Banana sold for $6 million

[San Antone]

Over 100 years ago Marcel Duchamp offered an urinal as "readymade sculpture" and shocked the art world.



In April 1917, an ordinary piece of plumbing chosen by Duchamp was submitted for the inaugural exhibition of the Society of Independent Artists, to be staged at the Grand Central Palace in New York. When explaining the purpose of his readymade sculpture, Duchamp stated they are "everyday objects raised to the dignity of a work of art by the artist's act of choice." (Wikipedia)

I had thought we were beyond getting shocked by this sort of thing by now.

[Florestan]

Over 100 years ago Marcel Duchamp offered an urinal as "readymade sculpture" and shocked the art world.



In April 1917, an ordinary piece of plumbing chosen by Duchamp was submitted for the inaugural exhibition of the Society of Independent Artists, to be staged at the Grand Central Palace in New York. When explaining the purpose of his readymade sculpture, Duchamp stated they are "everyday objects raised to the dignity of a work of art by the artist's act of choice." (Wikipedia)

I had thought we were beyond getting shocked by this sort of thing by now.

I'm very glad you brought this up --- thank you very much.

Prior to the US withdrawal from Afghanistan I watched a documentary about US teachers teaching Afghan pupils all kinds of topics. What really caught my attention was an American female art teacher explaining precisely the Duchamp urinal to a class of all-female young Afghans, some of them wearing the hijab. She launched into a typically left-liberal intellectual-cum-artistic mumbo-jumbo (samples above) which the Afghan girls obviously did not comprehend a single iota --- but from their facial expressions I could vividly sense how their incomprehension gradually but certainly turned into the uttermost disgust and horror as they obviously began to understand what the whole thing was about.

I know of no more damning indictment of the whole (falsely universalist) left-liberal worldview, of which the banana under question is a conspicuous instance.

[Madiel]

In terms of value, what would happen to the value of the banana "work" should someone decide to face the banana in a different direction and/or use a different color duct tape?  Or taped something else to the wall...like a different kind of fruit or a vegetable?  🧐 Hmmmm?

K

There would be a debate about intellectual property laws and/or plagiarism.

Mind you, it's a fairly fundamental part of IP law that you cannot copyright ideas. Only expressions of them. Which again comes back to the proposition that the unique thing here, what's been bought, is the set of instructions.

We have no idea whether the instructions are written in pretentious language or prosaic language, and how detailed they are about the size and shape of the banana and the angle of the fruit and the tape. But whatever result you can get without the instructions, I think you're free to implement.

And that comes back to my original point. I don't think the value is affected by anybody actually taping something to a wall. I think the value is affected by spending 5 minutes working out that the money has been spent on something akin to IKEA assembly instructions.

[Madiel]

By this token, an IKEA furniture is a work of conceptual art.

Snap.

[Florestan]

something akin to IKEA assembly instructions.

Hey, I claim priority legal rights on this!

https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,33621.msg1594179.html#msg1594179

[Florestan]

Snap.

Hey, I withdraw my legal claims. 

[Madiel]

Over 100 years ago Marcel Duchamp offered an urinal as "readymade sculpture" and shocked the art world.



In April 1917, an ordinary piece of plumbing chosen by Duchamp was submitted for the inaugural exhibition of the Society of Independent Artists, to be staged at the Grand Central Palace in New York. When explaining the purpose of his readymade sculpture, Duchamp stated they are "everyday objects raised to the dignity of a work of art by the artist's act of choice." (Wikipedia)

I had thought we were beyond getting shocked by this sort of thing by now.

I remain of the view that the shock consists of the amount of money changing hands.

I don't think I was aware that Duchamp had merely chosen a pre-existing object. In which case, the whole idea that one of the many identical objects became art just because Duchamp picked it suffers from the same problem. It's rather like how something owned by a celebrity becomes more valuable even if the object itself is common.

[Madiel]

Hey, I withdraw my legal claims. 

As you should, because I got the exact same idea without reading your different expression of it!

[Florestan]

I remain of the view that the shock consists of the amount of money changing hands.

I don't think I was aware that Duchamp had merely chosen a pre-existing object. In which case, the whole idea that one of the many identical objects became art just because Duchamp picked it suffers from the same problem. It's rather like how something owned by a celebrity becomes more valuable even if the object itself is common.

I remain of the view that the shit hit the fan! Once again!

The only meaningful comment on the banana matter, as well as on dozens of other such matters, was written long time ago by a guy steeped in Middle Age prejudice:

Non ragioniam di lor, ma guarda e passa

[Florestan]

As you should, because I got the exact same idea without reading your different expression of it!

Non idem est si duo dicunt idem.

I won't sue you, though. 

[Florestan]

I am reminded of a Fernando Pessoa quote, something to the effect that, when art was mainly about craftsmanship, artists were few and great, because craftsmanship is rare; ever since art came to be mainly about feeling, artists are many and mediocre, because everybody feels. 

I will look for the exact quote.

[DavidW]

I had thought we were beyond getting shocked by this sort of thing by now.

No one here is shocked, just disappointed.

[relm1]

I thought - o no, please, no more banana...

Here is a last (I promise) reflection; from "de Standaard"/ Ruben Mooyman, this morning:

"The buyer was Chinese cryptocurrency magnate Justin Sun. He was aware that the banana in question had been purchased the same morning for 35 dollar cents at a nearby supermarket. It could not have been otherwise, because the artwork is already five years old. A banana does not last that long.

The fact that the work was purchased by a crypto entrepreneur is probably no coincidence. The similarity between the artwork and cryptocurrencies is that both derive their value not from their physical appearance, but from an idea or concept that manifests itself in our brains. If people somehow become convinced that a banana can be valuable art under certain circumstances, then $6 million might be a very reasonable price. And if enough people are convinced that a secure piece of computer code can be an investment object, then $100,000 is a fair value.

In fact, assigning value to a concept without a physical appearance is quite universal. Take our hard-earned savings. They consist of nothing more than a few computer instructions on a bank server. Even when we go shopping in the supermarket, we use the same conceptual understanding of value. In order to be allowed to take that full shopping cart with us, we only have to manipulate a plastic disk that then sets in motion a bizarre and inscrutable system via circuits, wires and cables, the only physical manifestation of which is the invisible movement of subatomic particles. In comparison, a banana is actually quite concrete.

We are reassured by the idea that we can put the money on a bank server in the physical form of banknotes in our wallets if we wish. But banknotes are also no more than a concept, comparable to the miraculous increase in value of Catellan's banana. Because why would a piece of paper with a vertical line and two circles be worth ten times as much as a piece of paper with a vertical line and one circle?

Even gold has a conceptual value. Gold is much more valuable than other metals. For the price of 28 grams of gold, you can buy a ton of aluminum. But why is gold actually so expensive? When it comes to useful applications, aluminum is far superior. Yet nowhere in the world are there bars of aluminum in secure central bank vaults. Maurizio Catellan and Justin Sun have a good understanding of why that is."

Is the value derived from a collective value or the expert's appraisal?  Does this apply to music as well?  What about when the expert gets it wrong? 

"It is safe to say that few understood what they heard and few heard anything they understood... There are no themes distinct and strong enough to be called themes. There is nothing in the way of even a brief motif that can be grasped securely enough by the ear and brain to serve as a guiding line through the tonal maze. There is no end of queer and unusual effects in orchestration, no end of harmonic combinations and progressions that are so unusual that they sound hideously ugly." —W.L. Hubbard, Chicago Tribune, January 30, 1909 reviewing Debussy's La Mer

"Beethoven's Symphony is a crass monster, a hideously writhing wounded dragon, that refuses to expire, and though bleeding in the Finale, furiously beats about with its tail erect." —Zeitung für die Elegente Welt, Vienna, May 1804

Isn't crypto a bunch of baloney because eventually, its value is purely based on arbitrary valuation whereas traditional currencies are backed up by scarce but physical items of value rather than an idea?

[relm1]

In terms of value, what would happen to the value of the banana "work" should someone decide to face the banana in a different direction and/or use a different color duct tape?  Or taped something else to the wall...like a different kind of fruit or a vegetable?  🧐 Hmmmm?

K

Yeah, I think that's the problem - why is this considered valuable?  I don't think if I took a banana and taped it to my wall I would be able to sell it for 6 million even if I did it vastly better.  It seems value is dependent on who has money to spend not the art's quality or cultural significance. 

[DavidW]

Ultimately, the value of gold, silver, diamonds, etc. is psychology: if nobody believed that a diamond is valuable, and will not trade a certain amount of work or coconuts or grain or whatever, then it is not valuable.

Moon rocks are very rare: should they not be worth millions or billions per ounce?  Maybe they are to some people, like the thieves who have stolen them throughout the years.

Other people might just shrug and see a worthless gray lump with holes.

I'm sorry but no. Cato you've written many insightful posts but this isn't one of them. It is not psychology, it is rarety. Moon rocks don't come into play because they are too rare ever to be used as a commodity. BTW the non-corrosive property of gold was also important when it was used as a standard.

But this is beside the point, money is mostly digital these days, but it is a matter of social acceptance of its value. In contrast, the artwork in question doesn't have any value established by society as a whole. The article, as well as your post, posit an unspoken assertion that just because value has an element of subjectivity it must be wholly unjudgable. I'm surprised that you would take such an approach, as that is the #1 reason students reject English class! They posit the same egalitarian stance if it is not wholly objective then any criticism as to lack of sound reasoning in their papers by you can then be dismissed out of hand.

[Madiel]

Rarity and utility, combined. That's in general. Because art doesn't really score very well on the utility scale except for the value we place on pleasure.

What happens in the art world is partly the "pleasure" of saying that you have something nobody else has.

Possibly you get bonus utility points if the art is edible.

[Mandryka]

Re banana, here's the auction. There are a few people bidding, some by telephone. It's not like there was just one bloke who wanted it for a very high price. It"s not easy to say with @DavidW that "the artwork in question doesn't have any value established by society as a whole" -- at least if we cut out the "as a whole."

There is a society of art connoisseurs who value this thing very highly. It was sold at one of the most reputable art dealers in the universe.  The fact that there are non-connoisseurs who don't rate it  is neither here nor there when it comes to its value qua work of art.

[Madiel]

That a reputable art dealer was in on this has indeed led me to think about the word "reputable".

Also about the word connoisseur. And the assumption that people here can't possibly count. It's somewhat like immediately tagging anyone with a different theological view as a "heretic" so that their view can be ignored.

I would be willing to bet that there are people thoroughly enmeshed in the art world who think that Comedian is a load of shite. It's just that people who think that are not going to turn up to an auction to announce they're not spending money.

[Kalevala]

That a reputable art dealer was in on this has indeed led me to think about the word "reputable".

K

[Madiel]

Perhaps the connoisseur is the person who understands that this thing is not worth all that money, WHICH IS WHAT THE ARTIST SAYS.

https://amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2024/nov/07/maurizio-cattelan-duct-taped-banana-artwork-new-york-auction-sale-price-estimate

I think people badly understand what he means when he say it isn't a joke. A critique is not meant to be amusing.