EEVBlog #1131 - £1M Banksy Artwork Shredded! HOW?

[Fungus]

Those are high quality screws not your regular ones.

That won't be a problem when you're planning to pay Sotheby's $125,000 for hosting your prank.

[Mr. Scram]

I think any battery would be flat from self discharge and aging after several years, let alone 12 years.
As to the mechanism stopped half way - if it was weak battery , we' d see movement progressively slowing down and not coming to an abrupt stop.
Also the metal box/plate that we speculate might be a commercial shredder has what appear to be machine screws on it. Those are high quality screws not your regular ones. This may be an indication a professional machinist was involved in the build (just a wild guess).

As has been mentioned a few times before, primary cells can last a long time. You see batteries lasting for three or four decades in test equipment, albeit with modest energy requirements. Twelve years isn't that impressive in comparison.

[tpowell1830]

The simple solution to resolve how this was done is for the new owner to have a professional person to dis-assemble the frame and determine exactly how it was done. If the new owner is legitimate, and if they paid over a 1 million pounds, I would think that they are serious, we should have an answer in short time. At any rate, I smell bullsh*t. 

Opinion time: I agree with Dave that this was done recently and those blades in the Banksy video are only meant to fool the most gullible among us. The blades were not used to shred the canvas. I also noticed the difference in planes of the actual painting and the part coming out the bottom of shredded canvas. Therefore, IMO, this could be a pre-cut canvas and the actual canvas is still rolled up on a separate roller.

If we do not hear from the new owner with a video or some other evidence showing this mechanism being dis-assembled, then the conclusion that I would come to is that the new owner is Banksy or a co-conspirator.     

The fact that everyone is talking about this is probably what was intended, read: publicity stunt. Although it is humorous, it is just another run at the system to get attention for Banksy. (narcissism)

[Fungus]

Opinion time: I agree with Dave that this was done recently and those blades in the Banksy video are only meant to fool the most gullible among us.

Either that or...  a wink to the other half of the population, letting them know that the video is fake.

[Mr. Scram]

The simple solution to resolve how this was done is for the new owner to have a professional person to dis-assemble the frame and determine exactly how it was done. If the new owner is legitimate, and if they paid over a 1 million pounds, I would think that they are serious, we should have an answer in short time. At any rate, I smell bullsh*t. 

Opinion time: I agree with Dave that this was done recently and those blades in the Banksy video are only meant to fool the most gullible among us. The blades were not used to shred the canvas. I also noticed the difference in planes of the actual painting and the part coming out the bottom of shredded canvas. Therefore, IMO, this could be a pre-cut canvas and the actual canvas is still rolled up on a separate roller.

If we do not hear from the new owner with a video or some other evidence showing this mechanism being dis-assembled, then the conclusion that I would come to is that the new owner is Banksy or a co-conspirator.     

The fact that everyone is talking about this is probably what was intended, read: publicity stunt. Although it is humorous, it is just another run at the system to get attention for Banksy. (narcissism)

As I've said before, there are reasons for any new owner to keep his mouth shut. Any action showing the mechanism could lead to a hefty devaluation, depending on the exact nature of the device.

[Bud]

I think any battery would be flat from self discharge and aging after several years, let alone 12 years.
As to the mechanism stopped half way - if it was weak battery , we' d see movement progressively slowing down and not coming to an abrupt stop.
Also the metal box/plate that we speculate might be a commercial shredder has what appear to be machine screws on it. Those are high quality screws not your regular ones. This may be an indication a professional machinist was involved in the build (just a wild guess).

As has been mentioned a few times before, primary cells can last a long time. You see batteries lasting for three or four decades in test equipment, albeit with modest energy requirements. Twelve years isn't that impressive in comparison.

we are talking about energizing at least two motors, not powering  your smoke detector.

[Mr. Scram]

we are talking about energizing at least two motors, not powering  your smoke detector.

We're probably not talking about a single AA battery either.

[Bud]

That is right, the high ESR of a single failed battery in a series will limit the current to the load so the other healthy cells will not deliver full performance

[drussell]

The simple solution to resolve how this was done is for the new owner to have a professional person to dis-assemble the frame and determine exactly how it was done. If the new owner is legitimate, and if they paid over a 1 million pounds, I would think that they are serious, we should have an answer in short time. At any rate, I smell bullsh*t. 

Or, you could just watch the artist's video that shows building the shredder... 

Even if this wasn't the actual shredder used, I don't think any of this was a surprise.

It was obviously a pre-planned set-up and the auctioneers knew about the ploy in making this artistic statement.

[tpowell1830]

The simple solution to resolve how this was done is for the new owner to have a professional person to dis-assemble the frame and determine exactly how it was done. If the new owner is legitimate, and if they paid over a 1 million pounds, I would think that they are serious, we should have an answer in short time. At any rate, I smell bullsh*t. 

Or, you could just watch the artist's video that shows building the shredder... 

Even if this wasn't the actual shredder used, I don't think any of this was a surprise.



It was obviously a pre-planned set-up and the auctioneers knew about the ploy in making this artistic statement.

As a matter of fact, I watched the video and it is BS, did you watch Dave's video, doesn't sound like you did. As far as preplanned, I doubt Sotheby's would allow that.

[Mr. Scram]

That is right, the high ESR of a single failed battery in a series will limit the current to the load so the other healthy cells will not deliver full performance

Which is why it possibly stopped halfway, or some mitigation was built into that. Whatever the case, twelve years should be doable.

[drussell]

we are talking about energizing at least two motors, not powering  your smoke detector.

Standard alkaline cells easily hold over 80% of their charge at the 10 year mark.  I have some AAAs that have install-by dates of 2003 in my main multimeter right now and they're still going.  I bought that case of cells (I think it was a 10 x 72 pack, Duracell ProCells) in the mid 1990s and I'm constantly amazed that the few that I still have left are actually still good.   

They're down to about 50% or so last time I tested a set in the peppermill...

[Bud]

I agree on Sobethe's not being involved, they are elite auction company, not street hipsters

[BrianHG]

WHY is it when I watch that video, why are there snaps to so many different video camera sources from different angles with perfectly consistent audio.  Why does video camera choreography seem to be so perfectly set-up with just the right angles and moments to generate a keyed up stimulated effect?

Come on, everything about this screams staged!

[drussell]

As far as preplanned, I doubt Sotheby's would allow that.

Even knowing the fact that it was the final item in the auction and that it was hung on the wall rather than being brought in and put on a stand as is normally done for artwork?!

Ok, sure...  I'm sure everyone at Sotheby's was completely unaware.   

[tpowell1830]

I think the people with cameras knew the outcome, but if this was a real auction that Sotheby's did and they were aware of the outcome, they lost a tremendous amount of credibility in doing this. The person bidding a million would have to be in on it too, because if I spent a million on a painting and I found out Sotheby's was implicit in destroying it, lawsuit pending. Even knowing this was a stunt and no one actually lost, Sotheby's lost credibility in participating.

[drussell]

I think the people with cameras knew the outcome, but if this was a real auction that Sotheby's did and they were aware of the outcome, they lost a tremendous amount of credibility in doing this.

Why?  The shredding is part of the artistic work.

The person bidding a million would have to be in on it too, because if I spent a million on a painting and I found out Sotheby's was implicit in destroying it, lawsuit pending. Even knowing this was a stunt and no one actually lost, Sotheby's lost credibility in participating.

Why?  After all the brilliantly orchestrated publicity this has received, the work will probably hold or increase its value more now than if it were "just' some spraypaint on canvas in a ridiculously bulky frame.

[tpowell1830]

I think the people with cameras knew the outcome, but if this was a real auction that Sotheby's did and they were aware of the outcome, they lost a tremendous amount of credibility in doing this.

Why?  The shredding is part of the artistic work.

If it were advertised beforehand and everyone knew, different story, but Sotheby's are not artists, but business men.

The person bidding a million would have to be in on it too, because if I spent a million on a painting and I found out Sotheby's was implicit in destroying it, lawsuit pending. Even knowing this was a stunt and no one actually lost, Sotheby's lost credibility in participating.

Why?  After all the brilliantly orchestrated publicity this has received, the work will probably hold or increase its value more now than if it were "just' some spraypaint on canvas in a ridiculously bulky frame.

If the buyer wanted the painting for the art, then the art is shredded, so the money is not the issue. The value of art is not just money.

[Bud]

So then the Art should be attributed to the implanted technological solution. not the painting

[Mr. Scram]

So then the Art should be attributed to the implanted technological solution. not the painting

I think that's trying to make absolute what obviously isn't.

[Koen]

ok, so if it was done this way then it was a custom made design, maybe someone from eevblog was in on it 

The absence of reply from mikeselectricstuff on this thread is enough evidence to me !

[jancumps]

When in doubd, it's usually the simplest answer. 100% staged.

[Mr. Scram]

When in doubd, it's usually the simplest answer. 100% staged.

9/11 was a hoax?

[jancumps]

When in doubd, it's usually the simplest answer. 100% staged.

9/11 was a hoax?

No, 11/9

[SparkyFX]

The question can also be if the shredder is not only a shredder, but part of the actual art and it´s therefore artistic freedom to do so... in case of auctioning.
Obviously destroying an object after auctioning is kind of foul play by most people´s understanding - unless it is art.

On the side of the auctioner if no checking or testing is allowed/required, why bother? Whatever surprise is found within the frame, it will be part of the auction and the bidders are responsible to know what they buy there.

All in all that was an interesting PR stunt, for sure. I´d probably not have noticed at all if not for that news, as it would not make much difference to me if it was sold for 1, 2 or 20 million pounds.