To be fair, he did made it clear he never intended on his art being sold and they disregarded that entirely, although he knew that would happen and was prepared
@@Le_Wild_Cohen he's the one who put it in a frame with a shredder installed in the bottom... Banksy is the best of the Post-Modern Artists (definitely not a compliment... like being the best pile of dogshit) but even if it was intended as an artistic statement then the failure to completely shred the paintings before the shredder broke, failed. It became worth even more as result of doing that
Especially when he's NEVER been okay with his art being sold. This is just them finding out what happens when someone famously anonymous wants to mess with you right back.
He gave clear instructions that his art was not to be sold. They didn't listen so he demonstrated what happened. Every kid learns growing up that not following orders has consequences. These older men just learned that today.
People calling @Misein an idiot when, in fact his just educating people on what Banksy said. Yes, it became more valuable but that wasn't the intention. Your the ones who don't understand why Banksy paints in the first place because maybe you'll understand that he doesn't value the money like everyone else. Him destroying it, was him disowning that painting. Most painters were poor and died poor. Their paintings became valuable and Banksy is true to that art. Not wanting to stay poor but to understand that it's for the passion and simple beauty. Why are people insulting someone just for pointing out something. Fucking hell, life's to short to be miserable.
I suggest you look up the whole story. The artwork has been resold for multiple times more than that day. It made those rich snobs even more filthy rich.
He’s a genius and deserves the highest of praise. He most certainly is NOT a vandal. They are just pissed they couldn’t have their precious painting anymore.
Pretty sure they aren't pissed. They bought that for 1.4 million, and then Banksy immediately increased the value by making it tied to a unique event from the artist. It sold a couple years ago for 25.4 million...
@@nezzee pretty sure at the time that happened they were considering they thought the bought the painting as is. He did the shredding without anyone’s knowledge, hence him not allowing anyone to inspect it before hand. Regardless of how rich someone is or isn’t, they’d be pretty angry if they dropped that amount of money on a one of a kind piece only for it to end up shredded shortly after purchase.
it was only half shredded. I don't blame him for trying to make a few extra bucks out of this stunt though. I'm sure the auction house was freaking out though
@@mombiethezombie7536 Rich people don't buy things like regular people do. Buying a piece of "art" for 1.4 million is not because of the art to be displayed, but more so because of who the artist is and status of owning one of their limited works (and tax evasion). They now had possession of a piece that was VERY unique to the artist and publicly known, and thus the piece was significantly more unique and rare, and thus a higher status symbol of being the owner.
The funny thing is that this stunt actually made the art more valuable. Since the painting wasn’t fully destroyed it was considered another aspect of the art increasing the ultimate financial value of the piece
Even if it was fully destroyed it still would have increased in value. It makes it more distinct. It adds more to it. Instead of just a banksy painting it becomes THE banksy painting. Even if it was fully shredded, the value would have increased. It would never be repaired and it would have been displayed in pieces. Like a modern day Venus de Milo. Bottom line is, whatever message Banksy was trying to send is ultimately irrelevant because of the means he went about to “destroy” his art piece. His art will still ended up being commodified. He can critique it all he wants, someone still got richer off of it.
@@Cherryblossoms110 for stuff like this, it’s all about being “unique.” They don’t care about the art, they care about being able to say “remember when Banksy shredded a painting? Well I OWN that painting!”
@@vinicius_nunes oh it’s definitely worth more because it malfunctioned and didn’t destroy it all, if it was all torn up then maybe still if the pieces were framed
Wouldn’t that make the art piece heavier, bulkier, and somewhat larger than your average framed art piece? I had a fish tank that was in a picture frame that hung on the wall as art, and it stuck out like four or five inches from the wall, I suspect that this art would have done the same, there is no way that whoever hung it did not notice a built in shredder. Unless it was a blind person who hung it.
@@rockland2 you do realise that you can buy tiny shredders that literally are the size of a 3 hole punch and you can place them on top of a garbage bin. They weigh next to nothing... also the frame was built with lighting around the edges so any extra weight would have been attributed to that and the bulkiness of the fancy framework.
Banksy's work is meant to be seen and enjoyed by many, not to be hidden away in some millionaire's trophy room. They were told that but they still insisted on buying and selling it, so I think this is pretty awesome. Banksy is definitely one of my favourite artists.
If Banksy sold an item to a 3rd organization, or to someone. He no longer holds any claim to the work. Because it is now in the public domain. So if he bought it back, to then destroy it that's fine. He is the new physical owner. However if he destroyed it and didn't pay for it then he destroyed someone else's property and should be fined/jailed as the courts see fit.
Tbh, I was really happy when I saw it on TV. This art piece was meant for everyone, it has a meaning. It isn't meant to be hung up in some mansion, to not be even noticed. Banksy set sign. And I support that sign.
@6079 Smith W From what I've seen on the internet there's really not that much info on how much Banksy's team sold it for. But let's say they really got half of this million dollars that the painting sold for on the auction. Banksy is a fucking artist. All and I mean all of their work is meant to be something a little ground breaking. If they wanted to make a quick buck they would have just sold the painting. They destroyed it because that was an important part of the piece. Yes, they did troll all of us, and it is this troll that people say is "real art". If they had just sold a boring painting it i would've lowkey sucked ass, but instead they commited one of the biggest trollings in the painting marker that I've seen. And they even made it so the painting wouldn't get shredded all the way down, as means of not scaming the woman that bought the painting, and she made 24 million of off that so claims of "emotional damage" don't really stand.
@@zerin5510 Or maybe we should stop adhering to this false notion that art is meant to be provocative, and go back to the truth: Art is simply meant to be beautiful. Beauty is an objective thing, we can objective see whether something is beautiful or ugly, and a stupid stunt is not beauty. Banksy’s art itself isn’t special or even pretty. He’s just a provocateur, and that’s it. He’s no artist. He’s done nothing beautiful.
Yeah because that's lovely to hear no wonder we're going down the shiter because we don't believe that there is anything in the future I'm not saying we should hold on to the Past but it should be there to guide us towards the future weather be good or bad this is such a defeatist attitude and honestly it shouldn't be praised it should be called out for someone like this to be called an a****** rightfully so
He's not a vandal, he's an artist. That's simply his finished work now and it was intentional to fuck with people. Edit: imma be fully honest with yall i am way too lazy to reply to any of yall.
You're right, but he's been a vandal the whole time lol. Not dissing graffiti artists I know it's real art, but it is vandalism & that's the point of a lot of it
Meh, Banksy is just a marketing genious. Like any good capitalist, he knew how to maximise his profits. This is most likely a joint venture between him and the auction house. Both parties were benefited by massive publicity and increased profits from this marketkng stunt. The Painting being sold, is a reproduction of the original. The original painting is a street art piece done in a public setting, aerosol on brick/plaster. This reproduction was obviously meant to be sold. These auction houses carefully inspect their art before selling it, the fact that there was a whole shredder/speaker inside would have been easy to detect. There's also the fact that the painting remained as a single piece. It didnt get shredded all the way trough, so it is still a single piece and it can still be re-sold and displayed as private art. After this marketkng stunt, the art piece actually went up in price.
It was a genius move and made this piece of art unforgettable. Banksi made someone even more Bank based on half destroying… but ultimately creating a piece. ❤
Meh, Banksy is just a marketing genious. Like any good capitalist, he knew how to maximise his profits. This is most likely a joint venture between him and the auction house. Both parties were benefited by massive publicity and increased profits from this marketkng stunt. The Painting being sold, is a reproduction of the original. The original painting is a street art piece done in a public setting, aerosol on brick/plaster. This reproduction was obviously meant to be sold. These auction houses carefully inspect their art before selling it, the fact that there was a whole shredder/speaker inside would have been easy to detect. There's also the fact that the painting remained as a single piece. It didnt get shredded all the way trough, so it is still a single piece and it can still be re-sold and displayed as private art. After this marketkng stunt, the art piece actually went up in price.
@@Morris_Minor you can still put a shredded painting behind closed doors. I dont think that was his point. Even if he burned it the buyer could hide the ashes
or someone on he has paid to do so. the thing is. As long as no one really knows who Banksy really is. it's hard to tell. Of course there will be people who actually know who Banksy is besides the actual person but they clearly have no intend to let others know.
@@jozah absolutely, the fact that this stunt became world news everyone knew about it, you knew who made it just by looking at it, it was some of the greatest performance art of all time, made its value soar. I would have killed to be in that room to see the faces, I can feel the butt hurt through videos and pictures and I cannot imagine the feeling of sheer ass clenchery going on there. That was one of the times humans almost made their very own black hole.
@@The.Frumious.Bandersnatchif i bought that i would sue them🤷 im not buying a painting to sell it im buying it to hang it up and he just shredded it, so either im finna get a refund or they getting sued for destroying my property
@@kodagerler7125 the transaction wasn’t completed the paper work not signed and the money not exchanged. Winning an auction doesn’t grant immediate ownership. The shredding was always intended, from the start. It shredded half of it. It’s still a piece of art. Shredder included.
He is not a vandal. He is an art hero. He proved that art should not be an economy, but an idea. An idea that art is to express, not to sell. To call him a vandal is simply disrespectful.
Art hero? This dude is the perfect representation of how to inflate art prices with scummy tactics like these. Shredding your mediocre piece says nothing nor expresses nothing, it's just a sad attempt to raise the value.
Fact of that the shredding was stopped halfway through makes that piece a thousand times more awesome looking! He could have easily ran it through faster, but he did not. It was a warning and a good one at that..
He released a video stating the shredder malfunctioned and was actually supposed to completely shred that piece. He had planned to destroy his work because he had always said he never wanted it sold. This was his way of trying to stick it to them
Very true… And the balloon itself was untouched. I wonder if that was out of practicality (keeping the picture connected to the frame) or if that was also a statement
@@gromplin it could be tropes on innocence and how even if our innocence dies over time the concept remains to be remembered. Also it could be a play on our own naivety as people that drives us to lose ourselves. It could mean that in not giving up the one thing(objective of our lives) we sacrifice ourselves as people... our dream doesn't die but we die. Maybe it could mean liberation too. Only the balloon remains bur our feeble selves are cast away to shreds.
You can’t “vandalise” your own art. Van Gogh and many other artists painted over the top of some of their old art, you would call them vandals. He said he didn’t want any of his art sold and they disregarded that so he taught them a lesson
Meh, Banksy is just a marketing genious. Like any good capitalist, he knew how to maximise his profits. This is most likely a joint venture between him and the auction house. Both parties were benefited by massive publicity and increased profits from this marketkng stunt. The Painting being sold, is a reproduction of the original. The original painting is a street art piece done in a public setting, aerosol on brick/plaster. This reproduction was obviously meant to be sold. These auction houses carefully inspect their art before selling it, the fact that there was a whole shredder/speaker inside would have been easy to detect. There's also the fact that the painting remained as a single piece. It didnt get shredded all the way trough, so it is still a single piece and it can still be re-sold and displayed as private art. After this marketkng stunt, the art piece actually went up in price.
As the story goes, the winner of the art piece chose to keep it and pay the $1,000,000+ price tag because, after that stunt it was worth than it was before
Still destroyed his own work. Was he the bidder who won, or was he just there and damaged it after someone else won the bid? Because if someone else won the bidding, the moment the hammer went down, the artwork morally and ethically became their property. Then it would be an act of vandalism. Having said that, I also don't agree with the auction house selling the artwork when the artist was against it being sold.
@@milkshakemuncher he didn't want his art sold like that. They were never the rightful owners because he never sold it to them or wanted them to own it. This was his response to the disrespect and disregard of his wishes almost. So we agree overall but I don't agree with it being vandalism because I don't believe that art ever belonged to them.
At that level of sale Art is rarely bought because someone loves it. It’s all about investment and gains. It’s really sad tbh. But that is the shitty culture of capitalism, nothing is sacred except for the dollar.
They aren’t buying the art in most cases. It’s money laundering. If I wanted to buy a million dollars worth of drugs, humans or other contraband from you, we’d have to say I bought something with implied value like a piece of art so we aren’t investigated.
Let’s not forget that people took down banksy portraits then realized they were banksy and attempted to retrieve the art they had thrown away. I love this artist because they humiliate and humble the art community with every piece they do
Meh, Banksy is just a marketing genious. Like any good capitalist, he knew how to maximise his profits. This is most likely a joint venture between him and the auction house. Both parties were benefited by massive publicity and increased profits from this marketkng stunt. The Painting being sold, is a reproduction of the original. The original painting is a street art piece done in a public setting, aerosol on brick/plaster. This reproduction was obviously meant to be sold. These auction houses carefully inspect their art before selling it, the fact that there was a whole shredder/speaker inside would have been easy to detect. There's also the fact that the painting remained as a single piece. It didnt get shredded all the way trough, so it is still a single piece and it can still be re-sold and displayed as private art. After this marketkng stunt, the art piece actually went up in price.
he was not a vandal. he wanted art to be accessible and not ridiculously priced. he wanted to show his art to the public without people having to pay to see it in muesuems.
Meh, Banksy is just a marketing genious. Like any good capitalist, he knew how to maximise his profits. This is most likely a joint venture between him and the auction house. Both parties were benefited by massive publicity and increased profits from this marketkng stunt. The Painting being sold, is a reproduction of the original. The original painting is a street art piece done in a public setting, aerosol on brick/plaster. This reproduction was obviously meant to be sold. These auction houses carefully inspect their art before selling it, the fact that there was a whole shredder/speaker inside would have been easy to detect. There's also the fact that the painting remained as a single piece. It didnt get shredded all the way trough, so it is still a single piece and it can still be re-sold and displayed as private art. After this marketkng stunt, the art piece actually went up in price.
@@aubreyshelton3217 calm down bro, its not like im sitting all day retyping the same comment. I copied it once and went trough the comments pasting it on the ones from people who were essentially saying the same thing. It only took me a few seconds. And if you dont believe doesnt mean its not true
Now the product is worth more than double its original value and Banksy knows this. He’s not a vandal, he’s a genius. He’s not a rebel, he’s an artist.
it’s crazy to think that the shredding of the piece actually is worth so much more than the original , the original piece was valued at 1.4 million while the shredded version sold for 25.4 million
Wasn't there a rumor that actually it stopped too early and the original intention was to destroy it completely? The fact that it stopped in the middle of the act makes a way more complex interpretation which obviously drives up the price immensely.
According to Wikipedia this was only a copy of the real piece: „In 2018, a framed copy of the work got spontaneously shredded during an auction, by way of a mechanical device Banksy had hidden in the frame. Banksy confirmed that he was responsible for the shredding and gave the altered piece a new name, Love is in the Bin. Sotheby's said it was "the first work in history ever created during a live auction."“
Meh, Banksy is just a marketing genious. Like any good capitalist, he knew how to maximise his profits. This is most likely a joint venture between him and the auction house. Both parties were benefited by massive publicity and increased profits from this marketkng stunt. The Painting being sold, is a reproduction of the original. The original painting is a street art piece done in a public setting, aerosol on brick/plaster. This reproduction was obviously meant to be sold. These auction houses carefully inspect their art before selling it, the fact that there was a whole shredder/speaker inside would have been easy to detect. There's also the fact that the painting remained as a single piece. It didnt get shredded all the way trough, so it is still a single piece and it can still be re-sold and displayed as private art. After this marketkng stunt, the art piece actually went up in price.
You know that this was staged. The mechanism was there and the people of the art gallery obviusly knew it as they had to inspect the piece, the machine was connected to power by the art gallery , and it stopped half way so the half way shredded piece of art is even more valuable. Just to claim that Banksy sent a message of moral and values is naive.
He was NOT a vandal. People didn't respect his wishes. He has said OVER AND OVER again his art is for the public, it's for the COMMON man. Cheap. Art. For. The. Masses. When they sold it for so much, he decided to destroy it instead of seeing it sold for profit, which he had always said was against his wishes. That isn't vandalism it's justice.
Banksy is a twat. He knew this would happen and only stopped half way. If he was really what he says, that drawing would have been completely destroyed👎
@@zerin5510 in the UK you do. Any art that is physical and has valid ownership documents can be photographed or scanned. Since you own the artwork the copyrights of the scan or photo become creator rights as opposed to the user rights that you get from buying it in the first place.
Meh, Banksy is just a marketing genious. Like any good capitalist, he knew how to maximise his profits. This is most likely a joint venture between him and the auction house. Both parties were benefited by massive publicity and increased profits from this marketkng stunt. The Painting being sold, is a reproduction of the original. The original painting is a street art piece done in a public setting, aerosol on brick/plaster. This reproduction was obviously meant to be sold. These auction houses carefully inspect their art before selling it, the fact that there was a whole shredder/speaker inside would have been easy to detect. There's also the fact that the painting remained as a single piece. It didnt get shredded all the way trough, so it is still a single piece and it can still be re-sold and displayed as private art. After this marketkng stunt, the art piece actually went up in price.
They’re not a vandal, they were trying to show people that it’s ridiculous to put such a high price on a piece of art that was originally conceived to be enjoyed by everyone. They destroyed it to prove a point, and I love it
Exactly this, whoever Bansky is doesn't want piece to end up like the Salvador Mundi. In the hands of a private collection, likely in some free port, highly, secured locker used to, especially, launder money. And worst of all away from the public that art is supposed to be for.
Pretty strong statement on how Banksy feels about art snobs who buy rare art for private collections. I feel like Banksy is roughly saying here that if art isn't viewable for anyone to come see, then it's as good as trash.
And now I love him even more 😍 That isn't vandalism, that's artistic integrity. He made his wishes known and when they went against it, he preferred to see his work destroyed than in the hands of some rich ass hat. All the respect 😏😊
I am convinced that it stopping from shredding JUST before being totally shredded was on purpose. This way everyone wins. Banksy gets to make his statement, and whoever bought it will still have something that retains it's value/grows in value over time.
"He was a vandal" no he wasn't, because causing your own art to get destroyed isn't vandalism: it's yours, you can do whatever you want with it. Also, Banksy is a total boss for doing this. He was clear on the message and purpose of his art: he wanted to make a statement, not money. And he knew that some rich person would probably try to sell his artwork anyway, so he decided to teach them a lesson
As an artist it pains me to see people sell Banksy's art, they find a piece like this better because it was shredded too when his goal was to completely shred it, not let anyone devalue his work by selling it :\ Not theirs to sell either
Legally (not sure of UK law or where this was but in USA) it’s abandoned property after certain amount of time. and can be sold by whoever’s property it was found on. All we have of the uppers is smoke and mirrors. If you (not YOU but general) live your life and don’t worry about the tangible so much then you’ll be much happier. Not sure exactly what I said but I’m about 5 Natural Lights in and on a variable emotional rampage on RU-vid. 😂
@@iancowles5024 I would think in the UK the ownership would be whom property Bansky worked on. An example that comes to mind, was the one he did on a fish and chips store door. The owner of the property fought for legal custody of it. And won, with the courts stating that they owned the door and if I'd was a random act of vandalism (cofiety) he would still own the door not the person spraying the paint. But as this particular price was done of a canvas, I'm not sure where it would fall legally. As Bansky still owns that property, even if abandoned or dumped.
Folks who don’t know he made them promise that this piece was for the public not for any 1 person to own they broke that promise something he anticipated so before giving it up he built a shredder into the frame, these people betrayed his request and now they’ll get shit Like I said banksy work isn’t meant for any 1 person to own and enjoy his work is meant for all to enjoy and inspire to the public, this guys not a vandal he’s a Gotdam artist with a backbone.
His point is he doesn't want his art hidden away in some rich person's collection. It's to be enjoyed by everyone. Never been about the money yet they always make it about the money.
Calling them a vandal is moronic. What an amazing statement to make with your artwork. Great works that should be loved and appreciated by all are becoming more and more the play things for the rich. I think what they did was amazing
