Yeah it was clear from the context. What I was pointing out is it wouldn’t be odd for Bansky to cooperate with the institution. He’s got a habit of colluding with gallery owners for things like this.
And I though I was clear that Sotheby’s apparently inspects things like that anyway. It doesn’t matter that its an artists frame, or the piece was from the artist directly. Or the artist instructed them not to inspect it. The reputation is that that Southeby’s inspects it anyway. Above and beyond typical dealers and auction houses. Southeby’s thing is very much carefully authenticating everything they put up. I don’t think it likely that this could have been slipped through if they weren’t directly involved.
I wonder if this wasn’t supposed to happen in 2016, but got delayed for some reason? The whole genre was created by Gustav Metzger in the 50s; Metzger organized the seminal Destruction in Art Symposium in London in 1966. 2016 would have been the 50th anniversary. Banksy surely views his own work in the tradition of Metzger.
clearly set up, Sotheby’s aware, and the value of the global free advertising for both Banks and Sotheby’s is incalculable
keeps or even pushes art back into the front of global minds, which in these darkening times is going to prove beneficial (as in, “don’t just listen to thugs faking presidencies”)
shows how guileless and soft-minded people have become to even begin to believe this wasn’t a stunt
shows us all the potential for destroying pools of money collected by the .01%
highlights that we mustn’t take what we see at face value.
