Wednesday, November 20, 2013

What's in a Price?

Hey fellow philosophy students! The British graffiti artist Banksy recently had a month-long (unofficial) residency in New York that attracted the attention of a lot of major media outlets. One such story that came out of the coverage (and believe me, there were a lot of news-worthy headlines from the duration of Banksy's trip to NYC) talked about a $50 thrift shop painting that Banksy modified. After Banksy had touched the art, it's value skyrocketed to somewhere around $310,000. We recently talked in class how just a piece of art's association with an artist that collector's deem worthy can increase it's inherent value. Granted, the funds from the painting are being donated to charity, but does the art really deserve that price tag? Is the name behind a piece more important than the actual art? I'm interested to hear everyone's thoughts, so feel free to respond below.

Here's the link to the article,

"The Banality of the Banality of Evil" (Banksy 2013)

The "graffitied" piece in its natural habitat

1 comment:

  1. The article you posted was really interesting. It reminded me of the video we watched on the guys who bought Worhols...they seriously financed him because they bought an immense amount of things and could not even explain why they would spend that much money on them. This humored me because the snarky old British man tore them a new one when he made them describe the pieces and meaning.