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

[darrellg]

Dave's video was included in a Boing Boing article on the subject.

https://boingboing.net/2018/10/09/myth-busting-the-self-shreddin.html

[tridentsx]

I am surprised no one else seems to see when the auctioneer triggers the shredder just after selling the piece. Its at 1:59 in Daves video.
The auction house is obviously in on it and the shredding is part of the art installation. Its not a Mona Lisa its modern art reproducible by spraying over a stencil.

[W9GFO]

I am surprised no one else seems to see when the auctioneer triggers the shredder just after selling the piece. Its at 1:59 in Daves video.
The auction house is obviously in on it and the shredding is part of the art installation. Its not a Mona Lisa its modern art reproducible by spraying over a stencil.

...or it is a button which must be pressed to simultaneously end the online auctions.

[MrMobodies]

Watch carefully and there is that delay at 2.00 into the video on the shredded paper coming out.
No delay on the movement inside the frame.

It makes me think there was another partially pre shredded copy in there supported a roller at the back of the frame.

Another supporting fact:
As the leg to the upper body moves down in the frame it shows more to the right on the "shredded" output.

[Brumby]

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.

It would seem you have not done any multi track video editing...
Perfect audio is easy.  Just use ONE source that has the best audio track and let that run for the enitire clip.  No switching.  You then get all the other video clips you have available, put them in their own tracks, ignore the audio and synchronise as best you can.  You then cut to the best video at any given point in time.  It's actually very straightforward and a clip like this could be edited in a few minutes.

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?

It would seem rather obvious to me that Banksy would have several cohorts in the audience, each shooting their own video.  That way, you would have cameras all around the room - and if something dramatic happened, there would be a better chance it would get captured on camera.  Multiple cameras also mitigates the risk of camera failure and capturing boring crud.  As mentioned above, you then edit for the best result.  It's not rocket science.

Come on, everything about this screams staged!

Certainly Banksy was well involved and had the scene prepared.  I don't know about Sotheby's processes, but I don't see where their involvement is suggested, let alone proven - and given their reputation, I cannot for a microsecond believe they would agree to such a stunt.  If Sotheby's were complicit in any way, then I would consider that extremely bizarre.

[BrianHG]

Another supporting fact:
As the leg to the upper body moves down in the frame it shows more to the right on the "shredded" output.

Good point.  Not to mention that the shredded strands coming out are practically ironed flat.  No bends, warping, or twisting due to slight blade errors which happen to thicker canvas like material being shredded.  It's coming out too perfect.

[Fungus]

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

So... which is simpler?

a) Make a rigged painting for auction, plant a few people in the crowd with smartphones to record it and have a remote control to set it off at the right moment.

or

b) Make a rigged painting for auction, plant a few people in the crowd with smartphones to record it, have a remote control to set it off at the right moment, and coordinate a whole load of people in suites with a serious job to do and no interest in your silly prank, get them all to be perfect actors, rehearse it with them, hope none of them talk afterwards, etc.

 

I cannot for a microsecond believe they would agree to such a stunt.

Nor me.

You can bet they have a lot of lawyers at Sotheby's and no Sotheby's lawyer would agree to "destroying" a painting after sale.

(what if a real buyer wins the auction?)

[Fungus]

It makes me think there was another partially pre shredded copy in there supported a roller at the back of the frame.

Another supporting fact:
As the leg to the upper body moves down in the frame it shows more to the right on the "shredded" output.

The shredded version is further back in the frame so it makes sense they don't line up.



"Pre-shredded" - would make the whole thing easier, lighter, more reliable, but ... does the mechanism really matter?

[Howardlong]

I've changed my opinion, I agree, there's an apparent unexplained discontinuity between the shredded part and the unshredded part. I don't think there's a shredder in there at all, just two rolls, one to roll up the unshredded version and the other to unroll a pre-shredded version.

[nctnico]

If the shredded version was rolled up then the shreds would be curly as well but notice how straight they are. Except for the first part which has clearly been sitting between two rollers. There still is a chance that the artwork contains two copies and there is an undamaged version still in it. Time will tell. I hope they'll manage to recover/restore the artwork because it is a very powerful image.

[glarsson]

The shredded version (if that is how it was done) doesn't need to be stored rolled. It could have been stored flat behind the unshredded one. When triggered the unshredded rolls down round a pin and up behind "itself". At the same time the shredded version is pushed out. There is enough depth in the frame for this arrangement.

[Fungus]

I hope they'll manage to recover/restore the artwork because it is a very powerful image.

Not gonna happen. It will vanish forever.

[Fungus]

If the shredded version was rolled up then the shreds would be curly as well but notice how straight they are.

Sure: "If"

But there's no reason for that and it would probably make the mechanism bulkier.

[rrinker]

 The shape of the beginning of the shredded portion explains any apparent 'discontinuity' - between the width of the frame and then the fact that the canvas has to be pressed back over the roller and knives to slice it to come out closer to the back of the frame, you've easily covered the 'missing' bit.

 Absolutely no way Sotheby's was in on this. If they knowingly participated in something like this, their reputation as one of if not the foremost fine art auction houses in the world would be destroyed.  Banksy himself, certainly involved. The previous owner - almost certainly. We don't know a whole lot about this person, Does this person even exist? Maybe it's just Banksy himself. How did this go down? Guy went to Sotheby's, says I want you to sell my Banksy original for me - yes it's real, Banksy gave it to me in 2006 - maybe Banksy even backs this up. How's that for a conspiracy theory - there is only one person involved, namely Banksy. There is no 'previous owner'.

The real question is - will the thing be opened up, and if so, will it be shown, or just kept quiet? 2 minute teardown!

[NivagSwerdna]

2 minute teardown!

"Don't hang it on the wall, tear it apart"

[MrMobodies]

I didn't think that the shredded paper was rolled up but a roller turned by a motor to roll and support the partially shredded paper out.

2 minute teardown!

"Don't hang it on the wall, tear it apart"

I guess that is what would have happened to the bidder (a big hole in their wallet) if they had to pay for it.
Assuming the bidder was not in the prank.

[Koen]

If Sotheby's weren't in on it, if Sotheby's didn't notice a thing, if the previous and next owner weren't in on it, if Banksy had no rights to this print anymore, if security is lax : I wonder if someone will feel inspired to destroy an unique masterpiece seconds after the hammer next.

[nctnico]

I hope they'll manage to recover/restore the artwork because it is a very powerful image.

Not gonna happen. It will vanish forever.

What makes you think that? The price got an extra 0 added to it within seconds after buying so it is the best art investment ever.

[Fungus]

I hope they'll manage to recover/restore the artwork because it is a very powerful image.

Not gonna happen. It will vanish forever.

What makes you think that? The price got an extra 0 added to it within seconds after buying so it is the best art investment ever.

The 'buyer' had to be in on it.

If somebody from the public got their hands on it they might take it apart and post videos on Youtube proving Banksy's video was a lie. Banksy can't allow that to happen so he has to arrange for a friend to 'buy' it.

[W9GFO]

The 'buyer' had to be in on it, too, IMHO.

If somebody from the public got their hands on it they might take it apart and prove Banksy's video was a lie. Banksy can't allow that to happen so he has to arrange for a friend to 'buy' it.

Maybe not, taking it apart to reveal how it was done would devalue the piece.

[Fungus]

Maybe not, taking it apart to reveal how it was done would devalue the piece.

Key word: 'Maybe'.

There's a definite possibility it could happen.

[agtrbt]

i remember 18650 batteries back to the year 2006 worked like garbage, the best of them were ~2000 mah and dont expect long storage life or cycle life and way harder to procure than now

[Mr. Scram]

i remember 18650 batteries back to the year 2006 worked like garbage, the best of them were ~2000 mah and dont expect long storage life or cycle life and way harder to procure than now

Primary cells have been available for literally centuries. Why would they opt for what I presume would be modern rechargeables?

[johnwa]

i remember 18650 batteries back to the year 2006 worked like garbage, the best of them were ~2000 mah and dont expect long storage life or cycle life and way harder to procure than now

Primary cells have been available for literally centuries. Why would they opt for what I presume would be modern rechargeables?

Yeah, Energiser L91 LiFeS2 AAs were available back then, we use them in a standby application, rated life is 20 years. Peak power output is probably the limiting factor, rather than energy storage capacity, these achieve around 4W/cell, so it would be possible to run a shredder motor from a manageable number of these.

However, I don't necessarily agree that the mechanism has been installed for all that time, although it would be technically possible.

[SparkyFX]

The 'buyer' had to be in on it.

If somebody from the public got their hands on it they might take it apart and post videos on Youtube proving Banksy's video was a lie. Banksy can't allow that to happen so he has to arrange for a friend to 'buy' it.

Then good ´ol banksy might have a legal problem, imho it would be highly fraudulent to drive the price of his own works up.
I am sure you can buy your own work back at whatever value you are willing to pay, therefore it would not be a viable fraud in itself (there is no direct financial advantage in buying back at a higher price than market value) but at the same time the value of his other works changes price tags as well.

At the same time revealing the mechanism or the truth might be a legal way out of the problem -> to not influence pricing too much. Anonymous or not...

It would be like a stock manipulation by the owner of a company.... smoking weed in front of cameras, talking bullshit all the time and such things shortly after talking about buying back stock at a fixed rate above market value.

edit: after thinking about it for a few more minutes, i would say that this is an interesting discussion. Should such a case ever be in front of a court (forseeable for the artist), there are only a couple of options.
a) painting was destroyed: they get an expert for art that either concludes
  a1) shredder is part of the artwork and worked as intended (nothing new in our little circle, see buzzwords "planned obsolescence", "right to repair" and such)
  a2) painting destroyed, by common understanding a cut painting is a destroyed painting
b) painting was not destroyed, only a cut copy was rolled out, then the painting itself was unaltered (does the remote work in reverse?)
c) artists consider themselves not part of the society and see destruction as art in itself, with questionable outcome

Remind, banksy is known from the graffiti scene, in which point c) is often answered different by most people, i guess this is the root of the idea to actually alter something in a way people could see as destruction. So if the market value goes up, it would not be destruction, if it goes down it would. Good luck defining destruction based on market value now. I assume he has a good laugh on that one.