I read the article linked and read about the performance artist that ate the banana. Then moments later, read about someone vandalizing the banana wall with lipstick, writing "Epstien didn't kill...
Well, here's my hot take. Really more of a fun thought exercise. I'm not really educated on art or art history aside from what I've kind of passively absorbed from people who actually critique...
Exemplary
Well, here's my hot take. Really more of a fun thought exercise. I'm not really educated on art or art history aside from what I've kind of passively absorbed from people who actually critique things.
There's been movements in the past all based around questioning what art actually is or trying to push the boundaries of what we consider to be art. I won't get into the details but this idea has been around for quite a long time - does art need to reflect things as they are (or would be), does art even need to represent anything, does art need to be aesthetically pleasing, etc. I think in some ways, there's two parallel ideas of art - traditional art and technical ability is of course impressive, but there's also an entire "meta genre", really, where there's philosophical challenges being made and discussions being had through the medium.
Firstly, the piece is probably mostly irreverent - it is titled "Comedian", and honestly I think it's questionable whether the artist expected to actually sell it for 120K large (what could a banana cost? Ten dollars?). The price itself could be a commentary on how we value things contextually, or even the inherent material value of art. I can buy a bunch of bananas for $1.50. So where does the additional value come from? But really... could the same could be said for canvas and paint? You could argue that additional value comes from skillful arrangement of that paint on the canvas, but does it really? Its additional value is entirely subjective and does seem depend on a lot of ephemeral and contextual things that are unrelated to the actual time and skill involved - like who made it, how old it is, or even (and this is what I think may be the main thesis) the context in which it is displayed and sold.
A banana itself is also a physical thing which will rot. In fact it rots quite quickly - which is why I think a banana was chosen in addition to its particular cheapness. The piece comes with the instructions to replace the fruit every ten days. This brings obvious parallels to the Ship of Theseus: is it the same piece of art? What is the purchaser actually buying here? Lots of art needs replacement and restoration, the banana just exaggerates the time scale.
OK, so then some guy goes up to it and eats it. I mean, dude, it's a banana. You eat bananas. It's not "an idea", like the museum insisted, it's a banana - sugar and potassium. But people are even going on in articles about how the art is somehow destroyed or changed now, but the art itself has instructions for it being replaced every ten days anyway. In fact, this stunt probably increased the value of the piece. What's the difference between it being consumed letting it rot? Can you meaningfully destroy it? Then that calls to mind the follow-up: can you meaningfully sell it?
The fact that the guy who ate it called himself "the hungry artist" could be another paragraph but I'm starting to feel a bit silly at this point to be honest... the whole thing could be a meta-commentary on dummies like me who entertain ourselves trying to find meaning in the absurd, or how fucked up the art world is because rich people have too much money. But that'd be something worth looking into the other work of the artist about.
An alternate theory that seems equally plausible to me is that this is just a cover for money laundering. The cynic in me thinks the absurdities of the modern art world would make a great front...
An alternate theory that seems equally plausible to me is that this is just a cover for money laundering. The cynic in me thinks the absurdities of the modern art world would make a great front for a "hiding in plain sight" scheme.
The art isn't in the banana itself, it's in the action of displaying the banana and acting as if it is art. Even the fact that we're talking about the limits and intricacies of modern art right...
The art isn't in the banana itself, it's in the action of displaying the banana and acting as if it is art. Even the fact that we're talking about the limits and intricacies of modern art right now proves that the piece has done its job in stirring up a discussion about art. It's like Duchamp's "Fountain". The art is not inherent to the object itself, it's in the act of treating it as art.
This particular piece seems to be about the absurdity of considering art as art purely because someone hangs it on the wall of a gallery/ someone else pays money for it. Banana: $1 Duct tape: $4...
This particular piece seems to be about the absurdity of considering art as art purely because someone hangs it on the wall of a gallery/ someone else pays money for it.
Banana: $1
Duct tape: $4
Taping a banana to a wall: $0
Ability to get a gallery to display your banana duct taped to a wall: priceless
Ability to sell a banana taped to a wall: $240,000+
I'll just give you two links because this is not a pleasant subject for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction
I'll just give you two links because this is not a pleasant subject for me:
It's not. Any time you see an article like this where something that is obviously not art is being sold for an enormous amount of money, chances are it's just another Rich Fuck laundering some...
It's not. Any time you see an article like this where something that is obviously not art is being sold for an enormous amount of money, chances are it's just another Rich Fuck laundering some money.
Laundering money through "art" and "art" galleries has been a thing for decades now.
Unfortunately, it gets noticed and passed around on social media and does little more than further dilute what "art" and "artist" mean to the average person. Not to mention the damage to the self-esteem of actual artists.
What possible reason do you have for claiming this is money laundering? Why would anyone launder money in such an absurd spectacle likely to bring the attention of the authorities? This is by the...
What possible reason do you have for claiming this is money laundering?
Why would anyone launder money in such an absurd spectacle likely to bring the attention of the authorities?
This is by the creator of America so the artist is legit.
Cattelan claims to have been working on the idea for Comedian for about a year, first creating versions in bronze and resin.
This art piece was purchased by two different people, with interest from various art galleries for the third edition.
Here are a few links to get you started. Feel free to type "art gallery money laundering" into your favorite search engine for more. The Art of Money Laundering How does one launder money using...
Here are a few links to get you started. Feel free to type "art gallery money laundering" into your favorite search engine for more.
How do any of your low effort google searches justify your earlier statement? Three links talk about the same Hannibal painting, which was the attempt to import a valuable art piece into America...
How do any of your low effort google searches justify your earlier statement?
Three links talk about the same Hannibal painting, which was the attempt to import a valuable art piece into America by claiming it was worth $100.
The other article says "Despite the public’s perception of the art market as oblique and unregulated, verifiable cases of money laundering are rare."
Here's a quote from that one for you (emphasis mine): "Further, and as noted, other traditional vehicles for laundering money have become less attractive, thereby driving those who need a...
Here's a quote from that one for you (emphasis mine):
"Further, and as noted, other traditional vehicles for laundering money have become less attractive, thereby driving those who need a mechanism to launder large sums into the arms of the art world. As we repeatedly have blogged, one of the most time-honored and relatively convenient vehicles for laundering — real estate — is under intense scrutiny and now is subject in the U.S. to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”)’s ongoing Geographic Targeting Orders (these require U.S. title insurance companies in many parts of the U.S. to identify the natural persons behind legal entities used in purchases of residential real estate involving $300,000 or more and performed without a bank loan or similar form of external financing).
Of course, certain countries already impose AML regulations on the art world. The European Union Commission issued its 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive in June 2018, which must be implemented by Member States by January 2020, and which in part expands its coverage of “obliged entities” to persons trading in art, acting as intermediaries in the trade of art, or storing art in freeports, if the value of the transaction or a group of linked transactions equals €10,000 or more. In the United States, although the BSA already applies to dealers in precious metals, stones and jewels, and thereby requires them to file Suspicious Activity Reports and comply with other AML obligations, no such rules currently apply to U.S. dealers in art."
Please at least read the last one before you start belittling me. Thanks!
It sucks for sure. :( My friend Raven says the most insidious part is how it changes the definition of "art" and "artist" in such a way that it damages and lessens both, and I think he's right.
It sucks for sure. :(
My friend Raven says the most insidious part is how it changes the definition of "art" and "artist" in such a way that it damages and lessens both, and I think he's right.
I don't think envy is disputing that people launder money through art, I think he's arguing there are much more inconspicuous works to use than a piece that basically begs to gain attention and...
I don't think envy is disputing that people launder money through art, I think he's arguing there are much more inconspicuous works to use than a piece that basically begs to gain attention and scrutiny. I'll give your links a look when I have more time in case they say something to the contrary, but I'd argue the banana is much more likely to be a genuine attempt at making a statement (i.e. "art") than a money laundering scheme...
That makes sense. My problem with this kind of "art" is that all my artist friends will repost articles like this to all their social media accounts, and you can cut the depression and melancholy...
That makes sense.
My problem with this kind of "art" is that all my artist friends will repost articles like this to all their social media accounts, and you can cut the depression and melancholy with a knife when they do.
It breaks my heart to see my artist friends lose their drive and sense of self-worth when articles like this get repeated around the internet, and I do what I can (however "low effort" it is) to try and slow it down a little.
If that bothers anyone here, please feel free to ignore me and move on with your lives. :)
An enterprising artist has apparently sold one banana on ebay for $1,450.
Now someone ate the banana from the third edition.
I read the article linked and read about the performance artist that ate the banana. Then moments later, read about someone vandalizing the banana wall with lipstick, writing "Epstien didn't kill himself". Article did not say that the vandal was another performance artist. What a bizarre little story that's happening.
Wonder what happens next.
I'm willing to be educated on how any of this is "art".
Well, here's my hot take. Really more of a fun thought exercise. I'm not really educated on art or art history aside from what I've kind of passively absorbed from people who actually critique things.
There's been movements in the past all based around questioning what art actually is or trying to push the boundaries of what we consider to be art. I won't get into the details but this idea has been around for quite a long time - does art need to reflect things as they are (or would be), does art even need to represent anything, does art need to be aesthetically pleasing, etc. I think in some ways, there's two parallel ideas of art - traditional art and technical ability is of course impressive, but there's also an entire "meta genre", really, where there's philosophical challenges being made and discussions being had through the medium.
Firstly, the piece is probably mostly irreverent - it is titled "Comedian", and honestly I think it's questionable whether the artist expected to actually sell it for 120K large (what could a banana cost? Ten dollars?). The price itself could be a commentary on how we value things contextually, or even the inherent material value of art. I can buy a bunch of bananas for $1.50. So where does the additional value come from? But really... could the same could be said for canvas and paint? You could argue that additional value comes from skillful arrangement of that paint on the canvas, but does it really? Its additional value is entirely subjective and does seem depend on a lot of ephemeral and contextual things that are unrelated to the actual time and skill involved - like who made it, how old it is, or even (and this is what I think may be the main thesis) the context in which it is displayed and sold.
A banana itself is also a physical thing which will rot. In fact it rots quite quickly - which is why I think a banana was chosen in addition to its particular cheapness. The piece comes with the instructions to replace the fruit every ten days. This brings obvious parallels to the Ship of Theseus: is it the same piece of art? What is the purchaser actually buying here? Lots of art needs replacement and restoration, the banana just exaggerates the time scale.
OK, so then some guy goes up to it and eats it. I mean, dude, it's a banana. You eat bananas. It's not "an idea", like the museum insisted, it's a banana - sugar and potassium. But people are even going on in articles about how the art is somehow destroyed or changed now, but the art itself has instructions for it being replaced every ten days anyway. In fact, this stunt probably increased the value of the piece. What's the difference between it being consumed letting it rot? Can you meaningfully destroy it? Then that calls to mind the follow-up: can you meaningfully sell it?
The fact that the guy who ate it called himself "the hungry artist" could be another paragraph but I'm starting to feel a bit silly at this point to be honest... the whole thing could be a meta-commentary on dummies like me who entertain ourselves trying to find meaning in the absurd, or how fucked up the art world is because rich people have too much money. But that'd be something worth looking into the other work of the artist about.
An alternate theory that seems equally plausible to me is that this is just a cover for money laundering. The cynic in me thinks the absurdities of the modern art world would make a great front for a "hiding in plain sight" scheme.
The art isn't in the banana itself, it's in the action of displaying the banana and acting as if it is art. Even the fact that we're talking about the limits and intricacies of modern art right now proves that the piece has done its job in stirring up a discussion about art. It's like Duchamp's "Fountain". The art is not inherent to the object itself, it's in the act of treating it as art.
This particular piece seems to be about the absurdity of considering art as art purely because someone hangs it on the wall of a gallery/ someone else pays money for it.
Banana: $1
Duct tape: $4
Taping a banana to a wall: $0
Ability to get a gallery to display your banana duct taped to a wall: priceless
Ability to sell a banana taped to a wall: $240,000+
I'll just give you two links because this is not a pleasant subject for me:
It's not. Any time you see an article like this where something that is obviously not art is being sold for an enormous amount of money, chances are it's just another Rich Fuck laundering some money.
Laundering money through "art" and "art" galleries has been a thing for decades now.
Unfortunately, it gets noticed and passed around on social media and does little more than further dilute what "art" and "artist" mean to the average person. Not to mention the damage to the self-esteem of actual artists.
What possible reason do you have for claiming this is money laundering?
Why would anyone launder money in such an absurd spectacle likely to bring the attention of the authorities?
This is by the creator of America so the artist is legit.
Cattelan claims to have been working on the idea for Comedian for about a year, first creating versions in bronze and resin.
This art piece was purchased by two different people, with interest from various art galleries for the third edition.
Here are a few links to get you started. Feel free to type "art gallery money laundering" into your favorite search engine for more.
The Art of Money Laundering
How does one launder money using art work?
Does the Art World Have a Money Laundering Problem?
Art and Money Laundering
How do any of your low effort google searches justify your earlier statement?
Three links talk about the same Hannibal painting, which was the attempt to import a valuable art piece into America by claiming it was worth $100.
The other article says "Despite the public’s perception of the art market as oblique and unregulated, verifiable cases of money laundering are rare."
Here's a quote from that one for you (emphasis mine):
"Further, and as noted, other traditional vehicles for laundering money have become less attractive, thereby driving those who need a mechanism to launder large sums into the arms of the art world. As we repeatedly have blogged, one of the most time-honored and relatively convenient vehicles for laundering — real estate — is under intense scrutiny and now is subject in the U.S. to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”)’s ongoing Geographic Targeting Orders (these require U.S. title insurance companies in many parts of the U.S. to identify the natural persons behind legal entities used in purchases of residential real estate involving $300,000 or more and performed without a bank loan or similar form of external financing).
Of course, certain countries already impose AML regulations on the art world. The European Union Commission issued its 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive in June 2018, which must be implemented by Member States by January 2020, and which in part expands its coverage of “obliged entities” to persons trading in art, acting as intermediaries in the trade of art, or storing art in freeports, if the value of the transaction or a group of linked transactions equals €10,000 or more. In the United States, although the BSA already applies to dealers in precious metals, stones and jewels, and thereby requires them to file Suspicious Activity Reports and comply with other AML obligations, no such rules currently apply to U.S. dealers in art."
Please at least read the last one before you start belittling me. Thanks!
I did read all four articles, much to my chagrin.
It sucks for sure. :(
My friend Raven says the most insidious part is how it changes the definition of "art" and "artist" in such a way that it damages and lessens both, and I think he's right.
I don't think envy is disputing that people launder money through art, I think he's arguing there are much more inconspicuous works to use than a piece that basically begs to gain attention and scrutiny. I'll give your links a look when I have more time in case they say something to the contrary, but I'd argue the banana is much more likely to be a genuine attempt at making a statement (i.e. "art") than a money laundering scheme...
That makes sense.
My problem with this kind of "art" is that all my artist friends will repost articles like this to all their social media accounts, and you can cut the depression and melancholy with a knife when they do.
It breaks my heart to see my artist friends lose their drive and sense of self-worth when articles like this get repeated around the internet, and I do what I can (however "low effort" it is) to try and slow it down a little.
If that bothers anyone here, please feel free to ignore me and move on with your lives. :)
You know what they say about fools and their money...