- Going Going Gone! (Banksy)
Banksys stuff I really like.
My comment was about my pal who lives in a world of a circle jerk and once having found something that sells has kept on doing it for 30 years but it somethig I cannot see the merit in as it is literally one colour streaked across a page with a 4″ brucsh and takes her seconds to do. Even stuff I don’t like I can often see the merit in I’d put up a picture of her stuff but it would be rather unfair and could be tracked backPosted 2 weeks agomolgripsSubscriber
<span style=”display: inline !important; float: none; background-color: transparent; color: #222222; font-family: ‘Open Sans’; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 22.4px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;”>once having found something that sells has kept on doing it for 30 years</span>
Well someone likes it…
I couldn’t see the merit in Pollock’s paintings til I talked (and listened) to someone who did. They still do nothing for me but at least I can see there’s a bit more to it than splodges of paint.
As for making a living from it – assuming your friend isn’t a famous painter – there’s definitely a market for pretty splodges of colour from an interior design point of view. I rather like that kind of abstract thing on walls to add colour, but to me they are only ever just pretty paint splodges.Posted 2 weeks agojohndohMember
I’m not the only one of the opinion it was merely a PR stunt…Posted 2 weeks agowallopSubscriber
@wallop me too. I spent a grand on a signed print in 1999 with my student loan. Grannies bowling little bombs. It now plays a significant role in my pension plans
That was a lot back then! Our first one was £75. Annoyingly the signed one was £150 but at the time I couldn’t afford it (nnnggghhn!). Next one, signed, was about £450 and that was about 10 years ago.Posted 2 weeks ago
Some fanny will likely pay double for it now.
That “fanny” is way smarter than you, for a start they have got themselves into a position that enables them to spend 1million plus on frivolous art, plus they will more than likely make money on their investment in what is now more well known than most other contemporary art pieces.Posted 2 weeks agoransosSubscriber
That “fanny” is way smarter than you, for a start they have got themselves into a position that enables them to spend 1million plus on frivolous art, plus they will more than likely make money on their investment in what is now more well known than most other contemporary art pieces.
So people have lots of money because they’re smart?Posted 2 weeks agoedlongMember
they will more than likely make money on their investment in what is now more well known than most other contemporary art pieces.
This – that pile of shredded paper is now far and away the most famous Banksy piece in existence. I’m hoping that the new owner engages with the point (which I assume is around Banksy’s ongoing and not necessarily consistent attitude to “ownership” of his work). A pile of shredded Banksy that a rich collector has pissed on would be even more distinctive.Posted 2 weeks ago
Why are you asking me? And could you answer my question?
In that you cannot tell if some fanny will buy similarly I don’t have the resources to look at a big enough sample of high net worth individuals who can spend 1million plus on contemporary art to conclude if they are fannies as you suggested or very smart for having gained such large sums of money(or criminals or benefiting from significant inherited wealth)
that aside, it is as I have already said now one of the most famous contemporary art pieces, Banksy is incredibly popular with broad appeal in a similar way to Warhol, most people would spot a Banksy instantly unlike a Kapoor, Taryn Simon or Kiefer for example.
A reasonably sound investment if that’s a market you can afford to dabble in.Posted 2 weeks ago
Maybe Trump is a Banksy installation.
He’d have fitted in perfectly at the Weston-Super-Mare ‘Dismalland’ he set up several years ago.
Someone thought he’d be a smartass, and sliced his own copy of the same print with a Stanley knife, and sell it for a big profit. Sorry, jackass, your $40,000 print is now worth zip. Ha ha!Posted 1 week ago
Moments after the framed Girl With Balloon was sold by Sotheby’s in London, the canvas shredded itself.
Pest Control, a firm acting on behalf of the elusive artist, has titled the new piece Love is in the Bin.
Sotheby’s has confirmed the final price of £1,042,000 will be paid in full by the new owner.
The European woman who bought the piece, who does not want to be named, said: “At first I was shocked, but I realised I would end up with my own piece of art history.”
Moments after the hammer fell at the auction on Friday, alarms sounded and the canvas dropped through a hidden shredder built into the bottom.
Well looks like she is going to keep a now more valuable piece of artPosted 1 week agobikebouySubscriber
I think it’s great, the whole journey the painting has taken through to this event. It will continue to be a story in someone’s life, added adventure and provenance.
Clearly it’s worth more now than the £1m odd paid for it.
For all the controversy, the author/painter is forever embedded in the culture of both Art world and becomes another storyline in the history of Art.Posted 1 week ago
At what point does a piece of art cease to be art and merely a possession / investment?
When people buy works because the creator’s previous works start to increase in price, and they become an investment. I’ve been going to the RA Summer Exhibition for over 20 years, and I’ve seen various contributors work’s increasing in value by really significant amounts, and many are works that one really wouldn’t want on a wall, some are too sodding big! You’d need a warehouse wall to hang some, but they sell, and for massive amounts. Same with sculptures as well. If I buy something, it’s got to be something I really want to be able to live with and enjoy looking at.
Apparently the woman who bought the Banksey was horrified, but now accepts it as a legitimate part of the work and is keeping it.Posted 1 week ago
Will Gompertz take on it, which more or less backs up my take, only much better written:
Posted 1 week ago
But contemporary art is not valued for its inherent aesthetic qualities (although that is how it is presented to us), it is valued pretty much solely on the basis of an artist’s reputation. All that matters is the brand, that it is a Banksy, or a Koons, or a Kusama. For a lot of collectors art has become an asset class.
Hence the talk after the event wasn’t about art but the asset. Will the shredded work be worth more, or less? Surreptitious calls were made suggesting potential buyers were already lining up to purchase it, should it come back on the market. Speculation mounted.
Maybe the whole thing was an elaborate prank by Banksy.
He could have put the piece up for auction through an associate and then bought it for the staggering sum of £1m knowing full well the sale wouldn’t go through because the work was about to be destroyed.
You wouldn’t put that past him, would you?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.