This Banana Was Duct-Taped to a Wall. It Sold for $120,000.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please see the above thread to start bidding on my artwork.

Thank you.

Oh please...
How stupid people must be to fall for that?
Marketing gimmick, money laundering, five minutes of media attention...shortly BS of the highest degree.
There is a sucker born every second, and some of them get into art...

originally posted by: gortex
$120 Grand right there !

...[couldn't figure out how to quote the external content from the OP, so here's the excerpt]

Maurizio's work is about how objects move through the world.

Mad World.

Bold is external content excerpt, sorry for the poor formatting.

We all know the next logical progression in this exhibit then, right? [Insert poop emoji here]

a reply to: gortex

When something loses standards it becomes worthless.
Art had rules.
Now it doesn't.

This guy and Rembrandt both are called artists....let that sink in.

a reply to: Bluntone22

I think a lot of the value in such so-called "art" comes down to flaunting money laundering and tax shelters.

originally posted by: WhiteHat
Oh please...
How stupid people must be to fall for that?
Marketing gimmick, money laundering, five minutes of media attention...shortly BS of the highest degree.
There is a sucker born every second, and some of them get into art...

I was at an art museum in Philadelphia a few year ago," the one rocky ran up the steps", and their modern art collection had a snow shovel hanging and a series of white canvas's with a single black stripe on display.
Sadly pathetic.

A fool and his money are soon parted. a reply to: gortex

a reply to: ArMaP

I have a loganberry and some Gorilla tape.

I'm open to offers.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Do you think it's OK to impose rules to creativity?

If someone makes art then they are artists, if they are good or not it's a different question.

Oh, and art still has rules, just ask any art student.

a reply to: oldcarpy

You will not get any from me, I'm not an art fan, specially modern art.

Picasso was known to pay for his meals at restaurants by wiping his hands on a napkin, signing it and offering it as payment, which was gladly accepted. Crazy.

After artists become famous they can offer anything up as art and receive good compensation for it.

a reply to: ArMaP

Yes it's ok to impose rules on creativity.
Paintings should require paint.
That's a rule.

Taping a banana to a wall is what a creative toddler would do. Don't tell me it's art.

Come on. $120k for this? I think they are laundering money (and/or God knows what else) and slapping us in the face with how ridiculously easy it is. Hidden in plain sight.

That’s why this “art” makes no sense to us plebs; we’re not in on the true nature of the transaction.

Probably why the buyer wants to remain anonymous and why some “performance artist” can just come up and eat it like it’s no big deal.

For some reason, I just don’t think it’s ever been about the banana... but that’s just me.

a reply to: ArMaP

Damn.

I was hoping to be able to buy my dream car but now you have poured cold water on my dreams.

I don't suppose it would swing the deal if i upped it to a tin of peaches?

Hence my dislike of the uber rich..unless this is some sort of gag, and the $$ go to charity.

originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: Bluntone22

I think a lot of the value in such so-called "art" comes down to flaunting money laundering and tax shelters.

You're right money laundering is incredibly easy in the art world. what people dont know is the key is the auction houses, Auction houses provide financial services for this expanded range of “UHNWI” clients, offering collectors lines of credit, allowing them to borrow against the value of their collections, and sometimes selling works with third-party guarantees, in which the house effectively pre-sells a lot before the auction and may split some share of the proceeds with the guarantor if it ultimately goes for more than the agreed-upon price.

So if I buy a painting for 4 million I can borrow against that painting the initial purchase was anonymously making a resell of the painting easily transferred or easy to lie and say it was repurchased .

a reply to: dragonridr

I had not thought of that. Does make a lot of sense.

a reply to: ArMaP

People think or have feelings about pretty much everything on earth. By that reasoning, everything is art therefore nothing is art.

That's the modern definition of art. Art used to be something that required talent and years of practice. It's like comparing Beethoven to a chimpanzee banging on a piano and calling it brilliant music. Or comparing a figure skater to some schmuck that can't skate at all. Sure they make me feel some way. Mostly angry because then you've lowered the bar on everything.

Everyone gets a trophy.

On the one hand, the hundred-thousand-dollar banana duct-taped to a wall is Good. People always like to dismiss modern art as simplistic, often remarking, “I could make that.” The go-to comeback to this statement is, “Yeah, but you didn’t.” Hate all you want, but you didn’t just make a couple hundred grand by attaching maybe a dollar’s worth of produce to the wall with three pieces of tape from a roll that couldn’t possibly have cost more than 10 bucks. Maurizio Cattelan did. 

Cattelan didn't make couple hundred grand by attaching maybe a dollar’s worth of produce to the wall. He made a couple hundred grand (or considerably less) because he is conceted to people who use "art" like this as a means to shelter money and perhaps even launder it.

I'm going to get me a Yugo, and superglue every square inch of it with dried dates, and people can sit there and wonder about the profound meaning of it -- does it refer to the immobility of calendar dates? Rolling from one date night to the next, endlessly going nowhere romatically?

Nah man, I'm gonna make a half million off it from some rich dumb ass that thinks it has meaning. It has none, it's just a money-making scheme.