Silly pics...what'cha got??....maybe NSFW

[Moliere]

[GreenGoo]

Etymology is fun.

[Freyland]

That was awesome.

[Daehawk]

[Daehawk]

[Moliere]

Obesity Prevalence in 2017 Varies Across States and Territories
All states had more than 20% of adults with obesity.
20% to less than 25% of adults had obesity in 2 states (Colorado and Hawaii) and the District of Columbia.
25% to less than 30% of adults had obesity in 19 states.
30% to less than 35% of adults had obesity in 22 states, Guam, and Puerto Rico.
35% or more adults had obesity in 7 states (Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and West Virginia).
The South (32.4%) and the Midwest (32.3%) had the highest prevalence of obesity, followed by the Northeast (27.7%), and the West (26.1%).

[Daehawk]

Whats up with CO? With all that weed you'd think there'd be lots of munchies.

[Kraken]

da hell, RI?

[Kraken]

[Brian]

[Daehawk]

This guy has magic fingers

[Blackhawk]

He's the Michael Moschen of cards.

[Unagi]

This guy has magic fingers

I used to be able to do that.
Sit on the floor with my legs crossed, I mean.

[Moliere]

Banksy Destroyed One Of His Paintings The Moment After It Sold For $1.4 Million

He built a shredder into the picture frame.

[EvilHomer3k]

Whats up with CO? With all that weed you'd think there'd be lots of munchies.

Colorado has great weather (300 days of sunshine) and they put a more money into outdoor recreation than other states. Iowa, by contrast, has terrible weather and spends very little comparatively on outdoor recreation.

[Max Peck]

Banksy Destroyed One Of His Paintings The Moment After It Sold For $1.4 Million

He built a shredder into the picture frame.

Destroyed may not be the correct term.

It is normal for an auction house not to expect a buyer to go through with a purchase if the work was damaged somehow. But in this case, experts speculated the painting could now be even more valuable “given its status as the subject of one of the greatest pranks to have been played on the art market,” notes the Financial Times.

Pierre Koukjian, an artist who was at the auction, told the Associated Press the buyer was “very lucky” to own the now-historic piece. He said the prank was “a turning point in the history of contemporary and conceptual art.” Koukjian, who has met Banksy, said he thought he caught a glimpse of the artist as confusion reigned at the auction about what happened. Some said they saw security escort a man out of the building.

The website MyArtBroker.com, which resells Banksy pieces, agreed the piece had suddenly become much more valuable after the prank. “This is now part of art history in its shredded state and we’d estimate Banksy has added at a minimum 50% to its value, possibly as high as being worth £2m plus,” the website said in a statement.

[Unagi]

Something seems off in all this.
The frame was a shredder, self powered and somehow remotely triggered.... but just came across as some normal frame to those that were auctioning it?
Doesn't that seem a little unlikely?


I'm curios how the shredder worked/activated. Spring wound shredder with a timer to activate it? Not likely. I mean it may have been spring wound tension that sent it through the shredder, but it was activated remotely.

[GreenGoo]

I'm curious about that too. I assume radio signal since the timing is too perfect. The frame is the artist's frame. That makes it part of the art and not simply a mounting device. To me that means it is unlikely to have been viewed with suspicion.

Not that I would have predicted it, but I'm not surprised to hear that the painting is now more valuable. It's basically intact in that mounting the strips results in a perfectly clear image, but now with a "special" and unique artist twist to it. They were already buying the artist's name more than a painting anyway.

Imagine coming across a torn up but restorable work by other famous historical artists. Torn up in a fit of pique, with the whole story documented. I would expect those to go for extra as well.

Does Grund have an opinion?

[Blackhawk]

Not only that, but the painting just want from being a known work to being an famous and historically significant work. Every news site I read had this on the front page. It's a piece of art that everybody is talking about.

[GreenGoo]

Not only that, but the painting just want from being a known work to being an famous and historically significant work. Every news site I read had this on the front page. It's a piece of art that everybody is talking about.

As Max points out, the art wasn't destroyed, but the nature of the art has changed. I can imagine the excitement of collectors buying at auction a piece that comments directly on the artist's negative thoughts regarding auctions.

[stessier]

Something seems off in all this.
The frame was a shredder, self powered and somehow remotely triggered.... but just came across as some normal frame to those that were auctioning it?
Doesn't that seem a little unlikely?


I'm curios how the shredder worked/activated. Spring wound shredder with a timer to activate it? Not likely. I mean it may have been spring wound tension that sent it through the shredder, but it was activated remotely.

I can't find the article now, but one of the bidders said he saw Banksy being whisked away by security after the shredder started. So likely remote controlled by the artist himself/herself.

[Jaymann]

Did Steve Wynn's Picasso become more valuable when he put his elbow through it?

[GreenGoo]

Unless it was picasso's elbow, and he did it as commentary on the nature of art, I'm guessing no.

It's my opinion that the piece is still banksy art, just the nature of it has changed.

It's not an outlandish or novel opinion, as I'm basically echoing the various articles on the subject.

[Blackhawk]

Oh, I agree with that. He took a piece of art, then used it as the medium for a new piece of art. Banky's art is about expression. He expressed himself twice on this piece. That isn't he same as simply damaging it.

[GreenGoo]

Oh, I agree with that. He took a piece of art, then used it as the medium for a new piece of art. Banky's art is about expression. He expressed himself twice on this piece. That isn't he same as simply damaging it.

I don't get the impression that he expected the response he's getting, which surprises me a bit. I think he really did believe he was destroying his work as a form artistic expression. I guess we'll never know for sure, but I think the new piece is kind of cool, whereas the original piece wasn't special to a layperson like me. It was just "nice" before. Now it's kind of awesome.

[Blackhawk]

Oh, I agree with that. He took a piece of art, then used it as the medium for a new piece of art. Banky's art is about expression. He expressed himself twice on this piece. That isn't he same as simply damaging it.

I don't get the impression that he expected the response he's getting, which surprises me a bit.

I didn't either. I think it was intended as sort of a one-time piece of 'performance art' that would only be meaningful in stories, not as an actual artifact.

[GreenGoo]

I didn't either. I think it was intended as sort of a one-time piece of 'performance art' that would only be meaningful in stories, not as an actual artifact.

Ok, good, I'm not the only one then.

If that's true, I suspect he is seriously pissed that it is still valuable and sought after. His disappointment with the piece still existing is only going to help its value, I suspect.

Also, we haven't touched on it yet (or I missed it) but I wonder what the legal ramifications are of this act of vandalism. The buyer sure didn't know they were buying a soon to be destroyed item. Does that matter? Not that I expect the police to be involved, unless the art community wants them involved, which seems to be no.

Lastly, it looked like the piece was only half shredded, so it looks like a super market bulletin board babysitting notice. Whole on top and little tags of paper on the bottom. I think that makes it even more awesome than if it were shredded completely or untouched.

[Paingod]

I wonder - will they leave it in the frame, half-shredded and hanging out, risking further damage - or reframe it half-shredded and maybe keep the frame but disable the shredder?

This is uncharted art territory.

[GreenGoo]

I wonder - will they leave it in the frame, half-shredded and hanging out, risking further damage - or reframe it half-shredded and maybe keep the frame but disable the shredder?

This is uncharted art territory.

If it weren't for concerns about time's wear and tear, I'd guess they'd just leave it in situ with the shredder disabled. So disabled that you couldn't "re-enable" it with just a few small changes.

But since 1/2 the painting is hanging out the bottom and blowing in the wind, I'm thinking they'll do something about it. They could even put the entire thing under glass maybe. It's not like they bought it because there was an empty space in the dining room they needed to fill.

Or maybe it is. I have no idea what motivates people who have money and enjoy spending it on expensive art.

[ImLawBoy]

Also, we haven't touched on it yet (or I missed it) but I wonder what the legal ramifications are of this act of vandalism. The buyer sure didn't know they were buying a soon to be destroyed item. Does that matter? Not that I expect the police to be involved, unless the art community wants them involved, which seems to be no.

The buyer is under no obligation to complete the transaction, since the art was damaged while still in the care of the auction house.

[GreenGoo]

Also, we haven't touched on it yet (or I missed it) but I wonder what the legal ramifications are of this act of vandalism. The buyer sure didn't know they were buying a soon to be destroyed item. Does that matter? Not that I expect the police to be involved, unless the art community wants them involved, which seems to be no.

The buyer is under no obligation to complete the transaction, since the art was damaged while still in the care of the auction house.

Of course. But there are further questions than just that.

I meant to mention that I am not aware of many factors and context. Who is the current owner? Banksy? Even if that's true, what are the civil ramifications of going through the entire process (auction house, buyers, all spending time and money) only to have banksy destroy it after the process is completed? Are owners allowed to withdraw an item from auction after it has been auctioned and cancel the transaction? If not, why is it ok for Banksy (assuming he's the owner) to destroy the item in the exact same situation? If it's not ok, is that just convention or are there laws in place? If it is ok, what's to stop Banksy from just deciding that he doesn't want to sell the art after all?

I have no idea.

[The Meal]

I think he really did believe he was destroying his work as a form artistic expression.

I see him just extending the concept behind the original piece of art (things just out of reach). I think it's all rather intentional.

I wonder - will they leave it in the frame, half-shredded and hanging out, risking further damage - or reframe it half-shredded and maybe keep the frame but disable the shredder?

This is uncharted art territory.

C'mon—unchARTed territory.

[Montag]

Would think the shredding could be argued as what was purchased. They got a work of art with a twist. Could definitely say was in original intent and concept. What if it burned itself up instead?

[Holman]

Also, we haven't touched on it yet (or I missed it) but I wonder what the legal ramifications are of this act of vandalism. The buyer sure didn't know they were buying a soon to be destroyed item. Does that matter? Not that I expect the police to be involved, unless the art community wants them involved, which seems to be no.

The buyer is under no obligation to complete the transaction, since the art was damaged while still in the care of the auction house.

The bidder is under no obligation to complete the purchase, but they would be an idiot not to.

Banksy's shredding it *is* the art. It's worth far more now than it was before.

It ain't vandalism when the artist does it.

[GreenGoo]

Would think the shredding could be argued as what was purchased. They got a work of art with a twist. Could definitely say was in original intent and concept. What if it burned itself up instead?

If the buyer knew what they were buying, sure. They thought they were buying the picture and frame on the wall. That's what they bid on. You wouldn't accept an antique car's engine intentionally seizing after auction, but since we're talking about art, it's complicated.

[GreenGoo]

The bidder is under no obligation to complete the purchase, but they would be an idiot not to.

Banksy's shredding it *is* the art. It's worth far more now than it was before.

That's all been covered. That doesn't answer all the questions however.

It ain't vandalism when the artist does it.

Maybe. How long after it has been sold does he have the right to do that? Surely you wouldn't accept him remotely damaging his art a year after it was sold? Is the line "when money changes hands"? Is that a reasonable line? Does an agreement to purchase not carry the same weight? If not, does it carry no weight? If not, we're somewhere in between.

I fully admit I don't know the answers to these questions, I just don't see it quite as cut and dry as some of the suggestions here.

[Holman]

I'd be interested in hearing how the buyer reacted, but I feel pretty sure that no one interested in owning a Banksy piece would wish this away.

[ImLawBoy]

Also, we haven't touched on it yet (or I missed it) but I wonder what the legal ramifications are of this act of vandalism. The buyer sure didn't know they were buying a soon to be destroyed item. Does that matter? Not that I expect the police to be involved, unless the art community wants them involved, which seems to be no.

The buyer is under no obligation to complete the transaction, since the art was damaged while still in the care of the auction house.

Of course. But there are further questions than just that.

I meant to mention that I am not aware of many factors and context. Who is the current owner? Banksy? Even if that's true, what are the civil ramifications of going through the entire process (auction house, buyers, all spending time and money) only to have banksy destroy it after the process is completed? Are owners allowed to withdraw an item from auction after it has been auctioned and cancel the transaction? If not, why is it ok for Banksy (assuming he's the owner) to destroy the item in the exact same situation? If it's not ok, is that just convention or are there laws in place? If it is ok, what's to stop Banksy from just deciding that he doesn't want to sell the art after all?

I have no idea.

A lot of that is probably answered in the contracts around the auction. I don't think Banksy is the owner, as I don't think he wanted the painting auctioned. Regardless, unless someone here knows the ins and outs of art auctions, this will probably remain a mystery to us.

[GreenGoo]

A lot of that is probably answered in the contracts around the auction. I don't think Banksy is the owner, as I don't think he wanted the painting auctioned. Regardless, unless someone here knows the ins and outs of art auctions, this will probably remain a mystery to us.

I think it will come out eventually. It's certainly beyond most of our ability to guess, so I agree with you there.

If Banksy wasn't the owner, then holy shit. At what point does the art become property of the owner (that word implies a helluva lot). Does an artist have the right to destroy art that is being used in ways that he doesn't like?

That seems...unreasonable.

[GreenGoo]

I'd be interested in hearing how the buyer reacted, but I feel pretty sure that no one interested in owning a Banksy piece would wish this away.

Even if he reacted negatively, what appears to be the entire art community is excited about this new piece, and many experts have already re-valued the art higher than it was before it got half shredded, so the buyer would probably come around eventually.

That said, I don't think there is any indication that the buyer is unhappy.

I'm not sure the buyer's opinion matters as far as legality is concerned. Sure, his opinion will almost certainly strongly influence whether there is any legal action taken. I'm more interested in "is this legal" vs "is he going to get away with this", because I strongly suspect the answer to the second one is yes.

If Blackhawk and I are correct, Banksy intended to destroy it, not change it into something different. As Meal asks, what if it had burned to ash? Would the ashes be valuable? Would it change the legality in anyway? Altering is not destroying, but it appears the only reason it wasn't destroyed is a failing of Banksy's. He *wanted* to destroy it (assuming this is true)! And apparently he no longer owned it.

Is that ok?