バンクシー「愛はごみ箱の中に」aka「少女と風船」 Banksy "Love Is in the Bin" - aka "Girl with Balloon"
ダダイスム・リミックス：バンクシーのサザビーズ・オークション「自滅」作。12年前に制作した作品として、大した企画ですね。Dadaism remix: Banksy’s best work until now.
(I changed the title, because the name of the artwork had been altered.)
For the cynics among us, the latest video poses a whole new set of questions. Did Banksy practise his prank on another Girl With Balloon, or did he send a “fake” through the shredder? The video does not appear to be 12 years old, so how recently did he install the shredder? And what could that mean for the consignor’s part in all of this?
Director’s cut by Banksy:
In the video posted on Tuesday entitled Shred the Love (the director’s cut), Banksy shows himself constructing the shredding mechanism inside a frame. It then cuts to the auction room and the moment of partial destruction. At the end, the video notes: “In rehearsals it worked every time …” as it shows the piece going the whole way through the shredding machine.
“It’s I think by far the most asked-about lot in the sale,” he offers. “The artist put the frame on as well. You get that quite often with Banksy; he quite likes the romanticism of having a very ornate, you know, National Gallery-esque frame.”
A world-famous Banksy artwork was destroyed in a shredder at an auction moments after it was sold for over £1million.
The “Girl With Balloon” canvas had an estimate of £200,000 to £300,000 when it went up for sale at Sotheby’s in London.
But, once the hammer went down on a winning bid of £860,000 – worth £1.04million when a buyer’s premium was added – the piece was shredded by a mechanism hidden in the frame’s base.
Stunned art lovers gasped as the piece was destroyed, with parts of it emerging in strips from the frame.
banksy. “The urge to destroy is also a creative urge” – Picasso
Banksy Shreds ‘Girl with Balloon’ Painting after Sotheby’s Auction
Immediately after the painting had been sold to a phone bidder for 1.04 million pounds ($1.2 million), part of it was mysteriously shredded, according to Sotheby’s.
“We’ve just been Banksy’ed,” Alex Branczik, Sotheby’s European head of contemporary art, said at a press conference following the auction. The painting was shredded by a contraption that seemed to be hidden in the frame.
Why putting £1m through the shredder is Banksy’s greatest work
Art is being choked to death by money. The only rebellion left is for artists to bite the hands that feed them – as Banksy appears to have done on Friday night
Mon 8 Oct 2018
What happened at Sotheby’s is Banksy’s greatest work. He has said something that needed to be said: art is being choked to death by money. The market turns imagination into an investment and protest into decor for some oligarch’s house. The only real rebellion left is for works of art to destroy themselves the moment they are sold.
Banksy’s Million Quid Artwork Destroying Itself – as perhaps we should call this masterpiece of radical performance – belongs to a tradition of destruction in art that is only just 100 years old. In 1917, a porcelain urinal, titled Fountain and bearing the signature “R Mutt” in crudely daubed black paint, was submitted to a New York art exhibition. Marcel Duchamp, the man behind the stunt, is often seen as a dry, ironic wit whose “readymades” are dissected reverently as philosophical conundrums, but that does an injustice to the anger and contempt in his gesture. To call a pissoir Fountain was to urinate on high culture – and that could not be a neutral gesture in 1917. Duchamp was part of the dada movement. This deliberately reductive and primal movement – the name imitates baby talk – was begun by pacifist German draft dodgers in exile in Switzerland in 1916 and spread to Berlin, Paris and more cities by the end of the first world war.
The dadaists hated the European culture of fine art and self-conscious sensitivity that could slaughter its youth by putting them through the giant human shredder that was the western front. All sides in the first world war claimed to be defending “civilisation”. The dada generation spat on that civilisation. In his 1919 work LHOOQ (which sounds like the French for “she’s got a hot arse”), Duchamp drew a moustache and small goatee on a reproduction of the Mona Lisa. He also said he wanted to “use a Rembrandt as an ironing board”.
The problem with the anti-art tradition that started with dada’s violence against the very idea of culture is that, over the past 100 years or so, it has been assimilated into the mainstream of modern art. The sassy and slick smart alecs who are claiming that all Banksy has done is add value to his work are the latest in a long line of art-world insiders who have turned dissidence into art history. As an older man in the 60s, Duchamp was embraced by the establishment. Replicas were made of his lost Fountain. There is one in Tate Modern today.
When the auctioneer’s hammer came down at Sotheby’s and a “modern masterpiece” began to eat itself, the stage was set perfectly. Here was the art world’s moment of truth – however theatrical and multifaceted it may prove to be. Of course, this revolt will be assimilated. Of course, the market will smile and the cash tills will go on ringing. Yet for once the commodity bit back. Art turned on the hands that feed it.
In principle, all artists should do the same until the market is cut down to size and stops defining the art of our time. Most won’t, of course, for good reasons such as the need to make a living. Yet Banksy has let a little light into a very claustrophobic room – and proved he is the artist who matters most right now.
Banksy’s Hanky-Panky at Sotheby’s: Letting the Hot Air Out of Punctured “Balloon”—Part I
October 9, 2018 by CultureGrrl
But the event, however risible, is not something that Sotheby’s can responsibly make light of: If the auction house winks at vandalism of consigned property, how can it take a strong stance against others who might decide to physically attack works on its premises?
That said, the opposite course of action would be equally unpalatable: If the auction house were to seek civil damages and/or press criminal charges against Banksy (and/or whoever activated the frame’s mechanism) for what might be interpreted as an illegal act, much of the artworld would surely take umbrage.
サザビーズは11日、細断後の作品が「愛はごみ箱の中に（Love is in the Bin）」に改称され、バンクシーの代理として作品の認証を担う団体「ペスト・コントロール（Pest Control）」の認証を受けたと発表。
Banksy Girl with Balloon Love Is in the Bin
Shredded Banksy: was Sotheby’s in on the act?
As the auction house puts the work on display, visitor opinions differ about how much it knew
Sat 13 Oct 2018
Art lovers who flocked to Sotheby’s on Saturday to view the Banksy artwork that shredded itself were sharply divided about whether the auction house was aware the stunt would take place.
When the stencil print known as Girl with Balloon descended through the shredder built into its frame, technicians in the sale room immediately took it off the wall and carried it out of view as bidding concluded. Fast forward a week and the work, now titled Love Is in the Bin, is on display in at Sotheby’s gallery.
Guests queued the length of the central London gallery and out of the door on to Regent Street as the Chemical Brothers’ rave anthem Hey Boy, Hey Girl provided the soundtrack for selfies.
Sotheby’s stressed it had “no prior knowledge of this event and were not in any way involved”. Its European head of contemporary art said earlier this week: “I took it for what it was, a coup on the art world.”
Another spokesperson said: “When we asked the artist’s studio about removing the work from its frame during the cataloguing process, we were expressly told not to. We were told that the frame, which was glued, was integral to the work; breaking it would damage the work, and negatively impact its artistic value.”
Sotheby’s employees were tight lipped on Saturday. “I work in the contemporary department and we had no idea,” one said. “I don’t think we knew but we’re not allowed to say any more,” said the receptionist. “Have you got the press release?”
A spokesperson on behalf of Banksy said: “I can categorically tell you there was no collusion between the artist and the auction house in any shape or form.
“The painting had 27 confirmed bidders on the night. A reputable auction house would never encourage their valued clients to bid on something they knew would be destroyed, their credibility would never recover. Banksy was as surprised as anyone when the painting made it past their security systems.”
The work was inscribed on the back, “Thanks Jo,” with a heart and a CND symbol. (The “CND symbol” (more commonly known as the peace symbol) was originally “the logo for the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament”)
Could the Jo in question be Jo Brooks, Banksy’s longtime friend, publicist, interpreter and defender?
If the seller was, in fact, the guardian of Banksy’s secret identity and his reputation, we can reasonably surmise that she was not caught off-guard by what happened. We still don’t know whether the anonymous buyer was a co-conspirator in this caper, bidding up the soon-to-be-damaged (or, as Sotheby’s would have it, reborn) work to the point where unsuspecting rivals, if any, dropped out.
Although Banksy’s “performance” might have seemed amusing at the time, it could cause problems down the road, if copycats are inspired to stage their own auction-house “interventions” or if humorless regulators take it upon themselves to cast a critical eye on this shredding of auction-house protocol.
Which brings me back to my previous characterization of Banksy’s prank as “a clever metaphor for the self-sabotaging auction houses, which, through opaque side deals, secret pre-arrangements and favored treatment for those who enter into such compacts have damaged their credibility as a transparent public marketplace where buyers can feel reasonably confident that they are paying fair market value, equitably arrived at, on a level playing field.”
What, in fact, does this gesture tell us about the art market? A notoriously secretive and very lightly regulated market, in which the identity of both seller and buyer are protected, and even exact pricing is often obscured, can easily be pranked. Here was an anonymous artist playing the system’s own code of secrecy back against it. A neat trick. It could well be another step in the overall growing movement for greater regulation and clarity. Or perhaps not….What the event does question, profoundly, is the notion of trust on which the art world runs…