Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tywin et al.

Poll Question: How Rich Would You Need To Be To Spend $120,000 On A Banana Duck Taped To A Wall?

Recommended Posts

And how rich would you need to be to be okay with someone eating said banana after you spent $120,000 on it?

Seriously, this all f’ing happened.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/dec/11/david-datuna-120000-banana-interview-art-basel-miami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s a difference between being rich and just plain stupid/profligate, I doubt even many billionaires would do something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At some point the banana would have become overripe and black. At least it got to be eaten while still tasty. Paying that much for ephemeral art is just silly. The guy who bought it had more money than brains, even if he only had $.59. He could have bought a whole pound of bananas then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose I'm the only one with a sense of humour because I would absolutely spend my 120,000 on that if bananas weren't disgusting pieces of mush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand, the "art" is banana taped to the wall, not THE banana taped to the wall. There is a world of difference between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

Can you get any nasty diseases from a banana? I hope so. 

The person who ate is the banana is an actual artist.

4 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

From what I understand, the "art" is banana taped to the wall, not THE banana taped to the wall. There is a world of difference between the two.

The third banana taped to a wall sold for $150,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The third banana taped to a wall sold for $150,000.

And? Its the concept they paid for. Not the actual dumb banana which will be rotten by the end of the week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Banksy, the UK graffiti artist, shredded a piece of his artwork by remote control, after the painting had been sold for $1.4 million.

Art is ephemeral! Maybe more than you expect!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Hey, Banksy, the UK graffiti artist, shredded a piece of his artwork by remote control, after the painting had been sold for $1.4 million.

Art is ephemeral! Maybe more than you expect!

And that was the “F U,” much like how the real artist ate the banana. Those people wanted the painting and he wanted to watch them pay for it just so he could destroy it.

41 minutes ago, Proudfeet said:

And? Its the concept they paid for. Not the actual dumb banana which will be rotten by the end of the week.

What three people did is waste $410,000 on three bananas worth less than $1. If the whole world was rich, w/e, but I come from an affluent background and have worked with people in the developing world who were deeply impoverished and I find this type of behavior to be sickening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What three people did is waste $410,000 on three bananas worth less than $1. If the whole world was rich, w/e, but I come from an affluent background and have worked with people in the developing world who were deeply impoverished and I find this type of behavior to be sickening.

The actual banana is besides the point. Stop fixating on it. I don't get "art" either, but people have all sorts of convoluted reasons for appreciating it. A painting that would otherwise be worth $50 as a decorative piece will suddenly become $5m or $500m just because someone certifies that it is from a renown artist. Does that make any sense to you? It has never made any sense to me but that is how it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

The actual banana is besides the point. Stop fixating on it. I don't get "art" either, but people have all sorts of convoluted reasons for appreciating it. A painting that would otherwise be worth $50 as a decorative piece will suddenly become $5m or $500m just because someone certifies that it is from a renown artist. Does that make any sense to you? It has never made any sense to me but that is how it is.

It's not art though. If that's art, then the rapper with all the 69 tattoos on his face is an artist too. Fun fact, he's not an artist. He's a gimmick, and that's exactly what this banana duct taping incident is too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's not art though. If that's art, then the rapper with all the 69 tattoos on his face is an artist too. Fun fact, he's not an artist. He's a gimmick, and that's exactly what this banana duct taping incident is too.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The museum thinks it is art enough to display it. I think it is ridiculous as well, but gimmick sounds like a very apt description of art. Not sure what you are complaining about then.

Edited by Proudfeet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kinda derivative of prior self-abnegatory art objects? rauschenberg erased de kooning in 1953. cage's 4'33" is 1952. duchamp's fountain by r. mutt is during WWI. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×