Yeah, but the amount of current draw would depend on the type of receiver. Cellular would be the most versatile, but also the biggest current draw - could Bansky count on being able to be within line of sight for a low power receiver?
It all seems more suspicious than plausible.
Off the top of my head, I might try something like this:
Large lithium primary battery connected to the shredder motor, switched by a low-volt mechanical relay to get no leakage current. The mechanical relay is actuated by a control circuit on a separate battery, possibly recharged from a solar cell behind the painting. The control circuit has an off-the-shelf RF module that wakes every 30 seconds to listen for a ping from the remote.
I don’t think the is how it happened - I’m thinking of this like an engineer, not an artist.
It looks to me like there’s a roller that pushes it back an inch or so in the bottom frame to pass the picture through the shredder, explaining why the two parts don’t line up–which also explains the bend in the bottom of the painting (which looks like it was pre-shredded and fed through the roller).
Putting the video out with the flat sided blades was done on purpose.
It’s classic media manipulation. Put out bones for the public to chew on causes distraction and keep the subject in the news. It’s a classic in politics right down to Nixon’s “checkers speech”. Tho he was rather inept at it.
We won’t have Banksy to kick around anymore?
Exit at the gift shop, yo!
I doubt that. Because Banksy. The automatic assumption should be (and seems to be) performance art with Sotheby’s involvement. And the facade of them not knowing is a major part of that. If they never own up (which i suspect they won’t because Banksy) it only burnishes their reputation in the art world. Because its wink and nod enough for noone to seriously believe they have problem. But they just directly participated a work by BANKSY (oh my god, you guys).
Dollars to doughnuts the original wasn’t really destroyed either.
You know, looking at it now, the top of the girls head does look way too far to the left, but that could be parallax from this angle. I’d wan’t to see a front-on shot.
Why were the #11 blades flat? Because they were just a decoy and apparently not much thought was put into that part. Canvas doesn’t cut that cleanly without much more sophisticated hardware, so it makes sense that it was pre-shredded and merely unrolled as the other canvas (or other end of the same canvas) spooled down. The fact that this aspect hasn’t been discussed in the follow up by Southeby’s is proof that they are part of the show.
Paintings are often moved during the auctioning process. Moving it could trigger a wireless receiver on for while. Unless the original owner had the painting in his caravan or boat any painting should remain stationary for most if their life. This could keep the battery hibernating for long times. Banksy prepared the contraption to work if the painting would be auctioned so he must have studied how the process usually works.
Yeah, maybe but it’s kind of strange, if there is a roller shouldn’t we see less of the picture on the bottom ?
I think it look even better on a front shoot.
But that’s the catch, the picture came out more from the back so maybe we sould’t see the picture line up so well ? Really I should make a sketch to explain myself.
The shredding circuit being on a separate battery in line with a relay could do it.
Have one ultra low power reciever circuit and a high power one kept completely off until the relay gets switched on. would be easy to build.
Mmm…toasty warm.
Maybe if I won the lottery last night. Anyone for s’mores?
I know nothing about art. But I propose the best of evidence this is a hoax is that hideous frame. No one would let that thing near that thing without questioning it.
Am I the only one who actually believes Sotheby’s?
Their explanation for not questioning the frame, that its gaudiness functions as a criticism of the art world, is plausible. And an artists’ frame is considered part of the artwork. They say they asked to reframe it, but that sort of thing is the artist’s call, since it was created that way.
The idea that it would have had to go last in order to work, simply doesn’t make sense. What, exactly, would be the disruption to the later auctions? Similarly, I don’t think it’s a reasonable assertion that Sotheby’s security, had they not been in on it, would have jumped into action, searching those present for remote triggering devices and what not. They focus on theft and don’t normally have to deal with anything remotely like this.
And most importantly, my read on Banksy as an artist is that he wouldn’t be interested in doing this whole thing, if it required cooperation*. That would eliminate the value that’s there in the institutional critique.
*from the auction house, specifically. I do believe he probably worked with whoever was the original buyer / seller at auction.
I prefer this take on it: https://news.artnet.com/opinion/banksy-sothebys-art-shredded-1368280
Funny thing about Banksy. Nearly everything he does these days requires a lot of cooperation and pre-planning. Friend of mine worked on one of his performance things a few years back. An actor booked to work a moving, unannounced installation. Its pretty clear he didn’t meet Bansky. Or anyone who was plausibly Banksy or who claimed to be Bansky (he won’t specify its a nod and a wink). What he will say is that he was apparently 3 or 4 steps removed from anyone planning the thing. Though social media and several press operations did finger him as the “rea” Banksy". Most of the people he interacted with were apparently known gallery owners and casting people. Or other actors who were just as confused as he was. CLAIMS he got the job by responding to a Craig’s List ad. Or a random casting announcement. Or through a friend. depending on how much whiskey you feed him.
The other thing is that Sotheby’s is so famous for carefully authenticating everything that passes through their doors. That people who aren’t selling things through the auction house will pay to have their staff check things out. And museums use their people to identify and check things. They apparently take things out of the frame, carefully examine them, and contact references even when its the artist themselves selling a piece. Why would they forgo that, or why would they risk that reputation. Where authentication by Sotheby’s is definitive in just this one case? Because the artist (who we can be pretty sure they weren’t allowed to meet face to face) asked?
It’s not that it was being sold by the artist (it wasn’t). It’s that it was an “artist’s frame.” That’s a thing.
The group of people that represents Banksy in situations like this is Pest Control. Sotheby’s would have treated anything they said as instructions from the artist.
I thought that it was clear from the context that I meant “cooperation with the institution.”
