Would you pay $6.2 million for a banana?

[jtbell]

Maybe if you had a whole lot more than that from cryptocurrency...

https://www.npr.org/2024/11/21/nx-s...anana-sells-for-6-2-million-at-an-art-auction

Me? No thanks.

 

[DrClaude]

Is it that much different from paying $4.4 million for a baseball?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-home-run-ball-auction-price-lawsuit-baseball

 

[jtbell]

But you can’t eat a baseball!

"Additionally, in the coming days, I will personally eat the banana as part of this unique artistic experience, honoring its place in both art history and popular culture," Sun said.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's got people talking. It qualifies as art.

 

[russ_watters]

Is it that much different from paying $4.4 million for a baseball?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-home-run-ball-auction-price-lawsuit-baseball

Note, the thread title isn't quite accurate. What was bought was not the actual banana, but the rights to the concept. A certificate that allows the owner to tape a banana to a wall and call it "Comedian" (the name of the work). Perhaps the owner thinks he can make money off this...um..... paper NFT, but it's not the same as owning a physical work of art or baseball.

 

[DaveC426913]

Note, the thread title isn't quite accurate. What was bought was not the actual banana, but the rights to the concept. A certificate that allows the owner to tape a banana to a wall and call it "Comedian" (the name of the work). Perhaps the owner thinks he can make money off this...um..... paper NFT, but it's not the same as owning a physical work of art or baseball.

I think the point is rather that the installation will only last a few days before it needs to be ... refreshed, or its value rapidly approaches zero (in fact, may go negative, if some one has to clean it up). So the product itself has to be renewable.

 

[russ_watters]

I think the point is rather that the installation will only last a few days before it needs to be ... refreshed, or its value rapidly approaches zero (in fact, may go negative, if some one has to clean it up). So the product itself has to be renewable.

It's a perishable art installation. Like the pumpkin I carved for Halloween. Wanna buy a certificate that says you can reproduce my carved pumpkin? I have my doubts that this certificate is any more meaningful than an NFT.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have my doubts that this certificate is any more meaningful than an NFT.

Well, it's value is equal to what someone will pay for it.

What benefits they may reap from owning it is for them alone to know.

I mean, it's not fundamentally different from betting on any event - like a sports game or a turtle race. Here's a thing that will generate interest for no other purpose than to have some people gain money and other people lose money.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, it's value is equal to what someone will pay for it.

What benefits they may reap from owning it is for them alone to know.

Well that's just it: many people who bought NFTs thought that the benefit was an exclusive usage right and a license to sue to protect that IP. Turns out it wasn't what they thought. I have a feeling that's what this was.

 

[mcastillo356]

Maybe if you had a whole lot more than that from cryptocurrency...

https://www.npr.org/2024/11/21/nx-s...anana-sells-for-6-2-million-at-an-art-auction

Me? No thanks.

Neither me.

 

[collinsmark]

"Art is in the stomach of the beholder."

(Source: https://theonion.com/billionaire-wh...aped-to-wall-for-6-2-million-plans-to-eat-it/)

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I'd consider it morally bankrupt considering the good you can do with that money.

 

[jtbell]

He did eat it, a few days ago.



I wonder if he put a fresh banana in its place. Or maybe a fake one?

 

[rbelli1]

What was bought was not the actual banana, but the rights to the concept.

It's the right to copy the artwork in the future. To coin a phrase shall we call it copyright??????

BoB

 

[russ_watters]

It's the right to copy the artwork in the future. To coin a phrase shall we call it copyright??????

Catchy, but that's already a thing and this isn't that thing. I have no idea if taping a banana to a wall can be copyrighted, but as far as I know the "artist" didn't.

Some people thought NFTs were equivalent to a copyright. They were incorrect.

 

[rbelli1]

I have no idea if taping a banana to a wall can be copyrighted

Gluing pigment to a wall (a painting) is very much covered by copyright. Why wouldn't gluing a banana to a wall not be?

BoB

 

[russ_watters]

Gluing pigment to a wall (a painting) is very much covered by copyright. Why wouldn't gluing a banana to a wall not be?

Maybe it is. I don't know. All I'm saying is that if this particular piece of "art" were copyrighted, I'd expect the news articles about the sale to say that the buyer was buying the copyright.

However/moreover, consider the Mona Lisa(not copyrighted). How much would a license to reproduce it be worth vs the actual original painting? A factor or a thousand difference, maybe? Most of what makes the Mona Lisa valuable is that it was painted by Divinci's own hand. It's the fact that it's original that makes it valuable. An NFT of the painting, even if it protects rights to reproduce it, is worth way, way less.

And that brings us back to a banana taped to a wall. How much was the original worth? $100k? Less? Then a reproduction would be worth $100 or less. And even then, only if it's protected via copyright. The buyer got publicity with the first reproduction, but if people lose interest, there may be no more income to be had. Buyers of NFTs found this out quickly.

Again: buying a license to reproduce a piece of art is way, way less valuable than the piece of art itself, generally.

 

[rbelli1]

I'd expect the news articles about the sale to say that the buyer was buying the copyright.

Sun purchased a certificate of authenticity that gives him the authority to duct-tape a banana to a wall and call it Comedian.

It is exasperatingly unclear what was transferred here. The recipient may have simply purchased a piece of fruit.

How much would a license to reproduce it be worth vs the actual original painting?

It depends on the age of the painting. A license for the Mona Lisa is worth nothing. The actual artifact is very valuable. A modern painting may swap these values.

BoB

 

[Mondayman]

Gluing pigment to a wall (a painting) is very much covered by copyright. Why wouldn't gluing a banana to a wall not be?

BoB

https://itsartlaw.org/2024/12/05/can-a-duct-taped-banana-be-a-copyrightable-work-of-art/

Quoted from the article: "Ultimately, the legal dispute between Morford and Cattelan revealed that taping a banana to a wall cannot be a copyright protected expression in itself. However, filtration of Comedian’s abstract elements, such as specifications stipulated in its certificate of authenticity, may reveal copyrightable elements of the artwork."

I can't believe people would waste money and court time on something so ridiculous. Then again, some Italian artist like 60 years ago stuffed some tin containers with his s**t, slapped some labels on it, and now it's selling for more money than I'll ever make a yearly salary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_Shit

I can just imagine some artist taking a huge dump and duct taping it to the wall and calling it art. "This piece is a reflection of how I feel most days".

 

[Ibix]

It reminds me of this old joke, except it's "Banana: $0.62. Knowing how to convince some people it's meaningful: $6,199,999.38".

It's bananas, definitely.

 

[rbelli1]

"Ultimately, the legal dispute between Morford and Cattelan revealed that taping a banana to a wall cannot be a copyright protected expression in itself.

How many bananas would need to be taped to a wall to warrant copyright protection? What if I drew a picture with bananas on a wall?

If I sold a guide to reproduce the picture would the copyright (assuming that the picture I made with bananas was copyrightable) of the reproduction go to my customer or to me?

Whatever you want to call Comedian, it definitely has become more than a hanging banana.

BoB

 

[russ_watters]

It is exasperatingly unclear what was transferred here. The recipient may have simply purchased a piece of fruit.

I'm sure it was more than just a piece of fruit and piece of tape, but agreed; unclear.

It depends on the age of the painting. A license for the Mona Lisa is worth nothing. The actual artifact is very valuable. A modern painting may swap these values.

Are you talking about the fact that the Mona Lisa isn't copy protected due to its age? Yeah, not a great example on my part, or at least that isn't what I was referring to. I'm not even sure how the Mona Lisa was received at the time it was painted.

My point though was that an original of a quality piece of art is very valuable because it is an original. Seeing the brush strokes and knowing they were made by Di Vinci himself is what makes the original Mona Lisa valuable, and that value is a multiple of the quality of the art. Quality art * prestigious artist = high value. You need both. Artists may do things such as sign prints to make them have value, but even still, they are tiny fractions of the value of the original.

 

[russ_watters]

https://itsartlaw.org/2024/12/05/can-a-duct-taped-banana-be-a-copyrightable-work-of-art/

Quoted from the article: "Ultimately, the legal dispute between Morford and Cattelan revealed that taping a banana to a wall cannot be a copyright protected expression in itself. However, filtration of Comedian’s abstract elements, such as specifications stipulated in its certificate of authenticity, may reveal copyrightable elements of the artwork."

I can't believe people would waste money and court time on something so ridiculous. Then again, some Italian artist like 60 years ago stuffed some tin containers with his s**t, slapped some labels on it, and now it's selling for more money than I'll ever make a yearly salary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_Shit

I can just imagine some artist taking a huge dump and duct taping it to the wall and calling it art. "This piece is a reflection of how I feel most days".

Great and fascinating article, thanks for that. It discusses much of what @rbelli1 and I were discussing including demonstrating that even the legalities are indeed "exasperatingly unclear".

Regarding the discussion of "conceptual art" in the front half; the Mona Lisa stands on its artistic merit. "Conceptual art" challenges the notion of "what is art?" To me, that's an indictment or admission: 'this isn't art, it's mocking the art world'. And if art aficionados want to pay millions to people who are mocking them, well I just love that.

And kudos to Banksy for being both.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's got people talking. It qualifies as art.

Charles Manson had people talking.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'd consider it morally bankrupt considering the good you can do with that money.

I can't imagine why there is a veritable proletariat revolution brewing.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'd consider it morally bankrupt considering the good you can do with that money.

Well, it's not like the money was burned. The money is still out there, it's just in an artist's hands instead of a collector's.

For all we know, the artist will do more good with that cash than the collector would have.

Just a thought...