What's the objective of art? That's the point.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:28 pm

sikacz wrote: Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:32 pm

YankeeTarheel wrote: Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:25 am Actually, I think they shut off the shredder before it completed its task of destroying the painting.

Personally, I'm not impressed by performance art or nihilism, destruction for destruction's sake. I don't see the destruction as part of the art's experience, any more than I thought 60's and 70's rock stars breaking their expensive guitars and equipment made any fucking sense.

But that's just me and my purely subjective opinion. And I do mean subjective. If other people value this now-destroyed piece and are willing to pay for it, well, it's their money, not mine.

Stopping it could be considered part of the performance.

I'd ask "To what end? What's the objective?" but, in truth I just don't care. I really don't give a shit.

From an artistic standpoint a singular unrepeatable event. Just like smashing a guitar after a performance. It's art and philosophy question that can be debated for a long time. I don't think a monetary value to such can be placed in any meaningful way. But, art is like that anyway and the value of an object of art is largely subjective.

This might shed some legal perspective on art, when it's complete, and so on. Including the right of the artist to modify a piece.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/mart ... worthy.htm

"The term moral right itself comes from the French le droit moral, an 18th century French concept referring to rights of a non-economic but spiritual or personal nature, existing independently of an artist's copyright. Such rights are based on what the court in Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc. explained as "a belief that an artist in the process of creation injects his spirit into the work and that the artist's personality as well as the integrity of the work, should therefore be protected and preserved."

Moral rights include:

1. disclosure or divulgation, which allows the artist to determine when a work is complete and may be displayed;
2. paternity or attribution, which allows an artist to protect the identification of his name with his own work, and to disclaim it when applied to another's;
3. the right of withdrawal, which permits the artist to modify or withdraw a work following publication; and
4. integrity, which allows the artist to prevent his work from being displayed in an altered, distorted, or mutilated form."

Thanks, Sika.

I read (as of yet unconfirmed) that Banksy was seen walking out of the auction hall just as the shock and furor began. In my romantic imaginings, he had a remote control fob in his pocket that turned on and off the shredder and meant for the image to remain "half-shredded" and thus mercifully leaving his completed artwork for the collector. If it were completely shredded it would be harder for anyone to see what the image was and who it was made by and thus rendering the "art object" without value (while leaving everyone in the room with a historic art experience!). As it is, Banksy is too nice a guy IMHO.

This was performance art first and foremost, meant to be experienced, not collected. That it left something that collectors could actually cherish (or worship, depending on how you view art collectors) is secondary. As Art should be.

And to address Sika's excellent legal analysis which most folks in the auction house immediately sought to figure out, I must add that Artists represents brutal reality far more accurately than Lawyers who seek to ensure security. Banksy was in effect saying, "I piss on lawyers!" He was also presenting a challenge, to see if the new owner of his artwork is courageous enough to recognize it's priceless value now, upon final completion of the performance. That's of course my romantic take again.

If I were that collector, I would demand that the artwork be sold to me at the auction price when the gavel was struck, not let go of this historic multiplier of it's value! This shocking clip of performance art was reported in the evening news around the world! I saw it first on a broadcast of NHK (Japan).

BTW, one major center of Dadism was Paris at the early part of the last century. If you pronounced "865" in French, sounds a lot like giberish to most sensible people.

“Dada means nothing. We want to change the world with nothing.” – Richard Huelsenbeck

Namely the principal pioneer of the Dada movement in New York was Marcel Duchamp, an artist straying from his original Cubist style of painting in 1912 (Rubin, 16). One of his more famous works included L.H.O.O.Q., his reproduction of Leonardo Da Vinci‘s Mona Lisa, which he altered with pencil, adding a mustache and beard to her well known face. Though many viewed this as an attack on high art, the piece was in actuality a statement about Leonardo’s indistinct and seemingly androgynous life and artwork. However there was also an underlying allusion to Duchamp’s own personal life and alter ego, Rrose Selavy (Rubin, 19). The title L.H.O.O.Q. supposedly was decided upon because when said quickly in French, it sounds strangely similar to the French phrase “elle a chaud au cul,” or “she’s got hot pants.” (Hunter 171)

-Or, "She's got a hot ass!"

sikacz wrote: Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:03 pm This might shed some legal perspective on art, when it's complete, and so on. Including the right of the artist to modify a piece.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/mart ... worthy.htm

"The term moral right itself comes from the French le droit moral, an 18th century French concept referring to rights of a non-economic but spiritual or personal nature, existing independently of an artist's copyright. Such rights are based on what the court in Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc. explained as "a belief that an artist in the process of creation injects his spirit into the work and that the artist's personality as well as the integrity of the work, should therefore be protected and preserved."

Moral rights include:

1. disclosure or divulgation, which allows the artist to determine when a work is complete and may be displayed;
2. paternity or attribution, which allows an artist to protect the identification of his name with his own work, and to disclaim it when applied to another's;
3. the right of withdrawal, which permits the artist to modify or withdraw a work following publication; and
4. integrity, which allows the artist to prevent his work from being displayed in an altered, distorted, or mutilated form."

This reminds me of a story about Frank Lloyd Wright, who, when visiting a house he had designed, started re-arranging the furniture because HE thought it was in the "wrong" place!
No matter how you slice it, I consider that being an ultimate asshole who deserved to be bodily heaved out of somebody's HOME on his ass! For all his genius.

You don't want someone to fuck with your painting, sculpture, or architecture? Then don't sell it! Somebody buys your work but they don't own it????

I love Art. Subjectivity objectified.

And yes, you don't own Art just because you paid for it with your grubby money. You are merely paying for the privilege to be the caretaker of Art until someone richer and more important than you comes along to buy that privilege from you. So don't feel so self satisfied just because you handed over money for something that rightfully is part of the Artist. And if She/He improves it for you during your temporary possession, so much the better.

Remember, Artists are the personification of God on Earth. And God doesn't care about self-important dealers who act like lice.

Bisbee wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:44 am I love Art. Subjectivity objectified.

And yes, you don't own Art just because you paid for it with your grubby money. You are merely paying for the privilege to be the caretaker of Art until someone richer and more important than you comes along to buy that privilege from you. So don't feel so self satisfied just because you handed over money for something that rightfully is part of the Artist. And if She/He improves it for you during your temporary possession, so much the better.

Remember, Artists are the personification of God on Earth. And God doesn't care about self-important dealers who act like lice.

I call bullshit!

If you're an architect, and you design and build me a house, and I pay you for the service, it's my house to do with what I please. If I want to paint it, and you (the architect) don't like it, you can piss off.

And it's not "grubby money". It is compensation of hours of my life given to producing goods and services, hours I can never and will never get back on the road from birth to death. When you call my money grubby, you're calling my work, my sweat, whether physical or mental, and my LIFE, "grubby" and valueless. Socialists used to proclaim that Labor is the source of all wealth, and, if you include mental labor and creativity, it's absolutely true. "Natural resources", while real, have ZERO value without Labor. And wealth is represented by money. So "grubby money" means grubby Labor.

So why is an artist's work somehow of more importance and value than mine? My work can exist without the artist's. Unless the artist is independently wealthy (Composer Charles Ives, for example), the artist NEEDS that "grubby money" to be able to work and not get "a real job".

Duchamp: art is anything you can get away with.

CDFingers

Art, as we know it today, is for pretentious twits.

Philosophers have always had a troubled relationship with art because art bypasses rational thought to implant an idea.
Inception: you’ve internalized an idea surreptitiously implanted by someone else. You’ve been influenced against your will.
This can be —and has been— used for bad ends as well as good. Advertising is one example of art used to manipulate people.
Fascist and Soviet propaganda art is another example. Viewed in this way, art is not for thinking people.

I call Da-da-da!

Now don't look at this! Turn it off now! Don't look!!!

I just learned (in NHK Japan) that the art bidder has decided to keep the artwork. She was first shocked at what happened but soon realized that was history in the making. Banksy also has stated -and will provide documentation- that he "completed" the artwork, now renamed from "Love is in the wind," to...

"Love is in the bin."

:-)

Bisbee wrote: Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:35 pm I just learned (in NHK Japan) that the art bidder has decided to keep the artwork. She was first shocked at what happened but soon realized that was history in the making. Banksy also has stated -and will provide documentation- that he "completed" the artwork, now renamed from "Love is in the wind," to...

"Love is in the bin."

:-)

Glad it had a "happy" ending. She'll get much more than her original $1.4 million out of it with Banksy's video.

Bisbee wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:52 pm I call Da-da-da!

Now don't look at this! Turn it off now! Don't look!!!

That's surrealism. Dali Dada would be more in line with his signed empty canvases; let the buyer "finish" it.

Yay! I finally get to use that BA in Art I worked for at Iowa State.

I've seen quite a few of Banksys murals in New Orleans. It's very impressive looking at it up close. His Looters mural was a real hoot and has been finally rescued from defacers and restored.

Ohhh, I didn't realize we had hoity-toyti Art majors here. Well, excuuuuuuuuuse me!

Bisbee wrote: Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:34 am Ohhh, I didn't realize we had hoity-toyti Art majors here. Well, excuuuuuuuuuse me!

Well, this is the LIBERAL Gun Club after all.

Bisbee wrote: Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:34 am Ohhh, I didn't realize we had hoity-toyti Art majors here. Well, excuuuuuuuuuse me!

A friend of mine, since 1st grade, is now a professional artist. He just posted HIS version of Banksy's shredded "Girl With a Balloon"...only it's the American Flag that's half-shredded. I couldn't stop looking at it as I found it FAR more powerful, almost as a political cartoon, than Banksy's original.

I don't want to re-post it because it's how he makes his living...

I can see that in my mind. Excellent concept to build on and capture recent events.