As I recently heard, this seems to don't be a Banksy rat, I 'm afraid.

It's not a fake.
A fake is quite another thing.
Not even he perhaps understands what "false" means. 😎
Rather it is a project inspired by the works of Banksy.
He did it well.
From 1 to 10 say a good 7.

Great. does this mean we can now move on?

Ideas soup was probably a good description after all... Nice to be correct for once lol.

That since it was very first posted I said it wasn't banksy. It was also a mashup of old works which lends to the ideas soup comment.

Was also in the opinion that whoever made it, it was well executed in a technical aspect, which makes sense as it was lifted from old work... doesn't make it better or worse than if banksy did do it (which some allude to).

You're clutching at straws man... 

Yes, you and Crime in the City are both correct.

Apologies — My last post on this thread was prior to me having spotted the video evidence on the main Cut & Run thread.



Below is a copy-and-paste of what I've just added to the latter thread.

Yes, until the next Rat appears!

It shows courage of conviction to express your thoughts early on. Up until only recently the poll showed that the majority involved (in the poll at least) thought the rat was genuine. Yet only one person was brave enough to stake their position. As an incentive to free speech I believe the bet should be annulled.

I share some of the comments posted above. I personally feel uncomfortable that some people are making money out of the fact that someone else posted an opinion that later proved to be incorrect.

Nobody should be penalised for expressing their opinion.

I think those that were to benefit from this bet should publicly declare that they do not want and will not accept the money.

lol he's not getting fined, it was a bet that he suggested! 😂 I like Met but he suggested crazy odds to prove a point and it backfired!

I don't know, I mean the fact someone has taken credit for it isn't definitive proof that it's not Banksy. Whoever did it, did a fairly good job. Lots wrong but also plenty right, tough one although normally after this length of time it would be up on his instagram.

While appreciating the underlying sentiment, my own stance is the polar opposite.



1.  The bets were fair


Both bets were entered into by the parties with open eyes. Nobody was deceived or misled.

I, the loser on these occasions, initiated the bets. And the calculated 100‑to‑1 odds offered were an accurate reflection of how confident I was that the Orange Order rat was a Banksy. I didn't believe I'd lose.


[To be clear, this belief wasn't down to blind hubris. It was based on the available evidence, with me trying to make some use of my eyes and brain.

Factored into my assessment were a variety of details (previously mentioned or referred to) pointing straight to Banksy.



Moreover, there were elements suggesting the piece was also unlikely to have been the creation of a mimic.

They included the theme of the artwork:

Copycat Banksys are for the most part innocuous, typically covering subjects that are lighthearted or relatively safe. It therefore came as a real surprise to me that anyone creating a faux Banksy would go near the hot potato of mocking participants of the Orange Marches. Along with "Down with the monarchy!", that is comparable to saying, "Unchain the Unicorn!". Or even "Reunify Ireland!" — being the kind of thing that can potentially get somebody stabbed.



The elements indicating the Orange Order rat was perhaps not by Banksy were weighed up as well, but they weren't sufficient to tip the scale for me.

Such evidence included a certain lack of wit and clear message (at least for a standalone piece that wasn't part of a series of multiple works); facial expression similarities with a 2020 lockdown Tube rat; an atypical placement for the artist; the incoherence with how the trap was set off; and questions regarding the actual point of the trap (even if the rat had been interested in the newspaper used as bait, its hands were never free to make a grab for it in the first place).



Admittedly, my guard was slightly let down by far-less-credible-yet-still-decent fakes over the years, such as the 2012 rat in Taunton, Somerset. That piece was accompanied by bad freehand additions in red: the ladder and the cringeworthy text, "PAINT TO ESCAPE", in the most non‑Banksy of writing styles.]


As soon as I made each bet, the necessary funds on my side were ring‑fenced. These bets were serious, not the hollow words of some flake.

What I also (incorrectly) assumed is that, if I was going to lose, it would most likely be due to Banksy not laying claim to his own work by 28 August, possibly because of the sectarian subject matter. That was a separate exposure I was willing to accept.



2.  Wagers are absurd if they are not followed through


When there is nothing really at stake, we risk becoming less inclined to reflect carefully before speaking. It's easier to fall back on initial impressions and bravado.

I remain convinced that one thing this forum requires less of is windbaggery. We need fewer buffoons who spout misinformation and ill‑considered views with absolute conviction. And who then double down when challenged, or slink off into the shadows and go silent, never acknowledging a mistake.

Hence, when people like me opine on relatively serious matters like attribution and authenticity, let them put their money where their mouths are.

If they are giving others the impression they know what they're talking about, then make it a little painful for them each time they get things wrong. There should be consequences. There should be accountability — whether that be momentary embarrassment, a loss of standing, a public slap, or a financial hit.

With any luck, this will encourage a few others to think a bit harder and longer prior to posting. And to consider whether their positions should perhaps be tempered, more nuanced or qualified.

As far as I'm concerned, that can only be a good thing. Arrogant certitude is the enemy of civilised discourse.


[My bets were intended as well to get members to look closer at the Orange Order rat, weigh up the evidence, and reach their own conclusions about whether it was real.

In the same way I repeatedly nudge fellow collectors to "Buy with your eyes, not with your ears", authenticity should be judged more according to what we can see, rather than what other people assure us.

Everyone has the capacity to inform themselves and to offer evenhanded, considered opinions. It's just a case of putting in the time and effort. And for all the art enthusiasts here, I would argue that such an investment in time and effort is very much worth our while.]



3.  Duality of rights and duties


I enjoyed your reference to free speech.

What it brought to mind was a 2006 debate at the University of Toronto's Hart House Debating Club, Be It Resolved: Freedom of Speech Includes the Freedom to Hate. See the second video in this post* of 2 May 2021.

Christopher Hitchens was a participant, arguing in favour of the motion.

Early on, Hitchens ambitiously tried to summarise the main ideas covered by John Milton in Areopagitica; Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason; and John Stuart Mill in On Liberty:


It's not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear.

And every time you silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your own action, because you deny yourself the right to hear something.

In other words, your own right to hear and be exposed is as much involved in all these cases as the right of the other to voice his or her view.



The above notion of duality is very appealing to me.

In a similar manner, with any bet, dualities of duties and rights enter into play:


1.  There is the duty of the bet loser to pay up, which complements the corresponding right of the winner to receive their winnings.

2.  Conversely, however, there is also the duty of the bet winner to graciously accept their winnings, which complements the corresponding right of the loser to honour their debt.



Waiving the bets would rob me of my right to make good on my commitments. Such an act would be undermining, depriving me of the opportunity to stay true to my word.

Now, that would be unacceptable. And against the spirit of the agreements made with my gambling counterparties. Regardless of the well‑meaning intent, I would see this less as magnanimous than as a misguided, patronising gesture.



Integrity is meaningless unless embracing it occasionally leads us to discomfort.

We cannot for example say, "This person is honourable", unless we've actually witnessed them acting in a manner that is both principled and inconvenient or disadvantageous to them.


__________


So, annulling the bets?

Fuck that.

Keeping one's word is just normal. It is worth more than a lump of cash. And the moment that behaving normally becomes surprising, let alone deemed worthy of praise, is the very moment for us to realise that a societal/cultural shift is badly needed — along with a recalibration of our expectations of one another.



My commitments to minibear and slevin have now been fulfilled. I am grateful to both for their engagement. For having stepped up to the plate.



And rest assured that, if the positions had been reversed and I had come out on top, out of principle I would have enforced the two debts owed to me. Without mercy.

To very-loosely paraphrase Geddy Lee*, "10 quid is 10 quid."