Hacker News Reader

Comment by nns | Hacker News Reader

This is a well orchestrated publicity stunt. A reputed auction house like Sotheby's would never put an item up before thoroughly checking and documenting it.

Post this stunt, the artwork will now be valued much higher than what it sold for at this auction. Banksy has been known for such ingenious and clever marketing stunts.

View on HN

Please tell me which other ingenious and clever marketing stunts Banksy, the anti-capitalist artist who refuses to allow his work or even prints (with rare exceptions) to be sold is known for?

> Banksy, the anti-capitalist artist

(Alleged) anti-capitalism and marketing are not mutually exclusive.

Banksy has an eye for publicity, from selling his art for $60 on New York’s streets [1] to parading a painted packiderm [2]. Whether it’s to sell his art (which it does), sell his name (which it also does) or sell his ideas (which it does, too) is orthogonal to it being clever and effective marketing.

[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/artanddesig...

[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5355638.stm

Yes, in this case Banksy is clearly trying sell his name and idea, I can't dispute that. But the comment I replied to implied it was done in partnership with Sothebys in order to increase the value of his art and therefore make more money from it. At least, that is how I read it. That kind of 'marketing stunt' is one that just doesn't fit into his MO which makes it hard to believe.

It was the very last peice sold. If it had been sold at the beginning or middle, odds are the whole auction shuts down, at best the tone changes. This was calculated.

Someone had to put in new batteries in it and they took it off the wall right away to show that there was no cord. It is possible the auctioneer himself was not in on it but others had to be.

Pachyderm.

Moco museum in Amsterdam sells in its giftshop Banksy artworks on pretty much everything, from posters to mugs.

Banksy is NOT [...] represented by Steve Lazarides or any other commercial gallery.

http://banksy.co.uk/faq.asp

So how is Moco able to sell merchandise? Infringement?

For an "anti-capitalist", he sure has a lot of books for sale on Amazon.

I could often be described as an “anti-capitalist”, in the sense that I advocate for newer systems of organization of labor and productive resources, but I recognize that I do not live in a post-capitalist society. I still need to participate in the capitalist world to participate in society and acquire the resources I need to survive and thrive. An anti-capitalist will often need to participate in capitalism. They can still work to build an alternative system even as they participate in this one. The process of promoting or designing a new system could benefit greatly from some capitalist wealth to reach others who may want to exit.

This is my least favorite criticism ever.

“Like, hey man, if you’re complaining that the system is totally unfair and forces most people powerlessly into a narrow set of compromised choices, why are you making one of those choices?”

When I worked with Tom Morello he used to get it all the time too. It’s a bogus argument. There’s no requirement that one leave the system they are in prior to expressing fundamental doubts about that system.

the force in this case being banksy’s (or morello’s) desire to partake of the benefits of capitalism?

Tom Morello has been happy to use his fame and status to try and get his way with things.

https://www.facebook.com/The5PointCafe/posts/101526824416292...

"Capitalism is dead" t-shirts are on sale now

Capitalism was never alive. We live in a state capitalist system. A free market capitalism is a fiction, and where it was almost a reality ( Somalia ), it never ended well.

And Che Guevara t-shirts are on clearance.

Just as dumb as the anarchist breaking windows at Niketown in Seattle while wearing Nike shoes.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2139271/Anarchist-a...

forsooth, the yeoman protests the carucage, and yet uses his plough of oak from the king's very forest!

Verily sire.

He makes things, by himself, and sells them.

And even then he puts the vast bulk of that labor in the public sphere from which he, since he necessarily denies making them, owns no IP.

How can this behavior possibly be criticized as exploitive?

Being against capitalism doesn't mean total aversion to commerce or the capital it generates., but opposition to market forces being the dominant ideology. Even hard core communists I know don't mind if someone is a bit rich (eg worth a few million), but are opposed to the vast concentrations of capital in limited liability firms, and want industrial infrastructure to be publicly owned.

I like the art booth set up outside the MET museum in NYC

http://gothamist.com/2013/10/13/video_banksy_set_up_a_pop_up...

For someone who will create some some street art and literally have the owners remove the wall to sell it..

http://gothamist.com/2013/12/04/banksy_red_hook_wall_now_beh...

Well I guess they must be feeling very charitable because they allowed the value to skyrocket after bidding ended.

As a piece of performance art, the stunt wouldn't have as much impact if it was shredded during the auction. The idea of establishing a classical 'value' of an object by process of auction only for that object to be classically devalued moments later allows you to explore what gave that thing its value in the first place and what takes away its value after its 'destruction'. Without having a clear moment of delineation between these two states, you don't have a clear way to discuss and understand this question.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com