Banksy

123457

Comments

  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    FocusZing wrote:
    cougie wrote:
    Better clip...

    Check out @girlsreallyrule’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/girlsreallyrule/sta ... 90816?s=09

    Cheers, captures the moment well.

    Banksy blew it big style. All he has done is have half of the piece very neatly cut into thin strips with the rest of it left as is. The picture can still be framed and hung on the wall and from a few feet away will look much the same and it won't even take any effort to do that given that half of it is intact.

    If the purchaser admired the piece for what it was then they'd probably reject it but as they will have bought it for purely financial reasons, all Banksy has done is inflate the value further giving a free windfall to the purchaser.

    Whatever this is, it is not subversive. Had the shredder actually really destroyed the piece in a meaningful sense then there might be an argument to call it genius (though not IMO). But he didn't so there isn't. Shame - it would have been fun to have seen the remains dumped in a landfill and watched the Banksy fans try to justify that the entire landfill was now art....
    Faster than a tent.......
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    Banksy him/herself may have been the buyer which would be amusing.

    Almost like insider trading.
  • FocusZing
    FocusZing Posts: 4,373
    Rolf F wrote:
    Banksy blew it big style. All he has done is have half of the piece very neatly cut into thin strips with the rest of it left as is. The picture can still be framed and hung on the wall and from a few feet away will look much the same and it won't even take any effort to do that given that half of it is intact.

    If the purchaser admired the piece for what it was then they'd probably reject it but as they will have bought it for purely financial reasons, all Banksy has done is inflate the value further giving a free windfall to the purchaser.

    Whatever this is, it is not subversive. Had the shredder actually really destroyed the piece in a meaningful sense then there might be an argument to call it genius (though not IMO). But he didn't so there isn't. Shame - it would have been fun to have seen the remains dumped in a landfill and watched the Banksy fans try to justify that the entire landfill was now art....

    I guess it comes down to the definition of Art.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,671
    Rolf F wrote:
    FocusZing wrote:
    cougie wrote:
    Better clip...

    Check out @girlsreallyrule’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/girlsreallyrule/sta ... 90816?s=09

    Cheers, captures the moment well.

    Banksy blew it big style. All he has done is have half of the piece very neatly cut into thin strips with the rest of it left as is. The picture can still be framed and hung on the wall and from a few feet away will look much the same and it won't even take any effort to do that given that half of it is intact.

    If the purchaser admired the piece for what it was then they'd probably reject it but as they will have bought it for purely financial reasons, all Banksy has done is inflate the value further giving a free windfall to the purchaser.

    Whatever this is, it is not subversive. Had the shredder actually really destroyed the piece in a meaningful sense then there might be an argument to call it genius (though not IMO). But he didn't so there isn't. Shame - it would have been fun to have seen the remains dumped in a landfill and watched the Banksy fans try to justify that the entire landfill was now art....

    Yes, he really blew it with that stunt that gained massive worldwide attention.
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    FocusZing wrote:
    cougie wrote:
    Better clip...

    Check out @girlsreallyrule’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/girlsreallyrule/sta ... 90816?s=09

    Cheers, captures the moment well.

    Banksy blew it big style. All he has done is have half of the piece very neatly cut into thin strips with the rest of it left as is. The picture can still be framed and hung on the wall and from a few feet away will look much the same and it won't even take any effort to do that given that half of it is intact.

    If the purchaser admired the piece for what it was then they'd probably reject it but as they will have bought it for purely financial reasons, all Banksy has done is inflate the value further giving a free windfall to the purchaser.

    Whatever this is, it is not subversive. Had the shredder actually really destroyed the piece in a meaningful sense then there might be an argument to call it genius (though not IMO). But he didn't so there isn't. Shame - it would have been fun to have seen the remains dumped in a landfill and watched the Banksy fans try to justify that the entire landfill was now art....

    Yes, he really blew it with that stunt that gained massive worldwide attention.

    Woosh......
    Faster than a tent.......
  • FocusZing
    FocusZing Posts: 4,373
    Rolf F wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    FocusZing wrote:
    cougie wrote:
    Better clip...

    Check out @girlsreallyrule’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/girlsreallyrule/sta ... 90816?s=09

    Cheers, captures the moment well.

    Banksy blew it big style. All he has done is have half of the piece very neatly cut into thin strips with the rest of it left as is. The picture can still be framed and hung on the wall and from a few feet away will look much the same and it won't even take any effort to do that given that half of it is intact.

    If the purchaser admired the piece for what it was then they'd probably reject it but as they will have bought it for purely financial reasons, all Banksy has done is inflate the value further giving a free windfall to the purchaser.

    Whatever this is, it is not subversive. Had the shredder actually really destroyed the piece in a meaningful sense then there might be an argument to call it genius (though not IMO). But he didn't so there isn't. Shame - it would have been fun to have seen the remains dumped in a landfill and watched the Banksy fans try to justify that the entire landfill was now art....

    Yes, he really blew it with that stunt that gained massive worldwide attention.

    Woosh......

    Greater attention for his work makes it more desirable/valuable.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,671
    Rolf F wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    FocusZing wrote:
    cougie wrote:
    Better clip...

    Check out @girlsreallyrule’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/girlsreallyrule/sta ... 90816?s=09

    Cheers, captures the moment well.

    Banksy blew it big style. All he has done is have half of the piece very neatly cut into thin strips with the rest of it left as is. The picture can still be framed and hung on the wall and from a few feet away will look much the same and it won't even take any effort to do that given that half of it is intact.

    If the purchaser admired the piece for what it was then they'd probably reject it but as they will have bought it for purely financial reasons, all Banksy has done is inflate the value further giving a free windfall to the purchaser.

    Whatever this is, it is not subversive. Had the shredder actually really destroyed the piece in a meaningful sense then there might be an argument to call it genius (though not IMO). But he didn't so there isn't. Shame - it would have been fun to have seen the remains dumped in a landfill and watched the Banksy fans try to justify that the entire landfill was now art....

    Yes, he really blew it with that stunt that gained massive worldwide attention.

    Woosh......

    Sorry, did you mean it sarcastically, or did you really think that he did it to stick it to the man? Couldn't tell.
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Sorry, did you mean it sarcastically, or did you really think that he did it to stick it to the man? Couldn't tell.

    Mean what sarcastically? My original post or my response to you?

    Banksy can do anything he likes and get worldwide attention - the media seem to be in awe of him for some reason. My point is not about him getting worldwide attention for doing something - more about the nature of how much value (artistic and financial) the media and the art world place on his work. Apologies if I said anything that implied that I did!

    If he did it just to make money then you are right - Banksy didn't screw up. If there is meant to be any depth, integrity etc in his art, then he did. Personally, I think he is probably just taking the piss and seeing how far he can go before the art world gets this.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,376
    I'd rather have a complete Banksy work than a shredded one.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,671
    Rolf F wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Sorry, did you mean it sarcastically, or did you really think that he did it to stick it to the man? Couldn't tell.

    Mean what sarcastically? My original post or my response to you?

    Banksy can do anything he likes and get worldwide attention - the media seem to be in awe of him for some reason. My point is not about him getting worldwide attention for doing something - more about the nature of how much value (artistic and financial) the media and the art world place on his work. Apologies if I said anything that implied that I did!

    If he did it just to make money then you are right - Banksy didn't screw up. If there is meant to be any depth, integrity etc in his art, then he did. Personally, I think he is probably just taking the wee-wee and seeing how far he can go before the art world gets this.

    His work seems to make people think "oh, that's quite smart", then nothing much deeper than that. This stunt fits with that really. I think he thought "that would be funny", then got Sotheby's to go along with it.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,671
    TheBigBean wrote:
    I'd rather have a complete Banksy work than a shredded one.

    Perhaps it's only really complete now... hmmm?
  • cooldad
    cooldad Posts: 32,599
    There are a bunch of complete ones. There's only one shredded one. I know which one I'd want.
    I don't do smileys.

    There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda

    London Calling on Facebook

    Parktools
  • my_grandadʹs_bike
    my_grandadʹs_bike Posts: 1,300
    Haven't had time to read all ten pages but if it hasn't been mentioned yet I have it on very good authority that Banksy is AKA Robert Del Naja from Massive Attack. A few articles now on the subject available on line. My source has close connections within the Bristol "scene" but hey I'm a sucker for a good storey.
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    I understood it was more likely to be Robert Gunningham.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Rolf F wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    Sorry, did you mean it sarcastically, or did you really think that he did it to stick it to the man? Couldn't tell.

    Mean what sarcastically? My original post or my response to you?

    Banksy can do anything he likes and get worldwide attention - the media seem to be in awe of him for some reason. My point is not about him getting worldwide attention for doing something - more about the nature of how much value (artistic and financial) the media and the art world place on his work. Apologies if I said anything that implied that I did!

    If he did it just to make money then you are right - Banksy didn't screw up. If there is meant to be any depth, integrity etc in his art, then he did. Personally, I think he is probably just taking the wee-wee and seeing how far he can go before the art world gets this.


    this entirely.

    If you watch "exit through the gift shop" and look at the tat he has hung in the National Gallery he is 100% taking the wee wee out of the art world
  • my_grandadʹs_bike
    my_grandadʹs_bike Posts: 1,300
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    I understood it was more likely to be Robert Gunningham.

    You might be right - part of the appeal not knowing categorically, as other have said. My source claiming to be an ex-girlfriend of another band member but maybe the drugs have addled all their brains.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 04091.html
  • FocusZing
    FocusZing Posts: 4,373
    edited October 2018
    I like the thought behind his work, but seeing some random coloured words or pictures on public property by some toss pot turns my stomach. It just makes me feel I'm passing through a dive.

    I bet once they grow up and get house, cars they wouldn't want some smart sprawl tagged over it.
  • my_grandadʹs_bike
    my_grandadʹs_bike Posts: 1,300
    This film is also a good watch:- Graffiti Wars

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2023500/
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    FocusZing wrote:
    I like the thought behind his work, but seeing some random coloured words or pictures on public property by some toss pot turns my stomach. It just makes me feel I'm passing through a dive.

    Have you seen his work? It's not really random coloured words or pictures.
  • FocusZing
    FocusZing Posts: 4,373
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    FocusZing wrote:
    I like the thought behind his work, but seeing some random coloured words or pictures on public property by some toss pot turns my stomach. It just makes me feel I'm passing through a dive.

    Have you seen his work? It's not really random coloured words or pictures.

    Graffiti in general, this is a general rant.


    4713039_043490fa.jpg
    That mess is just dragging a community down.
  • thegreatdivide
    thegreatdivide Posts: 5,807
    my grandad's bike wrote:
    Haven't had time to read all ten pages but if it hasn't been mentioned yet I have it on very good authority that Banksy is AKA Robert Del Naja from Massive Attack. A few articles now on the subject available on line. My source has close connections within the Bristol "scene" but hey I'm a sucker for a good storey.

    Hmm - then you should also know that he is more than likely a they. Banksy is now presumed to be a collective which includes 3D.

    FWIW - the majority of the money made from 'Banksy' is given to various causes.
  • FocusZing
    FocusZing Posts: 4,373
    thegreatdivide wrote:
    my grandad's bike wrote:
    Haven't had time to read all ten pages but if it hasn't been mentioned yet I have it on very good authority that Banksy is AKA Robert Del Naja from Massive Attack. A few articles now on the subject available on line. My source has close connections within the Bristol "scene" but hey I'm a sucker for a good storey.

    Hmm - then you should also know that he is more than likely a they. Banksy is now presumed to be a collective which includes 3D.

    FWIW - the majority of the money made from 'Banksy' is given to various causes.

    Dismaland was organised by Banksy. Interesting!
  • tangled_metal
    tangled_metal Posts: 4,021
    So he's given most of the money he's earnt through vandalism to causes? Hmmm! We'll never know about that for sure. I always wondered about that.

    I had a thought that a new graffiti artist might turn up and do a mural of banksy counting his money next to one of his most well known and still existing graffiti works. However if he's not gained financially then that wouldn't work.

    Whatever the case I still think it's vandalism. If the works were valued as art then would be have made it if he'd put it down through legal means? Obtained permission before doing the work of art for example? Is the value of his art more than a little bit down to it being technically illegal? In other words it's not so much the art but the location and the way it's carried out that's the value of the art?

    I have no idea. I'm just asking questions to learn. I find them clever but cartoons. Would look good in the guardian like telegraph has Matt.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,376
    FocusZing wrote:
    I like the thought behind his work, but seeing some random coloured words or pictures on public property by some toss pot turns my stomach. It just makes me feel I'm passing through a dive.

    I bet once they grow up and get house, cars they wouldn't want some smart sprawl tagged over it.

    Tagging is only impressive if it is done in a particularly inaccessible ugly place such as the underside of a motorway bridge.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Tangled Metal wrote:
    So he's given most of the money he's earnt through vandalism to causes? Hmmm! We'll never know about that for sure. I always wondered about that.

    I had a thought that a new graffiti artist might turn up and do a mural of banksy counting his money next to one of his most well known and still existing graffiti works. However if he's not gained financially then that wouldn't work.

    Whatever the case I still think it's vandalism. If the works were valued as art then would be have made it if he'd put it down through legal means? Obtained permission before doing the work of art for example? Is the value of his art more than a little bit down to it being technically illegal? In other words it's not so much the art but the location and the way it's carried out that's the value of the art?

    I have no idea. I'm just asking questions to learn. I find them clever but cartoons. Would look good in the guardian like telegraph has Matt.

    for many of his works the location is integral

    to be honest like all forms of art/humour you either get it or you don't

    I dragged my reluctant brother to the Leake Street exhibition when it first opened and we ended up being there ages
  • thegreatdivide
    thegreatdivide Posts: 5,807
    My folks (in their mid 70's at the time) went to the 2008 show in the Bristol City Museum and loved it.

    The two graffiti legends that I posted about earlier (Stash and Futura) have also done some very collectable Colnagos

    http://dandyhorsemagazine.com/blog/2015 ... t-the-ago/
  • my_grandadʹs_bike
    my_grandadʹs_bike Posts: 1,300
    thegreatdivide wrote:
    my grandad's bike wrote:
    Haven't had time to read all ten pages but if it hasn't been mentioned yet I have it on very good authority that Banksy is AKA Robert Del Naja from Massive Attack. A few articles now on the subject available on line. My source has close connections within the Bristol "scene" but hey I'm a sucker for a good storey.

    Hmm - then you should also know that he is more than likely a they. Banksy is now presumed to be a collective which includes 3D.

    FWIW - the majority of the money made from 'Banksy' is given to various causes.

    Would make a lot of sense that. Will have to take this issue up with my source. Can't be made to look a fool on the Internet. Maybe they are part of the collective and we're trying to put me off the scent somewhat? :lol:
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,376
    New video. It was supposed shred completely.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-45900314
  • robert88
    robert88 Posts: 2,696
    TheBigBean wrote:
    New video. It was supposed shred completely.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-45900314

    Making it now worthless unless they can get the shredder fixed.
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    TheBigBean wrote:
    New video. It was supposed shred completely.

    So says Banksy........
    Faster than a tent.......

Categories