The guy who bought the painting prior to it being shredded decided to keep it, which was probably smart since that media stunt made that painting famous and doubtlessly more desirable than it was before being shredded. Maybe Banksy hates the guy for buying his art, or maybe Banksy did the buyer a favor.
Also, the story of the shredder being prepared years in advance reeks of bullshit. And if that part of the story is bullshit, I can't help but question the rest.
Presumably, Banksy knew well that the stunt would increase the value of the drawing. So on some level, non-naivety is likely no matter what.
That said, it's still a commentary on the "art world." The unidealistic ways & reasons art is bought and how the value of art works... contrast to the idealistic artist destroying his work rather than having it denigrated. It's also inevitably hypocritical because the artist is either benefiting from the whole hype and hokum or wishes to be.
My guess is that the last part is why this is such a common navel-gazing motif in art. The heart at odds with itself. Idealists always struggle with all the hypocrisy, especially their own. Poor things.
I doubt that what came out the bottom was the original. I’ll bet that the exhibit can be rewound and replayed.
I doubt that's what Banksy would have intended though. Wouldn't surprise me at all if he just actually shredded the work.
That was my first thought when I saw it as well. Reminded me of a magician's setup.
Piero Manzoni's "Mierda de Artista" (literally canned shit) was his way of protesting against the commercial art establishment. They laughed all the way to the bank by selling it for its weight in gold.
The most common complaints form the inside are political games or PR games... like here. Either whoever has the best connections wins or whoever has the best (most?) image wins.
Remember Banksy's shredder prank? He shredded a multi-million-$ drawing at the auction. Presumably this was some sort of angry gesture towards the art-buying world. I think it's the same sentiment Ted expresses here.
A lot of researchers are idealistic, like many artists. They don't like "hype and hokum," and they take offence at how much influence PR has. It's cheapening. The value, potential or importance of research is being determined by a spokesman who doesn't understand (or care) about his own inaccuracies. The granter is obviously dumb too, judging by the dumb PR used to court them. Neither seem to care about truth. How is it possible that these dummies decide so much.
I'm guessing Banksy hates that idiot art dealers and buyers decide the value of art.
Them's the breaks though.