I’ve written before on why Marcel Duchamp stopped making art per se but didn’t leave the artworld, making his fortune from creating iconic pieces of cubism (Nude Descending a Staircase), to being a progenitor of dadaism (Fountain), and leaving a last work that is still enigmatic but as we know a metacriticism of art itself if one considers the Etant Donnes as a comment on Vermeer, among other matters.
Still, Duchamp’s art historical reputation became the real commodity rather than his artworks, rendering impotent the critique of his exploiters. Similarly fascinating now is the market value of Basquiat paintings as well as money laundering using modern art (which should be Banksy’s next artwork).
Duchamp became an art celebrity, which has its own performative implications, reminding us that all performance (art) critiques institutions, and despite media reproductions, attacks the nature of art objects, privileging the subjectivity of artists and the audience. Note also that Street Protest, as theater, also serves that function, but also as we have noted with #KremlinAnnex and Euromaidan, culture can serve important political purposes.
Like Keith Haring, Banksy’s street art is the breaking out of criminal defacement to artworld notariety which while challenging property, also becomes legitimated, because edgy is only acceptable when it loses its revolutionary potential, when avant garde rejoins the Arrière Garde.
'”All artists are not chess players – all chess players are artists” — Marcel Duchamp
The artworld will unfailingly serve the current mode of production, and it reproduces surplus value with a social structure of accumulation. In the 1970s The Wall Street Journal was a more reliable cultural analyst of the artworld, but not so much these days, as it’s become a RW mouthpiece.
In that spirit, art is about the money and art objects function as value representations by their property ownership. And as “morons buy (that) shit”. Banksy continues that material critique, and it doesn’t disappoint, even as Banksy resists attempts to commodify his “brand”, only to cement his place in art history, darn that capitalism.
"The new work has been granted a certificate by Pest Control, Banksy's authentication body, and has been given a new title, 'Love is in the Bin,' " Sotheby's said in a statement Thursday.
The winning bidder, identified only as a female European collector and long-standing Sotheby's client, has confirmed her "decision to acquire the new work that was created that night."
The purchase price remained the same -- tying the artist's previous record set in 2008.
Banksy, a British street artist known for his stunts, appeared last week to have pulled off the perfect art world prank.
The auctioneer's gavel fell and his iconic image of a girl reaching out for a red, heart-shaped balloon suddenly slid down into a shredder hidden inside the picture frame, leaving at least part of the canvas in strips.
Sotheby's claimed it had been "Banksy'd."
More important is that the new owner likes the artwork the way it is, post-shred. The spectacle itself did, as mediation, something to increase the value. It is no different than all other works which become subjects of the objective operation of the economy with promotion, promotional criticism, and merchandising.
Capital accumulation (also termed the accumulation of capital) is the dynamic that motivates the pursuit of profit, involving the investment of money or any financial asset with the goal of increasing the initial monetary value of said asset as a financial return whether in the form of profit, rent, interest, royalties or capital gains.
en.wikipedia.org/...
If reputation is the actual commodity, the value of the Banksy brand increases, much like the shit-show that is the Trump regime is associated with a brand that gains value upon the corpses of dead Yemeni, Syrians, Kurds, and Americans, among others.
There was a lot of buzz around the last lot of the auction - Banksy's Girl With Balloon. Done with spray paint and acrylic on canvas, mounted on board, signed and dedicated on the reverse, and framed in a thick ornament artist's frame, the piece was said to be the best version of one of the most iconic images by the artist, so the world was watching how far the auction would go. And it went far. Selling for 1,042,000 GBP (1,357,726 USD including premiums), it was a grandiose ending to a successful week when the most bizarre thing happened.
According to the people in the room, just as the hammer fell down confirming the sale, the painting started shredding itself through the thick frame. The alarms went off, the staff took away the painting, and we're yet to learn what actually happened there tonight.
But no matter the outcome, Banksy once again managed to steal the show, one of the world's biggest art shows to be precise, taking his classic satirical critique I Can't Believe You Morons Actually Buy This Shit one step further. —Sasha Bogojev
www.juxtapoz.com/...
And like rebranding, renominating the damaged artwork is just another creative conceit much like “creative accounting” that multiplies the value.
Renaming the artwork
Banksy goes ahead and renames the artwork after it shreds. “Love is in the Bin”. On the surface this name furthers the idea that the art market ruins the nature of art by commoditizing it. The art market takes love, emotion, and art; and throws it into the garbage.
However, a deeper analysis into the process of renaming the artwork reveals the contrary. Banksy destroyed the artwork. He shredded the piece to say, “Screw you art world! Don’t sell my art! I’m going to make it self-destruct!”
That’s his notion. It’s destroyed. Shredded.
But now Banksy renames the piece. Sooooo, it’s still art? It’s not destroyed? Giving the artwork a new name says the artwork lives on. The artwork still has value! The value is not gone. The artwork still exists, and is still valuable. In fact, many people say the value has now doubled. Which is pretty incredible considering that the artwork sold for 3.5x the estimated price. And now on top of the 3.5x winning bid, the artwork is worth DOUBLE? That’s SEVEN times the original high estimate. Absolutely incredible. Genius.
Does Banksy see this artwork as more valuable? The “anti-establishment” version of Banksy would say this artwork has no value.
But the cooperative version of Banksy would say this artwork is now worth more. In fact, let’s give it a new name to match it’s new identity. And that’s what Banksy did. He gave the artwork a new name.
Even Sotheby’s is going along with this line. The artwork wasn’t destroyed. It was CREATED.
Alex Bancik, European Head of Contemporary Art, Sotheby’s, had this to say on Instagram:
Let’s end the speculation and crazy conspiracy stories. Banksy didn’t destroy an artwork during our Evening sale last week; he created one. This is the newly titled Love Is In the Bin, 2018. Were we in on it? Absolutely not. Do you really think Banksy, who spent his youth stencilling walls in Bristol and dodging the local authorities, would want to collaborate with the art establishment? Where’s the subversion in that? Come on, you should all know better. Come and see the finished painting (and see if you can spot the shredder) this weekend at Sotheby’s New Bond Street.
www.spudart.org/...
If you think it’s being cynical about the artworld, the film Art School Confidential is worth revisiting since it does encapsulate most of what the artworld is about. My personal amusement comes from knowing its context, and that it truly captures the issues of what it means to be interested in art, primarily for males, although a reboot should include Gamergaters and a Banksy subtext.