Someone buys a Banksy painting. It immediately shreds itself

[DiBiase is Good]

link

I’ll give you credit Banksy, you know how to play the long game.

[Hit Girl]

I figure Banksy is a group of artists.

And Charlie Brooker sums up my feelings about them.

[dav]

Still a complete arse then I see.

[chazraps]

Yeah, this strikes me as corny.

[Deleted]

And, of course, people are saying the painting has now doubled in value because of his stunt.

[G✇JI☈A]

Lame,

Now if it had that Scott Hall picture behind it ...

[Vice honcho room temperature]

I don't get art

[Joe Neglia]

I can't believe they're even thinking about questioning whether or not the top bidder still owes them money for it.

Oct 6, 2018 16:36:40 GMT -5 @jdogindy said:

And, of course, people are saying the painting has now doubled in value because of his stunt.

I wonder how much more valuable it would be if I urinated on it.

[Ryback on a Pole!]

One thing I don't get. If Banksy is making the statement that his work shouldn't be owned and should just be enjoyed, why did he put his painting... and previous paintings, up for auction in the first place? It goes against his statement.

I really dislike Banksy. His work lacks zero subtlety whatsoever. It's like stuff you'd find on "I'm and this is deep" on Reddit. Quite well done, I admit... but zero subtlety. You can see a piece of Banksy art and you know in 5 seconds what it means without having to think about it.

[SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman]

Oct 6, 2018 22:57:10 GMT -5 Ryback on a Pole! said:

I really dislike Banksy. His work lacks zero subtlety whatsoever. It's like stuff you'd find on "I'm and this is deep" on Reddit. Quite well done, I admit... but zero subtlety. You can see a piece of Banksy art and you know in 5 seconds what it means without having to think about it.

How is that a bad thing? I really don't understand this logic that art is supposedly better the less accessible it is. Art is all about interacting with the audience and proposing an idea to it. I don't even see how that lacks subtlety; just because it's easy to digest doesn't mean it isn't food for thought. To me, something that lacks subtlety is something whose message isn't just obvious, it's constantly shoved in your face, yet doesn't actually have anything to say about it, or that thinks it's being groundbreaking by doing stuff that's been done for ages. Something like Detroit: Become Human, which is just a series of "I understood that reference!" with no new or interesting commentary on its supposed theme, nothing for the audience to think on, to agree or disagree with.

I enjoy works with a simple message, delivered in a way that allows me to feel and think about complex ideas, infinitely more than I do an obtuse one that takes unnecessary twists and turns, only to find out how hollow the content of said message is, and/or takes a stance that leaves no room for the audience to make their own analysis. Or even worse: a work which is completely divorced from the alleged message. Much like with jokes, art should be self-explanatory. If you have to explain what you were trying to say, then clearly it failed at delivering your message. Yet, for whatever reason, people keep praising the arts & crafts

As far as I'm concerned, artists should strive to illustrate elaborate ideas in a simple way. Whether or not Banksy succeeds in that is up for debate of course (I think he does), but I really cannot comprehend the notion that a piece being able to be appreciated and interpreted on its own, without the 'artist' needing to stand there and explain what he supposedly means, making the piece redundant, is somehow a bad thing.

[Ryback on a Pole!]

Oct 7, 2018 0:11:34 GMT -5 SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman said:

To me, something that lacks subtlety is something whose message isn't just obvious, it's constantly shoved in your face, yet doesn't actually have anything to say about it, or that thinks it's being groundbreaking by doing stuff that's been done for ages. Something like Detroit: Become Human, which is just a series of "I understood that reference!" with no new or interesting commentary on its supposed theme, nothing for the audience to think on, to agree or disagree with.

But that describes Banksy's work entirely.

It's not offering a new message or insight. Every one of his pieces is saying the same stuff everybody already knows about and which has been said a countless times before. Like his "Son of a Migrant from Syria". It offers no new insight. Countless people before have pointed out that Jobs is the son of a Syrian migrant. He's repeating the same message that's already been said. Or his "Cinderella crash" echoing Princess Diana. The actions of the paparazzi causing it has been said and done countless times. Everyone knows it, it offers nothing new about it.

He's not highlighting anything that people don't already know about, nor is he offering new commentary on the issues. He hits a checklist of trendy causes--capitalism, anti-war, consumerism, refugees, immigration, Gaza, police states etc.

I admit his work does look quite cool. The designs and images themselves are pretty good, but even then, there's other artists out there whose work looks so much better, cooler and more creative.


I don't mind art that's simple to understand. In fact I dislike the more "out there" art. I do quite like more simple art than abstract nonsense that could represent anything, LS Lowry's art is pretty simple and carries a simple message but he's one of my favourite artists because there's so much going on in his paintings and it looks unique and different.

It's just Banksy does nothing to me. It's too obvious, repeating the same message that's been said before, offers nothing new and whilst it looks cool, there's street art out there that looks much cooler and is much better done and is more creative.

[Johawn]

I didn't realise so many people had turned on Banksy. Did he win the WWE title or something?

[Deleted]

Oct 7, 2018 11:43:15 GMT -5 Johawn said:

I didn't realise so many people had turned on Banksy. Did he win the WWE title or something?

I'm just not into pretentiousness.

Here's my scope as an art critic; I love Pablo Picasso's early works and absolutely HATE his later stuff because he decided scribbling like a 4 year old and making everyone part flounder was groundbreaking. Basically; if it looks like the heart was there, I enjoy it; otherwise it might as well be finger painting.

Banksy is pretentiousness. He's a McArtist.

[Deleted]

Oct 6, 2018 16:47:10 GMT -5 G✇JI☈A said:

Lame,

Now if it had that Scott Hall picture behind it ...

Or better yet, a Velvet Elvis.

[Joe Neglia]

Oct 7, 2018 12:50:37 GMT -5 @jdogindy said:

Oct 7, 2018 11:43:15 GMT -5 Johawn said:

I didn't realise so many people had turned on Banksy. Did he win the WWE title or something?

I'm just not into pretentiousness.

Here's my scope as an art critic; I love Pablo Picasso's early works and absolutely HATE his later stuff because he decided scribbling like a 4 year old and making everyone part flounder was groundbreaking. Basically; if it looks like the heart was there, I enjoy it; otherwise it might as well be finger painting.

Banksy is pretentiousness. He's a McArtist.

I put Banksy in the same category as Warhol and Christo - they are performance artists posing as traditional artists/sculptors. The actual "works of art" they create are the least important part of the whole thing.

[Cyno]

Oct 6, 2018 21:42:55 GMT -5 Joe Neglia said:

I can't believe they're even thinking about questioning whether or not the top bidder still owes them money for it.

Oct 6, 2018 16:36:40 GMT -5 @jdogindy said:

And, of course, people are saying the painting has now doubled in value because of his stunt.

I wonder how much more valuable it would be if I urinated on it.

Shit man, that'll earn it a one-way ticket to MOMA.

[Natural Born Farmer]

Marcel Dumchamp just flat out bought things and said “done! Art!” At least Banksy is creating real, original pieces. With that said this is supreme edgelord douchebag try hard shit.

[Deleted]

So art becomes uncool when you actively try to communicate to people with it then?

[Rave]

Oct 6, 2018 16:36:40 GMT -5 @jdogindy said:

And, of course, people are saying the painting has now doubled in value because of his stunt.

Maybe even more than double. It was a pretty dickhead thing to do, but by doing it he has effectively created something one of a kind. People eat that stuff up, no matter how stupid it is.

["Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay]

Oct 7, 2018 13:23:16 GMT -5 Joe Neglia said:

Oct 7, 2018 12:50:37 GMT -5 @jdogindy said:

I'm just not into pretentiousness.

Here's my scope as an art critic; I love Pablo Picasso's early works and absolutely HATE his later stuff because he decided scribbling like a 4 year old and making everyone part flounder was groundbreaking. Basically; if it looks like the heart was there, I enjoy it; otherwise it might as well be finger painting.

Banksy is pretentiousness. He's a McArtist.

I put Banksy in the same category as Warhol and Christo - they are performance artists posing as traditional artists/sculptors. The actual "works of art" they create are the least important part of the whole thing.

Oh God that perspective is so perfect that I feel like I actually respect them all more now for playing the game so well, but I really hate that that's what the game is even more.