he didn't make a penny from it's sale. And frankly, if he had, a less green-eyed observer might think fair play for relieving fools of far greater net worth of their often not so hard-earned cash. Not you though, obviously. Perhaps if the government you so fervently supported had done a better job with your taxes, he might not have needed to, but doubtless you'll just label that as 'wokeism', or some other such trite, catch-all label of the kind you evidently favour.

For the record, and as it's no longer a secret, so I betray no confidences in saying as much, Banksy, as many folk have know for decades, is Robert Del Naja of Massive Attack fame. He's also a pal of mine and I can assure you, he's not the person you assume him to be. I could bore you with other good works he's undertaken with the monies derived from the sale of his works, but I've learned now that doing so would only elicit another sneery evaluation of someone you've never met and clearly know nothing about (as well as yours truly, no doubt!), so I shan't bother. Instead, I'll simply wish you a pleasant evening and suggest you Google 'Merde d'Artiste', which may or may not inform your understanding of what the establishment refer to as avant garde, or anti-art and it's place in modern art history.

 

I don't think I explained myself very well. I don't have a problem with Banksy getting paid or what art collectors choose to spend their money on. I brought up the sharp increase in the value of the painting to show that the art establishment celebrate pretty much everything Banksy does. Are they really being made to look foolish with this stunt? Nobody was bidding on that piece because of it's beauty, they bid because it's a Banksy. It's still a Banksy after a trip through the shredder. In my opinion, I don't think it was any kind of great revelation to say that modern art collectors will buy any old rubbish as long as it has the right name attached to it in 2021. You referenced Artist's s*** which is decades old. Perhaps Love in the Bin did achieve a goal by bringing this more sharply into focus, I just think the point was already pretty well worn.

There's a quite astonishing amount of strawmanning going on in your reply. You can think whatever you want, but it would be easier if you based your reply on things I've written rather than things you've imagined.

[Comrade 86]

2 minutes ago, Anon said:

I don't think I explained myself very well. I don't have a problem with Banksy getting paid or what art collectors choose to spend their money on. I brought up the sharp increase in the value of the painting to show that the art establishment celebrate pretty much everything Banksy does. Are they really being made to look foolish with this stunt? Nobody was bidding on that piece because of it's beauty, they bid because it's a Banksy. It's still a Banksy after a trip through the shredder. In my opinion, I don't think it was any kind of great revelation to say that modern art collectors will buy any old rubbish as long as it has the right name attached to it in 2021. You referenced Artist's s*** which is decades old. Perhaps Love in the Bin did achieve a goal by bringing this more sharply into focus, I just think the point was already pretty well worn.

There's a quite astonishing amount of strawmanning going on in your reply. You can think whatever you want, but it would be easier if you based your reply on things I've written rather than things you've imagined.

Yeah, you're just misunderstood, right! 

My response was in defence of a friend whose character and creativity you've called into question purely for reasons of self-aggrandisement and nothing more and with literally zero basis in fact. You've been just as dismissive of literally millions of others on the basis of their choice in music and you're so jaundiced and narcissistic that you can't even see it's you that has the problem, not your unwitting targets. 

@Archied sorry ofr derailing the thread mate. I'll leave it there.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

2 hours ago, Comrade 86 said:

Ah, the money. Well that's an unsurprising change of tack, isn't it and one that's consistently at the very root of your complaints. The sense that others of lower intellect and ability, have somehow unfairly got more than you. It's a theme that runs through almost every one of your acerbic little diatribes, which have become increasingly bitter and commonplace as the years have gone by. It's a shame, as whilst you're clearly not as clued up as you believe, you're obviously no fool either. Ah well, such is your life.

As to your question, what has he achieved, well since you ask, precisely what he set out to; that is to illustrate how vacuous a number of those who claim to understand modern art really are. Unwittingly, you've given an example yourself, though typically, your facts are rather muddled, perhaps because you rushed to make the point about the value of the painting, rather than addressing its purpose. For clarity, this painting (Love in the Bin) had already been sold when it self-shredded, but for £1 million, nowhere near the figure you cite. It was the new 'owner' who then resold it three years later for over £16 million, but it doesn't take a genius to understand that Banksy has no sell-on fee. That's not how art ownership works. As an aside, and while we're discussing money and not art, the painting Game Changer (see below), also sold for that kind of sum, but in this instance, Banksy had gifted it to the NHS, with the agreement that it could be sold to help fund NHS initiatives, the clue being in the subject matter. In other words, he didn't make a penny from it's sale. And frankly, if he had, a less green-eyed observer might think fair play for relieving fools of far greater net worth of their often not so hard-earned cash. Not you though, obviously. Perhaps if the government you so fervently supported had done a better job with your taxes, he might not have needed to, but doubtless you'll just label that as 'wokeism', or some other such trite, catch-all label of the kind you evidently favour.

For the record, and as it's no longer a secret, so I betray no confidences in saying as much, Banksy, as many folk have know for decades, is Robert Del Naja of Massive Attack fame. He's also a pal of mine and I can assure you, he's not the person you assume him to be. I could bore you with other good works he's undertaken with the monies derived from the sale of his works, but I've learned now that doing so would only elicit another sneery evaluation of someone you've never met and clearly know nothing about (as well as yours truly, no doubt!), so I shan't bother. Instead, I'll simply wish you a pleasant evening and suggest you Google 'Merde d'Artiste', which may or may not inform your understanding of what the establishment refer to as avant garde, or anti-art and it's place in modern art history.

Fabulous.  Get him to sign a copy of Blue Lines for me.  Proper signature, not 3D. As long as he's not mates with Popodopolous.  I can't have in my collection if he is. 

[Anon]

6 minutes ago, Comrade 86 said:

Yeah, you're just misunderstood, right! 

My response was in defence of a friend whose character and creativity you've called into question purely for reasons of self-aggrandisement and nothing more and with literally zero basis in fact. You've been just as dismissive of literally millions of others on the basis of their choice in music and you're so jaundiced and narcissistic that you can't even see it's you that has the problem, not your unwitting targets. 

@Archied sorry ofr derailing the thread mate. I'll leave it there.

I stand by those opinions. I don't consider it a problem to say that I don't like certain art or media. If it's an issue for you, well you'll just have to deal with it.

[Archied]

7 hours ago, Comrade 86 said:

Yeah, you're just misunderstood, right! 

My response was in defence of a friend whose character and creativity you've called into question purely for reasons of self-aggrandisement and nothing more and with literally zero basis in fact. You've been just as dismissive of literally millions of others on the basis of their choice in music and you're so jaundiced and narcissistic that you can't even see it's you that has the problem, not your unwitting targets. 

@Archied sorry ofr derailing the thread mate. I'll leave it there.

Please don’t bow out of the thread either yourself or anon , I think it’s a very interesting subject , what we consider art , how we value it and what it stirs in each of us , im not sure you can derail the subject matter ( art ) simply because very often the whole point of art itself in my humble view is to take us off on tangents , 

[FindernRam]

On 19/03/2024 at 14:08, TimRam said:

for example, blue stripe down the centre of a pure white background. My take on this was "After years of Earth being in an ice age, the first flowing river was spotted. One by one people came out of the shelters and could begin again".

I think I'm glad my brain only sees a blue stripe!

If you can conjure up that from a stripe, what on earth would you make of a chess board--no don't answer.

[Scott129]

13 hours ago, Comrade 86 said:

Ah, the money. Well that's an unsurprising change of tack, isn't it and one that's consistently at the very root of your complaints. The sense that others of lower intellect and ability, have somehow unfairly got more than you. It's a theme that runs through almost every one of your acerbic little diatribes, which have become increasingly bitter and commonplace as the years have gone by. It's a shame, as whilst you're clearly not as clued up as you believe, you're obviously no fool either. Ah well, such is your life.

As to your question, what has he achieved, well since you ask, precisely what he set out to; that is to illustrate how vacuous a number of those who claim to understand modern art really are. Unwittingly, you've given an example yourself, though typically, your facts are rather muddled, perhaps because you rushed to make the point about the value of the painting, rather than addressing its purpose. For clarity, this painting (Love in the Bin) had already been sold when it self-shredded, but for £1 million, nowhere near the figure you cite. It was the new 'owner' who then resold it three years later for over £16 million, but it doesn't take a genius to understand that Banksy has no sell-on fee. That's not how art ownership works. As an aside, and while we're discussing money and not art, the painting Game Changer (see below), also sold for that kind of sum, but in this instance, Banksy had gifted it to the NHS, with the agreement that it could be sold to help fund NHS initiatives, the clue being in the subject matter. In other words, he didn't make a penny from it's sale. And frankly, if he had, a less green-eyed observer might think fair play for relieving fools of far greater net worth of their often not so hard-earned cash. Not you though, obviously. Perhaps if the government you so fervently supported had done a better job with your taxes, he might not have needed to, but doubtless you'll just label that as 'wokeism', or some other such trite, catch-all label of the kind you evidently favour.

For the record, and as it's no longer a secret, so I betray no confidences in saying as much, Banksy, as many folk have know for decades, is Robert Del Naja of Massive Attack fame. He's also a pal of mine and I can assure you, he's not the person you assume him to be. I could bore you with other good works he's undertaken with the monies derived from the sale of his works, but I've learned now that doing so would only elicit another sneery evaluation of someone you've never met and clearly know nothing about (as well as yours truly, no doubt!), so I shan't bother. Instead, I'll simply wish you a pleasant evening and suggest you Google 'Merde d'Artiste', which may or may not inform your understanding of what the establishment refer to as avant garde, or anti-art and it's place in modern art history.

 

You say it's no longer a secret, but a Google search really doesn't bring up anything conclusive or affirmative.

Is this one of those things where 'people in the industry know'?

[angieram]

I think art and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I like Banksy because his work offers a comment on something topical that makes me think about it. 

I enjoy watching the media trying to evaluate and own it as a Banksy. If someone else had done it, is the message no longer there? 

[Day]

11 minutes ago, angieram said:

beauty is in the eye of the beholder

That’s what I tell myself every morning when I look in the mirror

[Stive Pesley]

12 hours ago, Anon said:

In my opinion, I don't think it was any kind of great revelation to say that modern art collectors will buy any old rubbish as long as it has the right name attached to it

It's a valid point, but for most collectors, it's a store of value. With the shallow kudos attached of being able to say you own it

It's essentially Bitcoin but without the horrible and needless environmental impact of coin mining - and you can actually gaze upon it and perhaps get some aesthetic pleasure from it, rather than just getting wood over some 1s and 0s that you "own"

[Wolfie]