Re: Silly pics...what'cha got??....maybe NSFW
Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:16 pm
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
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%).
I used to be able to do that.
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.Daehawk wrote: Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:46 pm Whats up with CO? With all that weed you'd think there'd be lots of munchies.
Destroyed may not be the correct term.Moliere wrote: Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:50 pm Banksy Destroyed One Of His Paintings The Moment After It Sold For $1.4 Million
He built a shredder into the picture frame.
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.
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.Blackhawk wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:44 am 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.
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.Unagi wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 8:50 am 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 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 wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:13 pm 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 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 wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:32 pmI don't get the impression that he expected the response he's getting, which surprises me a bit.Blackhawk wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:13 pm 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.
Ok, good, I'm not the only one then.Blackhawk wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:44 pm 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.
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.Paingod wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:57 pm 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.
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 wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:54 pm 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.
Of course. But there are further questions than just that.ImLawBoy wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:04 pmThe buyer is under no obligation to complete the transaction, since the art was damaged while still in the care of the auction house.GreenGoo wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:54 pm 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.
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.GreenGoo wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:32 pm I think he really did believe he was destroying his work as a form artistic expression.
C'mon—unchARTed territory.Paingod wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:57 pmI 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.
The bidder is under no obligation to complete the purchase, but they would be an idiot not to.ImLawBoy wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:04 pmThe buyer is under no obligation to complete the transaction, since the art was damaged while still in the care of the auction house.GreenGoo wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:54 pm 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.
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.Montag wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:34 pm 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?
That's all been covered. That doesn't answer all the questions however.Holman wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:42 pm 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.
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.
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 wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:17 pmOf course. But there are further questions than just that.ImLawBoy wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:04 pmThe buyer is under no obligation to complete the transaction, since the art was damaged while still in the care of the auction house.GreenGoo wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:54 pm 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.
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.
I think it will come out eventually. It's certainly beyond most of our ability to guess, so I agree with you there.ImLawBoy wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:47 pm 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.
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.Holman wrote: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:47 pm 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.