I wasnt going to comment on this thread but decided to as was unsure why some members found it necessary to be rude and disrespectful whilst showing obvious lack of respect.

Art? what is art? what is commercially accepted? What is accepted by the critics?

Quote: I'm taking a fairly affordable object dearly loved by the majority of cultural consumers but looked down on by "the art world" - one which is dropping in value. Then through the process of deconstruction, turning it into an object of lesser form but higher price. One which engages the very people who reject the original print and something that will presumably increase in value.

I think what i find both frustrating a disapointing is the blinkered vision many people now have when referring to Banksy. i honestly believe many of Banksy's greatest pieces were pre "Barely Legal" and 2006. I am not saying all but i felt his work was raw and more true. It was up until this point you could freely pick and choose almost any desired Banksy print you wished to purchase from POW, taking weeks and months to make a purchase if you so desired. The art was bought for its imagery and not just because it was a Banksy.

I purchased several signed prints for just over £100 each and these purchases were made solely because i loved the imagery and what i felt it was portraying. When i actually purchased these prints i even felt it was alot of money for a print.

I believe Banksy and his art art has become a victim of his own success, whilst it has enabled him to play on a greater stage it is now becoming the very thing i guess he originally despised with regards to the establishment and institutions with the latter now investing in his work etc.

Isn't the concept of taking a Banksy print and turning into paper mache and reconstructing it into a lesser form yet that of potentially of greater value so accepted by the very institutions that are critical of his works exactly what Banksy is about. (morons?)

I often wonder why many people purchase Banksy prints now aside from the flippers, is it because they truly love the imagery or is it because its a Banksy? there is a huge difference between the two.

Art is to be enjoyed and should be bought because of what it says to the owner, but i believe as an artist becomes more popular this become less of a reason for people to purchase. It becomes more about the artist as opposed to the imagery.

If the two photo's in the thread had Banksy on them and came in 18 different colour ways they would probably be sold out by now.

Mike: Best of luck with the commission and hope its a success.

This one?

beejoir.co.uk/whenisenough.html


Looks insane, is that real money or just photo copies?

Why did it have to be signed ?? so you could charge top dollar to the person paying for this commision ?? and then pulp down lots (and you'd need lots) of cheaper prints to produce the pulp pictured in and out of that mould....call me cynical but I still think this is all lies...

If your gonna come on here asking to buy a signed banksy print to cut up off a member here then at least post some pics of the process like lots of members have requested.....anyone can do that.....not ta da heres one I prepared earlier...AS THE OLD SAYING GOES PICS OR IT NEVER HAPPENED....

Totally agree and sums up my feelings on the recent Choose Your Weapon hysteria.

Mike, is this the final piece or is anything else going to happen to it?

I'm not going to call bull on your claim to have "deconstructed" a signed Banksy print - although I do think the time line looks a little suspicious, asking for a print at 11.30pm on Dec 7 and then having done the deal, got the print and created the artwork less than 48 hours later (Dec 9th 8.50pm).

However, I am unconvinced by your argument that providing evidence of the use of an authentic Banksy print "would be counterproductive in terms of the work's purpose". Actually it was a statement not an argument - why do you think providing evidence would be counter productive? On the contrary, I think it would lend some much needed substance to what you are doing.

When the KLF (allegedly) burnt a million quid, it was the video of them doing so which made it a powerful statement. If they had just said "we burnt a million quid" with no evidence of doing so, no one would have believed them, which is why people are calling bull on this.

I also have issues with some of the assertions you make in the quoted statement above...


1. "I'm taking a fairly affordable object (signed Banksy print).... one which is dropping in value"
- the secondary market value of signed Banksy prints is currently increasing again after recent lows, not dropping. And compared to original cost, they are still worth many times what purchasers paid for them.

2. "turning it into an object of lesser form but higher price"
- I can agree on the lesser form, but where are you getting the higher price from? Are you suggesting that the market value of this grey block of paper mache is higher than that of the signed Banksy print that was destroyed in it's making? Can you provide any evidence for this assertion?

Edit: Missed the bit about it being a commission - I guess if someone is paying you thousands for this grey block of paper mache then your assertion is correct. I won't ask for evidence of the exact sale price because that is between you and the buyer, but can you confirm that you are being paid significantly more than the cost of a signed Banksy print for this?

3. "One which engages the very people who reject the original print"
- Again, is there any evidence that the "fine art establishment" is engaged by this?

Edit: Again, missed the bit about it being a commission - can you confirm your client is a member of the "fine art establishment"? ie a gallery, museum or well known collector?

4. "something that will presumably increase in value"
- On what basis are you presuming that this grey block of paper mache will increase in value?

Having said that, I actually think the idea has some merit. But imo it would be a LOT stronger if you provided evidence (ideally video) of the destruction of the original print - I think it is necessary to give the work validity.

^ and by Banksy himself:

i'm not sure i agree with this at all.

there are some wonderful examples of Banksy's genius at every stage of his career. WSM and BME are really fine works of art that work on every level - humour/pun, cultural reference and asthetics. compare this to Pulp Fiction or Monkey Queen for example and it shows there are plenty of frogs amongst the princes.

post 2006 there has been some of Banksy's finest ever work, Nola and CYW for example are as good as anything pre-barely legal. there have also been some dogs, donuts will not go down as a classic image for me but to simply say the older images are better is far too much of a sweeping statement - there are good and bad from all eras!!

as for Banksy never wanting to be part of the mainstream establishment i would disagree again, he may not have wanted to go down the same avenues as art school grads but there is no doubt he wanted to reach the top of the tree, doing so on his terms and ruffling a few feathers along the way.

like you, many of the early Banksy prints i bought were out of love for the image, around 2007 i panic bought one or two things because i didn't want to miss out - such was the hype but in recent times i've learnt to stick to what i like, such is the benefit of hindsight and experience.
for a lot of people newer to the scene they are experience what i did three/four years ago now, this will always happen as newcomers dive in to buying with both feet and then chop and change their collection to reflect their true tastes.

are they only buying because it's Banksy? perhaps but with the benefit of time and experience i think what's loved will shine through beyond all monetary value, that is simply a by-product.
there will also always those looking to make money and exploit opportunities but the same goes for any walk of life, "where there's muck there's brass" as they say ;-)


*edit* just a mile or two OT i know!!

I'm not a flipper been there done that
I buy images I like and I buy banksy when I can because of the above reason plus because it's a banksy.
People saying only buy banksy if you like the image in my mind are misguided.

When I started collecting flipping etc I drempt of one day owning a banksy just because when I joined the scene I could not afford one or win one. Then after some swaps I got one, I used to stop and look and think how lucky I was. Then I got one from source and I feel even more chuffed.
I also bought one for a to me a huge sum of money after a berevment in my family that was an image I loved.

People buy stuff everyday because of it's name or not ie skoda its normal, enjoy your art for any reason you like
It's yours you paid for it

no not at all mate, i am just laughin at all the hype this sort of thing creates. they all think your going to make something magical, and nobody can fill there expectations, i want it to fail, i want it to be dirty and disgusting horrible and offensive. So they say i carn't believe how far off i was when i dreamed what that guy was going to make with one of our beloved banksys. Or Not

maybe its just my sick mind that wants what other people dont. I don't want another banksy, not cause i am a snob( or cause i am better than anyone else,cause i am not) just because there is enough banksy already, open a paper banksy,turn on the tv banksy,every sales thread banksy,
i am just a man with simple twisted sick needs

cheers Bob