GMG Classical Music Forum

Can someone please explain the banana art?  Why did a banana sell for $6 million dollars?


What am I not understanding?  It was literally a banana purchased for 32 cents taped to a wall and sold for $6 million dollars.

I guess that's the price of being savvy enough to try it. I certainly never would have thought of it!

(What happens when the banana goes bad?)

Quote from: Brian on November 22, 2024, 06:22:58 AM(What happens when the banana goes bad?)

The price doubles.  ;D

Someone with more money than they know what to do with wanted bragging rights.  Bragging that they have so much money, $6mil wouldn't even be noticed, and spending that much on a banana would be front page news. Congrats to the artist.

Quote from: Brian on November 22, 2024, 06:22:58 AMI guess that's the price of being savvy enough to try it. I certainly never would have thought of it!

(What happens when the banana goes bad?)

I wondered that too.  By the way, if I'm not mistaken, didn't someone steal the original banana?

K

Quote from: relm1 on November 22, 2024, 05:46:16 AMCan someone please explain the banana art?  Why did a banana sell for $6 million dollars?

What am I not understanding?  It was literally a banana purchased for 32 cents taped to a wall and sold for $6 million dollars.

But $1 million of that was the Sotheby's fee. It was actually a lot cheaper than $6 million.

They did not buy a banana for $5M. They bought a work of art which is made of a banana. In a similar way, Michelangelo's Creation of Adam is not plaster and paint, it is made of plaster and paint. The value is due to what it is, not what it is made from.

Just a point of detail. This is an installation. What the person actually bought was instructions about how to make the art object and the right to install it and call it whatever it is called. A bit like a play script.

I just have remembered a philosophical discussion: If two artists made physically identical works for different themes, are they same work or different?

Ie. Artist A- abstract painting with red and blue titled "Anxiety 2020". Artist B- abstract painting with red and blue titled "Passion in Mexico".

Quote from: Mandryka on November 22, 2024, 01:17:59 PMThey did not buy a banana for $5M. They bought a work of art which is made of a banana. In a similar way, Michelangelo's Creation of Adam is not plaster and paint, it is made of plaster and paint. The value is due to what it is, not what it is made from.

Just a point of detail. This is an installation. What the person actually bought was instructions about how to make the art object and the right to install it and call it whatever it is called. A bit like a play script.

Michelangelo was a great artist. This is a banana stuck to the wall by a piece of duct tape. The emperor has no clothes.

Quote from: DavidW on November 22, 2024, 03:03:21 PMMichelangelo was a great artist. This is a banana stuck to the wall by a piece of duct tape. The emperor has no clothes.

Agree!

K

The purchaser was foolish. I know my bananas, and there's no way that one is worth more than 4 million, or maybe 5, tops.  ;D

They're hoping the art will be a profitable investment ;D .

The real "Art" of this particular deal is getting someone to part with $6 million........

The particular stupidity in this case is that anyone who so chooses can quite readily buy a banana and a piece of duct tape and make something that will look remarkably like the installation without following the instructions.

In other words, it's an exceptionally easy piece of art to forge. And I don't say that lightly. There are lots of works of art where people more or less say "I can do that" and I'm not sure that they're right. But in this case, when what you're buying is the instructions and naming rights, it's really quite easy to say that somebody besides the artist could create the physical work because someone beside the artist will be creating the physical work. Or not, when they get bored with the idea.

On reflection there are some similarities with John Cage's 4'33'', only Cage never tried to get anybody to buy exclusive performing rights for millions of dollars.

Quote from: Kalevala on November 22, 2024, 05:25:49 PMAgree!

K

Do you like the Warhol banana more?

(https://img1.bonhams.com/image?src=Images/live/2014-10/28/9068047-1-1.jpg&top=0.022222222222&left=0.106666666666&bottom=0.874074074074&right=0.923333333333)

By the way, the artwork which sold at Sotheby's was one of a limited edition of three.

"Art" has long since ceased to be a meaningful word. This is not the first piece of shit masquerading as "art" nor will it be the last. As for the obscene prices at which they are sold, well, stupidity is infinite --- as apparently is the capacity to rationalize/intellectualize any piece of shit masquerading as "art".

Quote from: Dry Brett Kavanaugh on November 22, 2024, 02:52:22 PMI just have remembered a philosophical discussion: If two artists made physically identical works for different themes, are they same work or different?

Ie. Artist A- abstract painting with red and blue titled "Anxiety 2020". Artist B- abstract painting with red and blue titled "Passion in Mexico".

The true meaning of an abstract, red-and-blue painting is "The Public Has No Clue and Neither Has the Artist".  :P

Quote from: San Antone on November 22, 2024, 06:35:41 AM
Someone with more money than they know what to do with wanted bragging rights.  Bragging that they have so much money, $6mil wouldn't even be noticed, and spending that much on a banana would be front page news. Congrats to the artist.

Rather: Congrats to the "con artist."   ;)

"Con" does not come from "convict," although the con artist eventually will be  - or has been - a convict.

The original term was a "confidence man," meaning that the criminal would inveigle a person into believing that he could be trusted as a friend, i.e. the person would take the criminal "into his confidence," and trust him.

The "confidence man" would then swindle the person out of his money.

Thomas Mann's last novel was an expansion of his earlier short story: The Confessions of Felix Krull, Confidence Man.

Selling instructions on taping a banana to a wall for $6 Million!  San Antone is right, however: I do not think this was a cheat, but a terrible amount of ego wasting $6 million, which could have gone to something worthwhile!

Just because a person has money does not prevent said person from the most selfish idiocy.

I found this reflection on the banana:


"Many of the responses to Maurizio Cattelan's 'Comedian' – the banana taped to the wall at Art Basel Miami Beach – take a familiar stance, decrying a fundamental superficiality or worse in his comic approach – intent to defraud, for instance, or a desire to 'put one over' on the audience. Jerry Saltz for one, fulminates against 'joke art, shock-your-Nana-art, art about art about art.' 
However, there is also some more thoughtful commentary which recognises that Cattelan's comedy can co-exist with substance.In the New York Times Jason Farag notes the 'dismayingly common belief that all artists are con artists,' observing that Cattelan's 'purloined banana has offered the perfect weapon to those who think that contemporary art is one big prank.' However, he is clear that ''Comedian' is not a one-note Dadaist imposture in which a commodity is proclaimed a work of art — which would be an entire century out of date now,' and suggests instead that the work is of a piece with Cattelan's ongoing critique of the art world. He argues that the banana should be seen in the context of an earlier piece, 'A Perfect Day' (1999), in which Cattelan used duct tape to fasten his dealer Massimo De Carlo to a gallery wall, for the duration of a show's opening day, thus placing 'the art market itself on the wall, drooping and pitiful.' 
And 'rather than lobbing insults from a cynical distance,' Farag commends Cattelan's 'willingness to implicate himself within the economic, social and discursive systems that structure how we see and what we value.' Because, although Farag doesn't say this outright, 'Comedian' is perhaps first and foremost a self-portrait. And, as Jonathan Jones suggests, it is a deeply melancholy one: '[h]e's the clown who has to go on clowning when he knows his jokes don't do any good.' 
In place of his dealer, it is now Cattelan himself taped to the wall – taking on that disparaging label, 'comedian,' in a wryly reductive account of himself and his career. The impulse to deflate pretension that is so crucial a drive in his oeuvre, is equally unsparing when directed at himself. The poignancy of that personal sense of failure is augmented by the fruit's rapidly aging flesh, a clear acknowledgement of mortality (the notes to the work suggest the fruit should be replaced every 10 days). Interestingly, Cattelan first created versions in bronze and resin, which would have effectively lost some of that mordancy, while also legitimising the piece through craft or labour, making it less anxiety provoking.Taped as it is to the wall, Farag stresses the fact of the banana's suspension as a way of placing it within a longer lineage, thus emphasising the analytic processes behind the work – it is not a con, or a one-off stunt, but part of a considered approach. 
He mentions Cattelan's 'Novecento' (1997), 'a taxidermied horse suspended from a Baroque ceiling like a drooping chandelier [which] collapses ... the martial pomposity of the Fascists', and 'La Rivoluzione Siamo Noi' (2000) (We Are the Revolution), a miniature doll of the artist, sheepishly suspended from a coat rack. And in his 2011 retrospective at the Guggenheim, Cattelan 'diminished all his previous works by suspending them from hooks in the center of the gallery, like laundry hung out to dry.' Cattelan's use of suspension as a technique is thus as valid as say, brush strokes and colour are to painting, and effectively transforms an object into something both ridiculous and pathetic. It is a comic procedure Elder Olson describes as the 'minimisation of the claim of some particular thing to be taken seriously, either by reducing that claim to absurdity, or by reducing it merely to the negligible in such a way as to produce pleasure by that very minimisation' (23). Olson opposes comedy's timely devaluation of overvalued goods to tragedy's belated bestowal of value, but this ignores the tragic potential of that devaluation or deflation: the loss of sublimity for instance, and the loss of mastery or authority. Necessary losses, to be sure, but still painful. 

Cascone, Sarah, 'Maurizio Cattelan Is Taping Bananas to a Wall at Art Basel Miami Beach and Selling Them for $120,000 Each,' Artnet, 4 Dec 2019 https://news.artnet.com/market/maurizio-cattelan-banana-art-basel-miami-beach-1722516Farago, Jason, 'A (Grudging) Defense of the $120,000 Banana,' New York Times, 8 Dec 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/08/arts/design/a-critics-defense-of-cattelan-banana-.htmlJones, Jonathan,  'Don't make fun of the $120,000 banana – it's in on the joke,' The Guardian, 9 Dec 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/dec/09/the-art-world-is-bananas-thats-what-maurizio-cattelans-been-saying-all-alongOlson, Elder. The Theory of Comedy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968© Emma Sullivan, University of Edinburgh, 2019."

Quote from: pjme on November 23, 2024, 03:02:51 AMthe work is of a piece with Cattelan's ongoing critique of the art world

I would frankly find this line quite plausible but for the sale, and the price tag.

Unless perhaps he intends to do something with the money other than line his own pockets.

A better critique of the art world is the person who submitted an AI-generated image into a photography competition, and refused to accept the prize. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/apr/17/photographer-admits-prize-winning-image-was-ai-generated

Quote from: pjme on November 23, 2024, 03:02:51 AMI found this reflection on the banana:


"Many of the responses to Maurizio Cattelan's 'Comedian' – the banana taped to the wall at Art Basel Miami Beach – take a familiar stance, decrying a fundamental superficiality or worse in his comic approach – intent to defraud, for instance, or a desire to 'put one over' on the audience. Jerry Saltz for one, fulminates against 'joke art, shock-your-Nana-art, art about art about art.'
However, there is also some more thoughtful commentary which recognises that Cattelan's comedy can co-exist with substance.In the New York Times Jason Farag notes the 'dismayingly common belief that all artists are con artists,' observing that Cattelan's 'purloined banana has offered the perfect weapon to those who think that contemporary art is one big prank.' However, he is clear that ''Comedian' is not a one-note Dadaist imposture in which a commodity is proclaimed a work of art — which would be an entire century out of date now,' and suggests instead that the work is of a piece with Cattelan's ongoing critique of the art world. He argues that the banana should be seen in the context of an earlier piece, 'A Perfect Day' (1999), in which Cattelan used duct tape to fasten his dealer Massimo De Carlo to a gallery wall, for the duration of a show's opening day, thus placing 'the art market itself on the wall, drooping and pitiful.'
And 'rather than lobbing insults from a cynical distance,' Farag commends Cattelan's 'willingness to implicate himself within the economic, social and discursive systems that structure how we see and what we value.' Because, although Farag doesn't say this outright, 'Comedian' is perhaps first and foremost a self-portrait. And, as Jonathan Jones suggests, it is a deeply melancholy one: '[h]e's the clown who has to go on clowning when he knows his jokes don't do any good.'
In place of his dealer, it is now Cattelan himself taped to the wall – taking on that disparaging label, 'comedian,' in a wryly reductive account of himself and his career. The impulse to deflate pretension that is so crucial a drive in his oeuvre, is equally unsparing when directed at himself. The poignancy of that personal sense of failure is augmented by the fruit's rapidly aging flesh, a clear acknowledgement of mortality (the notes to the work suggest the fruit should be replaced every 10 days). Interestingly, Cattelan first created versions in bronze and resin, which would have effectively lost some of that mordancy, while also legitimising the piece through craft or labour, making it less anxiety provoking.Taped as it is to the wall, Farag stresses the fact of the banana's suspension as a way of placing it within a longer lineage, thus emphasising the analytic processes behind the work – it is not a con, or a one-off stunt, but part of a considered approach.
He mentions Cattelan's 'Novecento' (1997), 'a taxidermied horse suspended from a Baroque ceiling like a drooping chandelier [which] collapses ... the martial pomposity of the Fascists', and 'La Rivoluzione Siamo Noi' (2000) (We Are the Revolution), a miniature doll of the artist, sheepishly suspended from a coat rack. And in his 2011 retrospective at the Guggenheim, Cattelan 'diminished all his previous works by suspending them from hooks in the center of the gallery, like laundry hung out to dry.' Cattelan's use of suspension as a technique is thus as valid as say, brush strokes and colour are to painting, and effectively transforms an object into something both ridiculous and pathetic. It is a comic procedure Elder Olson describes as the 'minimisation of the claim of some particular thing to be taken seriously, either by reducing that claim to absurdity, or by reducing it merely to the negligible in such a way as to produce pleasure by that very minimisation' (23). Olson opposes comedy's timely devaluation of overvalued goods to tragedy's belated bestowal of value, but this ignores the tragic potential of that devaluation or deflation: the loss of sublimity for instance, and the loss of mastery or authority. Necessary losses, to be sure, but still painful.

Cascone, Sarah, 'Maurizio Cattelan Is Taping Bananas to a Wall at Art Basel Miami Beach and Selling Them for $120,000 Each,' Artnet, 4 Dec 2019 https://news.artnet.com/market/maurizio-cattelan-banana-art-basel-miami-beach-1722516Farago, Jason, 'A (Grudging) Defense of the $120,000 Banana,' New York Times, 8 Dec 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/08/arts/design/a-critics-defense-of-cattelan-banana-.htmlJones, Jonathan,  'Don't make fun of the $120,000 banana – it's in on the joke,' The Guardian, 9 Dec 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/dec/09/the-art-world-is-bananas-thats-what-maurizio-cattelans-been-saying-all-alongOlson, Elder. The Theory of Comedy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968© Emma Sullivan, University of Edinburgh, 2019."

I think this is a load of rubbish actually -- and it's not often I say that. I'm more open to the installation than I am to ideas like " 'Comedian' is perhaps first and foremost a self-portrait. And, as Jonathan Jones suggests, it is a deeply melancholy one: '[h]e's the clown who has to go on clowning when he knows his jokes don't do any good.' In place of his dealer, it is now Cattelan himself taped to the wall – taking on that disparaging label, 'comedian,' in a wryly reductive account of himself and his career. "


Re suspension, I once weant to an exhibition at The Haywood Gallery in London which focussed on the line in contemporary art.  One of the most memorable things in it was a suspended piece of some sort of cord, it formed itself into a complex convoluted looping shape which seemed so beautiful, natural, perfect. Like a sculptural Klee drawing.

There's no need to use pseudo-art objects to see that this world is fucked up. Just read the news headlines.

Quote from: Mandryka on November 23, 2024, 01:12:17 AMDo you like the Warhol banana more?

(https://img1.bonhams.com/image?src=Images/live/2014-10/28/9068047-1-1.jpg&top=0.022222222222&left=0.106666666666&bottom=0.874074074074&right=0.923333333333)

At least Warhol's doesn't attract fruit flies.

The other's instructions should read (after installing an unripe banana) to wait 4-5 days, remove banana, peel, eat, buy new banana, and apply new piece of duct tape to it and to the wall.

K

Quote from: Dry Brett Kavanaugh on November 22, 2024, 02:52:22 PMI just have remembered a philosophical discussion: If two artists made physically identical works for different themes, are they same work or different?

Ie. Artist A- abstract painting with red and blue titled "Anxiety 2020". Artist B- abstract painting with red and blue titled "Passion in Mexico".

I don't think so.  This happens a lot.  There was an interesting NOVA episode where they think they might have found a new daVinci painting.  So they got forensic experts in various art domains (EG: paint expert, brush expert, canvas expert, daVinci expert, etc.) to independently do tests if this painting was in fact daVinci or a student of his or a fake.  If it was a real daVinci, it would have instantly been worth millions but if it was a student/forgery, would have been worth comparatively nothing.  But it took the world's best experts at each of these aspects, and they really couldn't tell the difference it looked so much like an original of his. 

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."

Aluminum is Earth's third most abundant element, and electrolysis has made smelting easy. Gold is rare. This is not about social convention or meaningless abstraction like that stupid banana. Do you think if you can buy aluminum foil at the local dollar shop it should be stored in bank vaults? That author needs to come back to reality.

Quote from: pjme on November 23, 2024, 03:02:51 AMI found this reflection on the banana:


"Many of the responses to Maurizio Cattelan's 'Comedian' – the banana taped to the wall at Art Basel Miami Beach – take a familiar stance, decrying a fundamental superficiality or worse in his comic approach – intent to defraud, for instance, or a desire to 'put one over' on the audience. Jerry Saltz for one, fulminates against 'joke art, shock-your-Nana-art, art about art about art.'
However, there is also some more thoughtful commentary which recognises that Cattelan's comedy can co-exist with substance.In the New York Times Jason Farag notes the 'dismayingly common belief that all artists are con artists,' observing that Cattelan's 'purloined banana has offered the perfect weapon to those who think that contemporary art is one big prank.' However, he is clear that ''Comedian' is not a one-note Dadaist imposture in which a commodity is proclaimed a work of art — which would be an entire century out of date now,' and suggests instead that the work is of a piece with Cattelan's ongoing critique of the art world. He argues that the banana should be seen in the context of an earlier piece, 'A Perfect Day' (1999), in which Cattelan used duct tape to fasten his dealer Massimo De Carlo to a gallery wall, for the duration of a show's opening day, thus placing 'the art market itself on the wall, drooping and pitiful.'
And 'rather than lobbing insults from a cynical distance,' Farag commends Cattelan's 'willingness to implicate himself within the economic, social and discursive systems that structure how we see and what we value.' Because, although Farag doesn't say this outright, 'Comedian' is perhaps first and foremost a self-portrait. And, as Jonathan Jones suggests, it is a deeply melancholy one: '[h]e's the clown who has to go on clowning when he knows his jokes don't do any good.'
In place of his dealer, it is now Cattelan himself taped to the wall – taking on that disparaging label, 'comedian,' in a wryly reductive account of himself and his career. The impulse to deflate pretension that is so crucial a drive in his oeuvre, is equally unsparing when directed at himself. The poignancy of that personal sense of failure is augmented by the fruit's rapidly aging flesh, a clear acknowledgement of mortality (the notes to the work suggest the fruit should be replaced every 10 days). Interestingly, Cattelan first created versions in bronze and resin, which would have effectively lost some of that mordancy, while also legitimising the piece through craft or labour, making it less anxiety provoking.Taped as it is to the wall, Farag stresses the fact of the banana's suspension as a way of placing it within a longer lineage, thus emphasising the analytic processes behind the work – it is not a con, or a one-off stunt, but part of a considered approach.
He mentions Cattelan's 'Novecento' (1997), 'a taxidermied horse suspended from a Baroque ceiling like a drooping chandelier [which] collapses ... the martial pomposity of the Fascists', and 'La Rivoluzione Siamo Noi' (2000) (We Are the Revolution), a miniature doll of the artist, sheepishly suspended from a coat rack. And in his 2011 retrospective at the Guggenheim, Cattelan 'diminished all his previous works by suspending them from hooks in the center of the gallery, like laundry hung out to dry.' Cattelan's use of suspension as a technique is thus as valid as say, brush strokes and colour are to painting, and effectively transforms an object into something both ridiculous and pathetic. It is a comic procedure Elder Olson describes as the 'minimisation of the claim of some particular thing to be taken seriously, either by reducing that claim to absurdity, or by reducing it merely to the negligible in such a way as to produce pleasure by that very minimisation' (23). Olson opposes comedy's timely devaluation of overvalued goods to tragedy's belated bestowal of value, but this ignores the tragic potential of that devaluation or deflation: the loss of sublimity for instance, and the loss of mastery or authority. Necessary losses, to be sure, but still painful.

Cascone, Sarah, 'Maurizio Cattelan Is Taping Bananas to a Wall at Art Basel Miami Beach and Selling Them for $120,000 Each,' Artnet, 4 Dec 2019 https://news.artnet.com/market/maurizio-cattelan-banana-art-basel-miami-beach-1722516Farago, Jason, 'A (Grudging) Defense of the $120,000 Banana,' New York Times, 8 Dec 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/08/arts/design/a-critics-defense-of-cattelan-banana-.htmlJones, Jonathan,  'Don't make fun of the $120,000 banana – it's in on the joke,' The Guardian, 9 Dec 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/dec/09/the-art-world-is-bananas-thats-what-maurizio-cattelans-been-saying-all-alongOlson, Elder. The Theory of Comedy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968© Emma Sullivan, University of Edinburgh, 2019."

Irrefutable evidence for what I said before: some people have an infinite capacity to rationalize any piece of shit masquerading as "art". I believe the day is not far when a chamber pot containing real shit, stink and all, would sell for millions of dollars and some critics would go intellectual about how the shit signifies comedy's timely devaluation of overvalued goods, the stink ignores the tragic potential of that devaluation or deflation, the chamber pot is a protest against the necessary but painful loss of sublimity and authority, and the whole "work of art" is a deeply melancholy self-portrait of the "artist".

Quote from: Florestan on November 23, 2024, 06:40:55 AMIrrefutable evidence for what I said before: some people have an infinite capacity to rationalize any piece of shit masquerading as "art". I believe the day is not far when a chamber pot containing real shit, stink and all, would sell for millions of dollars and some critics would go intellectual about how the shit signifies comedy's timely devaluation of overvalued goods, the stink ignores the tragic potential of that devaluation or deflation, the chamber pot is a protest against the necessary but painful loss of sublimity and authority, and the whole "work of art" is a deeply melancholy self-portrait of the "artist".

Both articles are verbal diarrhea that makes it clear that art critics are not worth reading.

Quote from: Kalevala on November 23, 2024, 04:39:24 AMAt least Warhol's doesn't attract fruit flies.

The other's instructions should read (after installing an unripe banana) to wait 4-5 days, remove banana, peel, eat, buy new banana, and apply new piece of duct tape to it and to the wall.

K

That reminded me of one of the more memorable Damien Hurst installations - you won't like it.

https://www.businessinsider.com/art-installation-featuring-flies-dying-shut-down-by-peta-2022-7

Quote from: Florestan on November 23, 2024, 06:40:55 AMIrrefutable evidence for what I said before: some people have an infinite capacity to rationalize any piece of shit masquerading as "art". I believe the day is not far when a chamber pot containing real shit, stink and all, would sell for millions of dollars and some critics would go intellectual about how the shit signifies comedy's timely devaluation of overvalued goods, the stink ignores the tragic potential of that devaluation or deflation, the chamber pot is a protest against the necessary but painful loss of sublimity and authority, and the whole "work of art" is a deeply melancholy self-portrait of the "artist".

There are lots of examples of high value excrement art. I was myself dragged to a Private View in a very expensive Mayfair gallery a couple of years ago where there was a sheet which was full of stains made from the expressed milk of the artist. It was lauded as a feminist statement.  I'm pretty sure I've seen a sculpture, a self portrait bust, made of clotted blood, I can't remember which, in some big name museum. All these things are said to be interesting because they elevate into high value art what is normally considered a  base material. Alchemy.

Found it

http://marcquinn.com/artworks/self

Quote from: Florestan on November 23, 2024, 06:40:55 AMIrrefutable evidence for what I said before: some people have an infinite capacity to rationalize any piece of shit masquerading as "art".

lighten,up, guys. it is only art! and has been done before

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_Shit

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Piero_Manzoni_-_Merda_D%27artista_%281961%29_-_panoramio.jpg/220px-Piero_Manzoni_-_Merda_D%27artista_%281961%29_-_panoramio.jpg)

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

As I recall, the Incas could not understand why the Spanish were so thrilled with gold.

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.

Quote from: DavidW on November 23, 2024, 06:46:38 AMBoth articles are verbal diarrhea that makes it clear that art critics are not worth reading.

Indeed. And in my experience, the verbal diarrhea of the art critics (in general, not only in this extreme case) is equaled only by that of the musical critics.  ;D

Quote from: Mandryka on November 23, 2024, 07:03:07 AMAll these things are said to be interesting because they elevate into high value art what is normally considered a  base material. Alchemy.

Alchemy my a$$. Bullshit on stilts.

As they say: a fool always finds at least one greater fool who admires him.

Quote from: pjme on November 23, 2024, 07:34:46 AMit is only art!

Then I'm afraid that you and I have radically different notions about what art is, dear friend. ;D

Quote from: Kalevala on November 23, 2024, 07:41:38 AMIn 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

The work is conceptual, a set of instructions for realising something which can be placed in a museum. It's like a musical score, which is a set of instructions for realising something which can happen in a concert hall. Your questions are like "what would happen to the value of Beethoven's 5th if someone decided to play the last movement first?"

Prima facie, the big difference is this: art works have a significant financial value in Sotheby's, music doesn't. But that may be superficial (music does have a financial value from copyright etc.)

Quote from: Mandryka on November 23, 2024, 08:22:06 AMThe work is conceptual, a set of instructions for realising something

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

Quote from: Florestan on November 23, 2024, 07:58:44 AMIndeed. And in my experience, the verbal diarrhea of the art critics (in general, not only in this extreme case) is equaled only by that of the musical critics.  ;D

The verbiage is the art ;) .

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

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Marcel_Duchamp%2C_1917%2C_Fountain%2C_photograph_by_Alfred_Stieglitz.jpg/440px-Marcel_Duchamp%2C_1917%2C_Fountain%2C_photograph_by_Alfred_Stieglitz.jpg)

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)))

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

Quote from: San Antone on November 23, 2024, 10:23:05 AMOver 100 years ago Marcel Duchamp offered an urinal as "readymade sculpture" and shocked the art world.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Marcel_Duchamp%2C_1917%2C_Fountain%2C_photograph_by_Alfred_Stieglitz.jpg/440px-Marcel_Duchamp%2C_1917%2C_Fountain%2C_photograph_by_Alfred_Stieglitz.jpg)

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)))

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.

Quote from: Kalevala on November 23, 2024, 07:41:38 AMIn 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.

Quote from: Florestan on November 23, 2024, 08:32:44 AMBy this token, an IKEA furniture is a work of conceptual art. ;D

Snap.

Quote from: Madiel on November 23, 2024, 11:13:14 AMsomething 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

Quote from: Madiel on November 23, 2024, 11:14:42 AMSnap.

Hey, I withdraw my legal claims.  :laugh:

Quote from: San Antone on November 23, 2024, 10:23:05 AMOver 100 years ago Marcel Duchamp offered an urinal as "readymade sculpture" and shocked the art world.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Marcel_Duchamp%2C_1917%2C_Fountain%2C_photograph_by_Alfred_Stieglitz.jpg/440px-Marcel_Duchamp%2C_1917%2C_Fountain%2C_photograph_by_Alfred_Stieglitz.jpg)

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)))

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.

Quote from: Florestan on November 23, 2024, 11:17:49 AMHey, I withdraw my legal claims.  :laugh:

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

Quote from: Madiel on November 23, 2024, 11:18:28 AMI 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

Quote from: Madiel on November 23, 2024, 11:20:12 AMAs 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.  :laugh:

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.  ;D

I will look for the exact quote.

Quote from: San Antone on November 23, 2024, 10:23:05 AMI had thought we were beyond getting shocked by this sort of thing by now.

No one here is shocked, just disappointed.

Quote from: pjme on November 23, 2024, 05:28:35 AMI 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?

Quote from: Kalevala on November 23, 2024, 07:41:38 AMIn 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. 

Quote from: Cato on November 23, 2024, 07:44:27 AMUltimately, 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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Madiel on November 24, 2024, 12:10:35 PMThat a reputable art dealer was in on this has indeed led me to think about the word "reputable".

;D

K

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.

Quote from: DavidW on November 24, 2024, 11:00:52 AMI'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.

No, obviously if one person does not believe gold has value, but everyone else does, then yes, gold has value.

As I mentioned, the Incas - as a society - thought gold was nice, but did not understand the Spanish desire for it.  They did not value it in the same way that the Spanish did.

This is why you have bubbles: a large group believes Commodity X has great value, the price rises quickly, then suddenly popular opinion says, "Uhhh, no, not interested any longer!" and POP goes the price.

Hula Hoops of the 1950's are an example: some investors were stuck with warehouses full of them when the craze died!

Quote from: Mandryka on November 24, 2024, 11:47:34 AMThere 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.

I admire your clever use of language. Anyone that doesn't admire that banana is a "non-connoisseur". No true Scotsman fallacy. :laugh:

Quote from: DavidW on November 24, 2024, 12:56:02 PMI admire your clever use of language. Anyone that doesn't admire that banana is a "non-connoisseur". No true Scotsman fallacy. :laugh:

No that's not what I meant to say at all.  My point is that there is a group of connoisseurs who value it highly. No doubt there are others who don't. That's the case sometimes with questions of value - I'm not an art historian by any means, but I know there are connoisseurs arguing against the merits of Manet, Poussin, Picasso, Italian renaissance painting which is not from Florence or Venice, I'm sure I could think of others.

Quote from: Cato on November 24, 2024, 12:32:45 PMNo, obviously if one person does not believe gold has value, but everyone else does, then yes, gold has value.

As I mentioned, the Incas - as a society - thought gold was nice, but did not understand the Spanish desire for it.  They did not value it in the same way that the Spanish did.

This is why you have bubbles: a large group believes Commodity X has great value, the price rises quickly, then suddenly popular opinion says, "Uhhh, no, not interested any longer!" and POP goes the price.

Hula Hoops of the 1950's are an example: some investors were stuck with warehouses full of them when the craze died!

A key reason the Incas didn't value gold highly was because they had a lot of it.

That's the point. You're treating valuation as if it's purely subjective and failing to tie it to the physical reality that the abundance of gold was not equal in different parts of the world.

Spices were highly valuable in Europe because they did not grow in Europe, and getting them to Europe was difficult. Nutmeg was incredibly expensive because it took several years to get a shipment from the small group of Indonesian islands that was the only place it grew, not because only Europeans liked nutmeg.

Quote from: Madiel on November 24, 2024, 02:05:57 PMA key reason the Incas didn't value gold highly was because they had a lot of it.

That's the point. You're treating valuation as if it's purely subjective and failing to tie it to the physical reality that the abundance of gold was not equal in different parts of the world.

Spices were highly valuable in Europe because they did not grow in Europe, and getting them to Europe was difficult. Nutmeg was incredibly expensive because it took several years to get a shipment from the small group of Indonesian islands that was the only place it grew, not because only Europeans liked nutmeg.

I will repeat that Belief that something is valuable is needed and refer to the moon rock example.  Very rare, very hard to get, but (I believe)  most people would not pay much of anything for them, because they are not particularly beautiful. 

Most people will not pay millions for a banana taped to a wall, because they do not believe it is has any value, despite the abundance of bananas and walls!  ;D

Even if walls and bananas were rare, there would still be no value to such a piece of supposed art.

Quote from: Cato on November 24, 2024, 02:57:13 PMI will repeat that Belief that something is valuable is needed and refer to the moon rock example.  Very rare, very hard to get, but (I believe)  most people would not pay much of anything for them, because they are not particularly beautiful. 

Most people will not pay millions for a banana taped to a wall, because they do not believe it is has any value, despite the abundance of bananas and walls!  ;D

Even if walls and bananas were rare, there would still be no value to such a piece of supposed art.

Well no, I have to disagree there. If bananas and walls were rare objects I imagine the perception of a banana on a wall would be very different. I really don't think you can separate your reaction to the art to the fact that the materials involved are so commonplace.  As I said earlier, one of the issues here is that the physical art form can be reproduced so easily.

People used to rent pineapples for display as part of table centrepieces.

I think people would pay a LOT for a moon rock by the way. But they're not for sale because they are both extremely rare and of great scientific value. When you can't put a price on something that is quite different to saying the price would be zero.

Quote from: Cato on November 24, 2024, 02:57:13 PMI will repeat that Belief that something is valuable is needed and refer to the moon rock example.  Very rare, very hard to get, but (I believe)  most people would not pay much of anything for them, because they are not particularly beautiful. 

Most people will not pay millions for a banana taped to a wall, because they do not believe it is has any value, despite the abundance of bananas and walls!  ;D

Even if walls and bananas were rare, there would still be no value to such a piece of supposed art.

Cato (and others here), you might want to read this story of stolen moon rocks.

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2003/november/apollo_111803

K.

Quote from: Kalevala on November 24, 2024, 03:43:47 PMCato (and others here), you might want to read this story of stolen moon rocks.

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2003/november/apollo_111803

K.

Quote from: Cato on November 24, 2024, 02:57:13 PMI will repeat that Belief that something is valuable is needed and refer to the moon rock example.  Very rare, very hard to get, but (I believe)  most people would not pay much of anything for them, because they are not particularly beautiful. 

 ;)

Quote from: Cato on November 24, 2024, 04:53:23 PM;)

This is a bit silly. Moon rocks are not art. Why does beauty come into it? MOST PEOPLE would understand that prettiness is an irrelevant criterion for a moon rock.

Quote from: Cato on November 24, 2024, 02:57:13 PMI will repeat that Belief that something is valuable is needed and refer to the moon rock example.  Very rare, very hard to get, but (I believe) most people would not pay much of anything for them, because they are not particularly beautiful. 

"Most people" are of no concern to current art/literature/poetry/music - it's for "connoisseurs" alone. For the vast majority, "the function of art is to be ignored" ;) .

Quote from: Cato on November 24, 2024, 04:53:23 PM;)

Quote from: Madiel on November 24, 2024, 04:57:44 PMThis is a bit silly. Moon rocks are not art. Why does beauty come into it? MOST PEOPLE would understand that prettiness is an irrelevant criterion for a moon rock.

*Did you gentlemen notice that besides trying (*and probably succeeding in some cases) to sell them for high amounts, that they also destroyed a lot of the scientific value (according to that FBI article) as well as destroying 30 years of research notes?

*I believe that they sold some of them, but perhaps it was caught early?  Looking again at the article, looks like they caught them before they were able to sell any of them.

From the FBI website:  "What damage did they do? The young thieves did more than just try to sell off a collection of lunar samples worth as much as $21 million. In the process, they also contaminated them, making them virtually useless to the scientific community. They also destroyed three decades worth of handwritten research notes by a NASA scientist that had been locked in the safe."

K

Quote from: steve ridgway on November 24, 2024, 09:25:01 PM"Most people" are of no concern to current art/literature/poetry/music - it's for "connoisseurs" alone. For the vast majority, "the function of art is to be ignored" ;) .

Yes, most people don't perceive art. They wouldn't be able to distinguish a Vermeer painting from a banana on a wall, or a Beethoven sonata performed by Arrau from a phone ringtone. There's nothing wrong (or right) about this — it simply what is.

What matters is something else: objects acquire value only through human perception. Without someone to look or listen, art has no value. A Vermeer's piece lying on the Moon would have exactly the same worth as any stone on its surface. Beethoven sounding in a desert is no different from the howling of the wind.

Value arises where there is perception. Why would a person decide that a particular perceptual object is valuable? It is entirely arbitrary, and in this sense, there is no difference between a Vermeer and a banana.

Quote from: AnotherSpin on November 24, 2024, 10:09:55 PMValue arises where there is perception. Why would a person decide that a particular perceptual object is valuable? It is entirely arbitrary, and in this sense, there is no difference between a Vermeer and a banana.

I am starting to feel that the only objects that are valuable are those that are valuable to me. It's a clique of one ;) .

Quote from: Kalevala on November 24, 2024, 09:47:21 PM*Did you gentlemen notice that besides trying (*and probably succeeding in some cases) to sell them for high amounts, that they also destroyed a lot of the scientific value (according to that FBI article) as well as destroying 30 years of research notes?

*I believe that they sold some of them, but perhaps it was caught early?  Looking again at the article, looks like they caught them before they were able to sell any of them.

From the FBI website:  "What damage did they do? The young thieves did more than just try to sell off a collection of lunar samples worth as much as $21 million. In the process, they also contaminated them, making them virtually useless to the scientific community. They also destroyed three decades worth of handwritten research notes by a NASA scientist that had been locked in the safe."

K

Yes, I did notice. To be honest I'm surprised they didn't get longer prison sentences than they did. You would have hoped that somebody working at NASA, even as an intern, would understand that they were actually destroying the most unique qualities of the rocks (their pristine state), but apparently that was not the case. They were both greedy and stupid, and personally I find the stupidity even more egregious than the greed.

How many works of art have gotten as much attention here as the banana? I think it is brilliant in it's way (sort of like Cage's 4'33", as someone mentioned above) but it is beyond me what the person who spent $6 million got for his or her money. If you buy a Rembrandt you get the privilege of seeing it on your living room wall, the hope of selling it for more someday or the notoriety of owning a Rembrandt. Anyone can tape a banana to their wall fee of cost, which I guess eliminates the first motivation. Can the $6 million person sell it for more later?

Quote from: steve ridgway on November 24, 2024, 10:26:25 PMI am starting to feel that the only objects that are valuable are those that are valuable to me. It's a clique of one ;) .

It cannot be otherwise. All objects, whether valuable or trash, exist only in your perception. When 'me' dissipates, the objects also vanish, losing qualitative parameters such as 'value'.

Quote from: steve ridgway on November 24, 2024, 09:25:01 PM"Most people" are of no concern to current art/literature/poetry/music - it's for "connoisseurs" alone. For the vast majority, "the function of art is to be ignored" ;) .

Here in London that is not the case. The Tate Modern is very very popular - in terms of visitor numbers at least as frequented as The National Gallery.

Quote from: AnotherSpin on November 25, 2024, 12:14:47 AMIt cannot be otherwise. All objects, whether valuable or trash, exist only in your perception. When 'me' dissipates, the objects also vanish, losing qualitative parameters such as 'value'.

Yes, I have seen many things where supply and demand, aesthetics, and price were all irrelevant: hardly anyone had a desire for the items.  e.g.  I have spoken with antique dealers from Ohio to Florida: antique oak furniture, especially large pieces, are not - or are hardly - selling anywhere.  "I can't give them away," was the lament from every dealer.

My wife and I have been great fans of Antiques Roadshow (the PBS show).  I've noticed that in recent years some items which had been the most desirable have plummeted in value because a younger generation of buyers simply do not value them as much as previous ones had. 

Some of these changes have been very surprising - what the dealers call "brown furniture" - what I think of as the definition of an antique - has lost much of its value.  19th century ceramics, glass, and pottery - generally small mantle pieces - has lost most of its value.  The only pottery that has retained and increased is Native American Southwestern work.

For all but the necessities of life, value is a perception.  However, a banana?

To me it is not worth more than 30 cents, or so, no matter how it is displayed.

Worthless stuff I saw yesterday - $6,000,000 short of being great art ::) .

Quote from: San Antone on November 25, 2024, 04:48:32 AMMy wife and I have been great fans of Antiques Roadshow (the PBS show).  I've noticed that in recent years some items which had been the most desirable have plummeted in value because a younger generation of buyers simply do not value them as much as previous ones had. 

Some of these changes have been very surprising - what the dealers call "brown furniture" - what I think of as the definition of an antique - has lost much of its value.  19th century ceramics, glass, and pottery - generally small mantle pieces - has lost most of its value.  The only pottery that has retained and increased is Native American Southwestern work.

For all but the necessities of life, value is a perception.  However, a banana?

To me it is not worth more than 30 cents, or so, no matter how it is displayed.

Necessity is the word. It is very important to draw a clear distinction between what is necessary and what is desired. Necessary things — water, air, food, clothing, and shelter — can be obtained for free or cost very little, yet their value is boundless because, without them, a person cannot continue to exist. In contrast, desirable things, which include art, may come with any price tag, even astronomical ones, but they are not strictly essential for survival, and in this sense - valueless.

Quote from: San Antone on November 25, 2024, 04:48:32 AMMy wife and I have been great fans of Antiques Roadshow (the PBS show).  I've noticed that in recent years some items which had been the most desirable have plummeted in value because a younger generation of buyers simply do not value them as much as previous ones had. 

Some of these changes have been very surprising - what the dealers call "brown furniture" - what I think of as the definition of an antique - has lost much of its value.  19th century ceramics, glass, and pottery - generally small mantle pieces - has lost most of its value.  The only pottery that has retained and increased is Native American Southwestern work.

For all but the necessities of life, value is a perception.  However, a banana?

To me it is not worth more than 30 cents, or so, no matter how it is displayed.

Yes, it is interesting to see how the values of items change over time.  Some go up; some go down.

Just had an idea regarding using a banana in an artwork:  put it inside of a glass case which is affixed to a wall with a sign "Break in case of an emergency".

K

@San Antone Have you ever seen the predecessor of the Antiques Roadshow -- Going for a Song?  Arthur Negus was a household name in the 60s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQhZskpaWDM

@Cato I suddenly thought that you would enjoy Call My Bluff, if you don't know it. @Karl Henning too, and I remember @Florestan was interested in the OED. Same vibes as Going for a Song - same accents. No prols allowed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynWCo7ONyPY

Quote from: Mandryka on November 25, 2024, 06:16:23 AM....  same accents. No prols allowed.

...

Ah, the good old the days...

Quote from: Mandryka on November 25, 2024, 06:16:23 AM@San Antone Have you ever seen the predecessor of the Antiques Roadshow -- Going for a Song?  Arthur Negus was a household name in the 60s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQhZskpaWDM

@Cato I suddenly thought that you would enjoy Call My Bluff, if you don't know it. @Karl Henning too, and I remember @Florestan was interested in the OED. Same vibes as Going for a Song - same accents. No prols allowed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynWCo7ONyPY

 ;D   Thanks for the link!!!

I've had fun watching some of the British version of the Antiques Road Show; this one is with British celebrities (most of whom I, sadly, have not heard of before now).  Two people (sometimes couples or friends) pair up with two antique experts and drive these beautiful vintage cars around the UK (not certain whether or not they've just been sticking to England or visiting other countries in the UK too).  Fun to watch...entertaining, but also interesting to learn about different items and what purposes they were designed for.  Any profits that they make are given to charities too.  :)

K

Quote from: Kalevala on November 25, 2024, 09:44:08 AMI've had fun watching some of the British version of the Antiques Road Show; this one is with British celebrities (most of whom I, sadly, have not heard of before now).  Two people (sometimes couples or friends) pair up with two antique experts and drive these beautiful vintage cars around the UK (not certain whether or not they've just been sticking to England or visiting other countries in the UK too).  Fun to watch...entertaining, but also interesting to learn about different items and what purposes they were designed for.  Any profits that they make are given to charities too.  :)

K

Ah, the genuine Antiques Roadshow is a classic BBC programme that's been running since 1979. I haven't watched it for years but they always used to pick the most valuable items and give them massive valuations which were never tested by actually selling them so the British public became convinced that all old stuff was worth a fortune ::) .

Antiques Road Trip however is far more informative. Apart from the suspicious negotiation of discount prices with dealers, the auctions reveal just how little most things are really worth, often selling for less than the "absolutely final best price" of the sellers and proving even the "experts" can make significant losses :laugh: .

Quote from: steve ridgway on November 25, 2024, 07:52:38 PMAh, the genuine Antiques Roadshow is a classic BBC programme that's been running since 1979. I haven't watched it for years but they always used to pick the most valuable items and give them massive valuations which were never tested by actually selling them so the British public became convinced that all old stuff was worth a fortune ::) .

Antiques Road Trip however is far more informative. Apart from the suspicious negotiation of discount prices with dealers, the auctions reveal just how little most things are really worth, often selling for less than the "absolutely final best price" of the sellers and proving even the "experts" can make significant losses :laugh: .

I suspect that the dealers in the ART see it [the show] as free advertising, but yes, they have to make a profit too.  One would think that they would make decent profits more often [the teams that is], but 1) It's hard to know everything about everything and 2)  It all depends upon who shows up--or phones in--at the auction.  Also, the final decision as to what to buy is left to the discretion of the celebrity.

K

Quote from: steve ridgway on November 25, 2024, 07:52:38 PMAh, the genuine Antiques Roadshow is a classic BBC programme that's been running since 1979. I haven't watched it for years but they always used to pick the most valuable items and give them massive valuations which were never tested by actually selling them so the British public became convinced that all old stuff was worth a fortune ::) .

The US version of the show has also been on for 25 years (or so), and they often have shows where older valuations are revisited (different appraisers).  Sometimes the value has gone up, down, or stayed the same (which is how you can tell which segments of the market have seen widespread change in values). 

They've also followed up when high value pieces of furniture went to auction, and in at least one occasion, the value was more than $100K higher than appraised. I remember a 18th century table that was appraised by the Keno bothers for something like 350K went for more than $500K at auction.  It was good that the owner sold it when she did because that kind of furniture has lost much of its previous value since that time.

The appraisers also make a point to state that it is unethical for an appraiser to offer to buy the piece they are valuing.

The Sidewalk Fruit Vendor Who Sold a $6.2 Million Banana for 25 Cents (https://www.seattletimes.com/business/the-sidewalk-fruit-vendor-who-sold-a-6-2-million-banana-for-25-cents/)

[...]"A widower from Dhaka, Bangladesh, Alam was a civil servant before he moved to the United States in 2007 to be closer to one of his two children, a married daughter who lives on Long Island. He said his home is a basement apartment with five other men in Parkchester, in the Bronx. For his room he pays $500 a month in rent, he said, speaking in Bengali. His fruit stand shifts are 12 hours long, four days a week; for each hour on his feet, in all weather, the owner pays him $12. His English is limited mostly to the prices and names of his wares — apples, three for $2; small pears, $1 each.

He has never stepped inside the auction house. He wouldn't be able to see the art clearly anyway: His vision is deeply impaired, he said, because he needs cataract surgery, which he has scheduled for January.

To Alam, the joke of "Comedian" feels at his expense. As a blur of people rushed by his corner a few days after the sale, shock and distress washed over him as he considered who profited — and who did not.

"Those who bought it, what kind of people are they?" he asked. "Do they not know what a banana is?"

In his email, Cattelan said he was affected by Alam's reaction to his artwork, but stopped short of joining in his criticism. "The reaction of the banana vendor moves me deeply, underscoring how art can resonate in unexpected and profound ways," he wrote. "However, art, by its nature, does not solve problems — if it did, it would be politics."

For Alam, not much has changed since his banana sold. At the fruit stand, it's still four bananas for $1, or 24.8 million bananas for $6.2 million."

The bit of that which makes me angry is the artist's reply. Talking about art resonating with people is about the most self-centred thing he could have said.

And plenty of great art has been political in nature.

Quote from: SimonNZ on November 27, 2024, 03:51:30 PMAnd plenty of great art has been political in nature.

Picasso's "Guernica" rather springs to mind.

Okay, all debate should now be moot!  ;D

Although...it will probably continue anyway!  ;)


Owner Eats $6 Million Banana (https://modernity.news/2024/11/29/watch-billionaire-eats-banana-art-he-just-paid-6-2-million-for/)

Quote from: Cato on November 29, 2024, 06:40:26 AMOkay, all debate should now be moot!  ;D

Although...it will probably continue anyway!  ;)


Owner Eats $6 Million Banana (https://modernity.news/2024/11/29/watch-billionaire-eats-banana-art-he-just-paid-6-2-million-for/)

I independently saw a report of that: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/crypto-boss-eats-banana-art-082216524.html (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/crypto-boss-eats-banana-art-082216524.html)

A "crypto entrepreneur". That says it all.  :laugh:
If the bidders came from that sector, all the hand-wringing and clucking in this thread was utterly pointless.  🤣

Quote from: Cato on November 29, 2024, 06:40:26 AMOkay, all debate should now be moot!  ;D

Although...it will probably continue anyway!  ;)


Owner Eats $6 Million Banana (https://modernity.news/2024/11/29/watch-billionaire-eats-banana-art-he-just-paid-6-2-million-for/)

Well it's better than throwing it away. I mean, what do you expect him to do with it?

Does the duct tape retain any collector value? Minimum starting bid $3 MM. :P

Quote from: Cato on November 29, 2024, 06:40:26 AMOkay, all debate should now be moot!  ;D

Although...it will probably continue anyway!  ;)


Owner Eats $6 Million Banana (https://modernity.news/2024/11/29/watch-billionaire-eats-banana-art-he-just-paid-6-2-million-for/)

Well, at least the food didn't go to waste!

K

Quote from: Mandryka on November 29, 2024, 08:16:59 AMWell it's better than throwing it away. I mean, what do you expect him to do with it?

But, but...shouldn't the owner of such an important artwork be obliged to take a custodial attitude to it? So that it can be enjoyed and studied by future generations? Is the private owner or a Rembrandt allowed to just set it on fire if the mood strikes them?

(kidding, of course...I wouldnt care if anyone involved it this tired brand of clickbait shoved the banana up their arse. Or, better yet, had it shoved up their arse)

Quote from: SimonNZ on November 29, 2024, 09:55:10 AM(kidding, of course...I wouldnt care if anyone involved it this tired brand of clickbait shoved the banana up their arse. Or, better yet, had it shoved up their arse)

That sort of performance art is not a novelty. Google Karen Finley and yams, for instance. :o 😱
Weirdly, Karen Finley and I attended the same high school for a while, though it was an enormous school and I don't recall hearing her name until the 1980s.

What is upseting is that he didn't see fit to auction that particular exemplar of the installation for a good cause. Given the publicity it's had, that's a lost opportunity.

Quote from: SimonNZ on November 29, 2024, 09:55:10 AMBut, but...shouldn't the owner of such an important artwork be obliged to take a custodial attitude to it? So that it can be enjoyed and studied by future generations? Is the private owner or a Rembrandt allowed to just set it on fire if the mood strikes them?

(kidding, of course...I wouldnt care if anyone involved it this tired brand of clickbait shoved the banana up their arse. Or, better yet, had it shoved up their arse)

If you read the article, he maintained a suitably pretentious attitude towards the banana.

Quote from: Kalevala on November 29, 2024, 09:08:10 AMWell, at least the food didn't go to waste!

K

It actually did, after digestion and defecation. The way of all art food...;D

I fail to see why anyone would get angry at the guy who made "art" by taping a banana to a wall. What makes me angry is that there are cyber currency people who are so obscenely wealthy as to spend more than $6 million to eat a banana at a press conference. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc, at least created useful products along the path of becoming obscenely wealthy. They weren't simply vampires that suck wealth out of the economy.

This quite simply highlights that our notions of what it means to preserve and restore art is stuck in the nineteenth century.

We need a new generation of restorers who can return bananas to their original green/yellow, to be enjoyed by future art enthusiasts.

Quote from: SimonNZ on November 29, 2024, 01:05:15 PMThis quite simply highlights that our notions of what it means to preserve and restore art is stuck in the nineteenth century.

We need a new generation of restorers who can return bananas to their original green/yellow, to be enjoyed by future art enthusiasts.

Well, industrial food production involves a lot of effort to keep things looking fresh while in storage for many months.

As I've posted previously, l like cheese. Therefore, I'm expecting to see some marvelously cheesy art in the news sometime soon, to be auctioned off for significantly more than that supremely boring banana. Hopefully with an appropriately interesting slice of ham. 8)

Quote from: LKB on November 30, 2024, 12:27:47 AMAs I've posted previously, l like cheese. Therefore, I'm expecting to see some marvelously cheesy art in the news sometime soon, to be auctioned off for significantly more than that supremely boring banana. Hopefully with an appropriately interesting slice of ham. 8)

You need to check the Cavallaro Twiggy.

Art Collector Who Bought a $6 Million Banana Offers to Buy 100,000 More (https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/art-collector-who-bought-a-6-million-banana-offers-to-buy-100000-more/)

"A week after a Chinese cryptocurrency entrepreneur bought an artwork composed of a fresh banana stuck to a wall with duct tape for $6.2 million at auction, the man, Justin Sun, announced a grand gesture on the social platform X. He said he planned on purchasing 100,000 bananas — or $25,000 worth of the produce — from the Manhattan stand where the original fruit was sold for 25 cents.

But at the stand at East 72nd Street and York Avenue, outside the Sotheby's auction house where the conceptual artwork was sold, the offer landed with a thud against the realities of a New York City street vendor's life.

It would cost thousands of dollars to procure that many bananas from a Bronx wholesale market, said Shah Alam, the 74-year-old employee from Bangladesh who sold the original banana used in "Comedian," an absurdist commentary on the art world by Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan. And it wouldn't be easy to transport that many bananas, which come in boxes of about 100.

And then there is the math: The net profit from the purchase of 100,000 bananas by Sun — who once bought a nonfungible token of a pet rock for more than $600,000 — would be about $6,000.

"There's not any profit in selling bananas," Alam said.

As an employee who makes $12 an hour during 12-hour shifts, Alam pointed out that any money would by rights go to the fruit stand's owner, not him.

"I am not personally familiar with the exact cost of the bananas," Sun wrote in a text message sent shortly after a stunt Friday where he ate the original banana during a news conference at a Hong Kong luxury hotel. "Through this event, we aim not only to support the fruit stand and Mr. Shah Alam but also to connect the artistic significance of the banana to everyone."

Reached by phone, the stand's owner, Mohammad R. Islam, 53, who goes by Rana, said he would split any profit between himself, Alam and the six other people he employs at his two fruit stands. No one had contacted him about any such purchase, though, he said.

Islam had learned from a reporter of Sun's plans, which included offering the bananas from Islam's stand worldwide, free to anyone who showed identification, according to his post on X.

There are other, quieter efforts to support the vendor. At least two online fundraisers have collected more than $20,000 for Alam.

Working in the rain on Thanksgiving Day, Islam's brother, Mohammad Alam Badsha (who is not related to Alam) said he would welcome the bulk purchase. But it would have little tangible impact, Badsha said, either on the daily life of the fruit vendors, or on the gulf laid bare by the $6.2 million banana and the stand that sold it for a quarter.

"It's definitely an inequality," Badsha said in Bengali.

He added a Bangladeshi idiom: It was, he said, the difference between heaven and hell."

Quote from: Florestan on November 23, 2024, 10:50:08 AMI'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.

By weird coincidence I saw that footage yesterday in Adam Curtis' documentary Bitter Lake, about the US alliance with Saudi Arabia beginning in 1945 and the long-term knock-on effect of inadvertently feeding the rise of fundamentalist  Wahhabism. And, yes, that scene was very cringey.

But I don't know how you think the banana thing is "left wing liberal". This is entirely of Gordon Gekko's world.

The main artistic significance of the banana is to demonstrate the disconnect between the person who sold it and the person who bought it.

Quote from: Madiel on November 30, 2024, 04:05:20 PMThe main artistic significance of the banana is to demonstrate the disconnect between the person who sold it and the person who bought it.

Reminded me of this:

(https://img.ifunny.co/images/579494684288be7448a3428701f6074d6c7828b1e6dc99fce9d8f9214361c19a_1.webp)