[ad_1]
We are having a lot of fun with Banksy's viral farce, which took place exactly one week ago at Sotheby's London and has been around the world ever since. As entertaining as it is, however, it raises some major questions to be answered.
We know, we know: there is already so much digital ink that has leaked about it. What more can be said? But in the current state, everything has still not succeeded!
The details go slowly. Yesterday, the auction house issued a statement that the street artist / jester had officially renamed the work today partially destroyed and that the buyer, an anonymous woman, had decided to keep it.
At Sotheby's, all parties have apparently won: the collector obtains, if not exactly what he wanted, a beautiful story and a work whose value will only grow; Banksy gets another important award (the highest in 10 years and the second highest ever) and another major achievement; Sotheby's gets a ton of additional advertising and has nothing to repay or repay.
Nevertheless, everyone still wants to know exactly how this incredible art auction has unfolded. The answers have more than insignificant consequences. Here are the questions filled with speculations that still concern us.
1. So … who gets fired?
For the time being Girl with balloon in the auction room, observers suspected that Sotheby's had to be there. His glossy press release extolling the importance of the now renamed work only reinforces these suspicions. Yet, some auction insiders suggest that as a publicly traded company, such a tour de force would be too risky as Sotheby's must respond to its shareholders.
The current story is particularly amusing: the fact that no one believes in Sotheby's when they say they do not participate in the ceremony is in fact unfavorable to them, so they do not have to answer very important questions.
Imagine: if they did not knowit would be a serious breach of security. Someone hid an electronic device in a frame and activated it remotely. This is a very big potential category of threats! Let's hope that they scan their batches for self-destruct devices remotely triggered!
Asked a comment, a representative of Sotheby's told artnet News: "We do not discuss our security procedures, but I can tell you that at no time was anyone in danger."
2. Implications for insurance?
Annoying but important topic: auctioning a potentially bogus art work at auction without asking questions must raise all sorts of questions for insurers, is not it?
If you take seriously the notion that Sotheby's did not notice the destructive encrusted in the table, to what extent were they able to thoroughly assess the risks associated with any of their work?
Imagine: you sold a piece of art that you own for $ 1.4 million and that self-destructs under the gaze of everyone. This must increase your premiums, right?
When asked if this had implications for insurance or if Sotheby's had received questions from its customers or insurers, the representative responded that there were none.
3. Has it not eroded the customer's trust?
Trying to make his own public relations because of the uncertainty surrounding Sotheby's role in this whole affair, Julien's auctions in Los Angeles announced early this week Banksy the imminent sale of Banksy in November with the line e-mail subject: "Guaranteed Not Shred". Darren Julien commented, "We can not guarantee that our bank [sic] shred or explode, but they will sell to the highest bidder. "
The report on the state of Sotheby's premises highlights a note: "Potential buyers must inspect each lot to make sure of their condition and understand that any Sotheby's statement it's only a subjective and nuanced opinion. " "Just to be much more qualified!
It would be good to know if any of the potential bidders on the ground actually fact avail themselves of their own inspection. The fact that, as far as we know (or at least, nobody says it), no one suspected in advance this cascade highlights the confidence that potential buyers give to an auction house to validate something.
If we were customers and took Sotheby's official statements seriously, we would certainly not take anything for granted in the future …
When asked if concerned customers had answered these questions, Sotheby's answered no.
4. Who was This mystery seller?
Supposedly, the work was acquired directly by the seller directly from the artist, Banksy, in 2006. That's all we know.
It seems that this crazy story ends well for Sotheby's, and that the coldest bidder of all. Anyway, that does not solve the problem. With over a million pounds in play, the end buyer might not be cool. Would not the auction house have very serious questions to put to anyone who would entrust them with the work? We would be!
In this way, it is useful to say that all this shows how the art auction market is a black box. The real trap of Banksy is much less risky than some of the more ethical pitfalls that accompany anonymous sellers.
Sotheby's responded: "In practice, we do not comment on our customers."
5. What did Sotheby's do with the Instagram video showing Banksy when installing the shredder?
The video, posted on the artist's account after the sale, raises as many questions as answers. When was the shredder installed? In 2006, when was the work done? Or at some point after (in fact, he only says "a few years ago")? The documentation has always been part of his practice, but did Banksy actually shoot a video of the installation more than ten years ago (pre-smartphone and certainly pre-Instagram), and the only one? did she hang up just in case?
Sotheby's claims not to know how it went. "As in the art world, we were surprised," said the representative.
6. Was it a manipulation of the market?
If, as many people suppose, the most logical person to have sold the work was in fact Banksy himself or another front for Banksy, and that the cascade actually affected the value of the banksy. a work sold at public auction, in one way or another, is not it? count as a kind of market manipulation?
In addition, if the auction house knew (or even suspected) the imminent blow, gave an estimate and let the bidders believe it, knowing that an event about to happen would change its value. , is not it misleading? ?
7. Was the buyer aware?
It's really a chance for Sotheby's that this anonymous buyer is so nice about this affair (and let's note it interestingly, it's been a matter of course. "anonymous" buyer, people would still guess that it was Banksy …), but we always ask ourselves.
It would be interesting to know what behind-the-scenes negotiations took place after (or before) the sale. The buyer says that she was disappointed at the beginning Girl with balloon shredded himself, but finally came around.
If Sotheby's held the gag – we hope, because otherwise, they really look pissed – they would surely irritate all the customers they described as having engaged in a "fierce battle … in the room and on the phone "?
"Like Sotheby's, the buyer has absolutely nothing to do with the prank," said the spokesman for the auction house. "Beyond that, we do not comment on conversations with our customers."
8. Now that we look more closely at this, has Sotheby's really written this incredibly revolting and properly prophetic description of the work?
Here is the description of the catalog of the work formerly known as Girl with balloon. (Sotheby's told artnet News that the note was written by the contemporary London team.)
"Bordered by a gilded and flowery frame, an essential element of the work chosen by Banksy himself, the current work is a kitsch emblem of pathos. Immediately appealing, Banksy's graffiti image perfectly sums up human emotion throughout the social media attention of our era: it seditiously mocks the respectful know-how of the art world and therefore attracts many, for whom it is a contemporary expression of holiness, a luminous and living symbol of eternal hope. But finally, Girl with Balloon is the poster of Banksy's art: whether you are for or against him, this image perfectly sums up the immediacy and controversy surrounding the artist's mission. "
"Instantly getting"?
Someone is fine! We are still determining who!
Follow artnet News on Facebook:
Want to stay ahead of the art world? Subscribe to our newsletter to receive the latest news, eye-opening interviews and critical reviews that keep the conversation moving forward.
[ad_2]
Source link
