In the video it shows the setup with all of the blades in a line, pointing in the same direction. How would that produce the effect shown later of the painting being shredded into strips? Do we assume he twisted each blade 90 degrees before installing in the frame?

> Do we assume he twisted each blade 90 degrees before installing in the frame?

Well, since we see it being shredded, I'd say "yes", if you remove your qualification word "before", or clarify meaning by inserting the proper word after "installing". I can't tell if you mean "before installing them" meaning "the blades" or "before installing the painting".

They might get installed in a "safe" way so that they won't shred if the motor somehow turns on without the blades first being armed. Or maybe they are intentionally installed that way and a shaped roller pushes them against the blades, even if they are laid flat.

In short: who cares -- it shredded. I don't care if the full mechanism or method is shown. It clearly worked, at least partially.

I agree. But as someone very interested in how physical things work, I can't help but think the video we were shown of the creation is not of the actual shredding device ultimately used in the painting. Blades like that don't bend very easily. But if that is the case, why? Why make an additional fake video of how the shredding mechanism was created in addition to what was really used?

The blades needn't have been twisted as their tips were sharp pin points. So, pulling paper/fabric across just tips in would have resulted in cuts.

Was it not meant to shred completely? Was the battery low?

> Was it not meant to shred completely?

Looks like it. A half-shredded canvas is still the original canvas, while a fully shredded canvas woud be a destroyed canvas. The first one increases in value as is, while the second one would be worthless.

That's speculation. It could be worth just as much, less, or more if fully shredded.

Doesn't matter to Banksy. The gavel fell and the auction was completed before shredding began.

That's a highly unrealistic scenario. If any part of that highly romanticized story of how an anticapitalist artist destroyed his highly valued work in protest had any bearing with reality, by now you'd have the work's lawful owner pursuing civil and criminal charges for having destroyed his property.

Yet, all you see is the mainstream media spreading a story as a light-hearted oddity, as if no one was affected by this.

So, the only credible hypothesis is that in fact no one was affected by this, because everyone was in on the scheme and no one expected to ever be negatively impacted by this stunt.

If you only shed half of it, you keep the new owner from auctioning each shred of it off.

Whether that was intentional or not, I wouldn't know.

Maybe he wanted to save the heart

What do you mean "confirms"? You thought it was perhaps some frame-shredder installing gnomes who live in the auction house's secret underground tunnels?

Who else would it be?