Also, someone has eaten the banana before, and they just replaced it. This artwork, if you can call it that, is more like a licence than an artwork.
It comes with instructions on how to display the banana, specifying the height, type of tape, colour of wall etc, and any of those items can be replaced. Anyone can tape a banana to a wall, but there can be only one genuine piece.
If he tapes two bananas to the wall at the same time, is that art forgery?
Since the artwork is the banana taped to a wall, does it stop being artwork as soon as it’s taken down? If so, has he actually eaten art, or just destroyed art and eaten a banana?
Can you take two artworks, mash them up, and turn them into artwork bread?
These are just a few of the interesting questions that a crypto-bro just trying to shake his “I’m rich” dick around lacks the intellectual capacity to think about.
The answer to your second question is pretty clear, banana taped to a wall is an idea, and ideas cannot be destroyed. Does a painting cease to be art because it is no longer on display?
But being on a wall is not a part of the painting. The banana is only art because it’s on a wall. If the art is “banana taped to a wall”, does removing the banana from the wall stop the banana from being art?
I think since he bought the licence there is no-one to sue him for forgery or something like that. Quite possible the artist didn’t only write directions on how to create the artwork (e.g. the kind of tape, the direction of the tape, the orientation of the banana etc), but also ‘rules’ on what not to do with it. If he would expose this work different the artist could possibly sue him for breaking their agreement.
There is an artist (Sol LeWitt) who is famous for instructing others to create his work. He didn’t sell the artwork, he sold the exclusive right to follow a set of instructions. Quite interesting work also, here is a link:
In 1968, Sol LeWitt began creating his wall drawings, which consist solely of written instructions and diagrams for others to execute. LeWitt likened his instructions to musical scores, which are realized in a new way every time they’re played, and it’s possible for LeWitt’s wall drawings to take slightly different forms, depending on how his directions are implemented. Although the idea of the work is meant to be preserved, the work itself is often ephemeral, and it can exist in more than one place at one time.
I dunno, maybe if you never put it up again. But you could also think of it as a performance where the act of putting up and taking down the banana is part of the art. And the person who “owns” it gets to be part of that, which is special.
Any reason I should care? I don’t want to click the link and add to the unnecessary attention.
Not really, no.
Also, someone has eaten the banana before, and they just replaced it. This artwork, if you can call it that, is more like a licence than an artwork.
It comes with instructions on how to display the banana, specifying the height, type of tape, colour of wall etc, and any of those items can be replaced. Anyone can tape a banana to a wall, but there can be only one genuine piece.
It’s quite fascinating actually.
So it’s an art piece, well, that’s at least SOME reason I MIGHT care (I still don’t). Thank you.
It’s performance art more than anything, and it’s actually kinda genius.
If he tapes two bananas to the wall at the same time, is that art forgery?
Since the artwork is the banana taped to a wall, does it stop being artwork as soon as it’s taken down? If so, has he actually eaten art, or just destroyed art and eaten a banana?
Can you take two artworks, mash them up, and turn them into artwork bread?
These are just a few of the interesting questions that a crypto-bro just trying to shake his “I’m rich” dick around lacks the intellectual capacity to think about.
The answer to your second question is pretty clear, banana taped to a wall is an idea, and ideas cannot be destroyed. Does a painting cease to be art because it is no longer on display?
But being on a wall is not a part of the painting. The banana is only art because it’s on a wall. If the art is “banana taped to a wall”, does removing the banana from the wall stop the banana from being art?
I think since he bought the licence there is no-one to sue him for forgery or something like that. Quite possible the artist didn’t only write directions on how to create the artwork (e.g. the kind of tape, the direction of the tape, the orientation of the banana etc), but also ‘rules’ on what not to do with it. If he would expose this work different the artist could possibly sue him for breaking their agreement.
There is an artist (Sol LeWitt) who is famous for instructing others to create his work. He didn’t sell the artwork, he sold the exclusive right to follow a set of instructions. Quite interesting work also, here is a link:
https://risdmuseum.org/manual/45_variations_of_a_drawing_sol_lewitt_and_his_written_instructions
He died in 2007, but there still are exhibitions of his work (the execution of it of course). Worth going if you get a chance.
I dunno, maybe if you never put it up again. But you could also think of it as a performance where the act of putting up and taking down the banana is part of the art. And the person who “owns” it gets to be part of that, which is special.
So … today’s banana version of the ship of Theseus.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
It’s also an idiot litmus test. Not the artwork but the marketing.
Kinda, yes. It’s interesting to see who does and doesn’t “get it”.