Open Mike: Satirizing the Art Market Is Now Officially Impossible

If you haven't yet seen the auction for the banana duct-taped to the wall, you really need to see it. You can't make this stuff up. By the way, it's an ordinary real banana, and ordinary duct tape. There's nothing more to it. The artwork comes with instructions as to how to replace the banana when it goes bad.

It's called "Comedian," and Sotheby's calls it "...this iconic work of art...disruptive work of art...."

As a comment there's this old YouTube video from 12 years ago, which explains the underlying reason for this nonsense. It's fairly shocking as it is, but may be worse now. As far as the banana is concerned, I'd rather spend a bit more and get the shark.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Chris Kern: "Unquestionably this is the top banana."

Not THAT Ross Cameron: "And then the buyer ate it. Personally I think that says more about the second video than the auction."

Daniel Speyer: "In this case, art is a commentary on society, and it seems to me the price (whatever it is, as long as it is unreasonable) is reasonable."

ugo: "I don't find anything shocking in it. By the way, a few years ago Cattelan donated to Milano an enormous marble finger; it is placed in front of the stock exchange and the photographers of the financial newspapers must do some acrobatics to keep it out of the picture. And in the 'sixties, D'Anselmo did his 'Untitled (Sculpture that eats)'; the owner spends himself poor in fresh salad!"

Richard Tugwell: "I once saw two guys burning £20 notes in front of a homeless person begging on the street. Was that also art?"

Mike replies: Yikes. That's nasty. In the face of that, I feel compelled to defend humanity by pointing out that it's a "thing" on social media for young rich people to present unfortunate individuals with hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars to record their reactions. Here's an example.

AN: "I’ve always enjoyed art pranksters like Cattelan, but your headline sums up how I’m feeling lately. Cattelan may as well retire; there’s nothing that can be done along these lines, other than give up and cash in (if you are in a position to do so). Art institutions tend to love even serious criticisms of the establishment, all the while ignoring the message in practice. What is a critique-minded artist to do?

"Self-satire may be an option; I’m not aware of any big name artist that has significantly attacked their own image as a means of criticizing the establishment. Could be a tricky tight rope to walk.

"Maybe create work with virtuosic craftsmanship, humanistic themes, and a (relatively) modest price point? Fine, but the Art World will not notice, let alone receive the message.

"I would measure the success of any rebellious strategy based on whether it a.) successfully draws attention to criticism of the art world, b.) in the form of an artwork (as a opposed to a picket line or boycott, etc.), and c.) avoids the commodification of the criticism.

"On the other hand, maybe the Art World formed over the last century or two has run its course, and should be ignored by anyone not seeking investments or status symbols. The banana is the period at the end of the sentence.

"The atomized art niches of social media are certainly more democratic and accessible, though the economics are arguably even worse for the artists. NFTs were essentially an effort to bring the social media art worlds into line with the practices and structures of the Art World, but it doesn’t seem to be working out.

"Probably the economic mess of art (being an extension of the economic mess of the world) is much too big to consider solving with art, or an artist, or art institution, or even the whole Art World united with a singular idealist (imaginary) vision. I think art (or anything art-related) tends to make for disappointing activism. Art excels in expressing feelings, making connections, creating catharsis, and showing us to ourselves with a refreshed perspective.

"I wonder what that guy was feeling while he ate the banana?"

Mike replies: As I understand it, the artwork comes with instructions for replacing each spoiled banana with a fresh one, thus vouchsafing the replacement as being the same as the original in terms of its work-of-artness. So he didn't actually destroy the work of art by eating the banana. As a gesture, though, it might still be similar to those people Richard Tugwell saw burning 20 pound notes in front of homeless beggars.

Comments

[R. Edelman]

Thanks for posting this. To get examples of how wealthy some people are, try checking out some websites where luxury goods are sold. You'll find fountain pens selling for thousands of dollars, watches for tens of thousands of dollars, and so on. These luxury items are essentially expensive trinkets, but the market for these items exists because of wealth inequality. It's wrong that people struggle to afford housing and food, and that people have trouble saving for the future, while there are people who have income in far excess of what they need, even for a life of luxury.

[Abraham D Latchin]

Poor understanding of how and why economies work the way they do, combined with poor mathematical and statistical skills... add in political leanings and you get these types of nonsense.

Just think for a minute. He is breaking down 311 million americans. That includes everyone below 18. What do you think the wealth of the average 1-18 year old is? Close to zero. Thats about 20% of the population he is pulling data from.

The top 20% of Americans holding 80% of the weath, we don't know how he defines wealth, but I would assume it includes assets such as retirement pensions and home ownership. With that in mind, the current crop of baby boomers represents 20% of the population. Retired and skewing this data.

With the remaining 60% you would include all working age adults. But do remember that includes the unemployed and the infirm.

Now cast your mind to the average business owner. How many of that 60% do you think actually own and operate a business? The answer is around 3%.

Roughly 30% of the workforce is either self employed or employed by a small business. (numbers may vary but these are roughly there).

The biggest employer in the united states is the Government, at a federal, state or local level. Thats probably 25million, maybe as high as 10% of the workforce. How many of those people do you think are filling the top 1%? Quite a few.

The problem with trying to deal with income distribution is it assumes there is a "fix", it assumes the government must play some role in that "fix"... And yet almost every problem that exists can be traced to government intervention. Like today's rampant inflation tied to low interest, covid spending, government largesse etc. Low productivity? Government lockdowns, poor health try the food pyramid telling people to eat lots of carbs...

What people don't know is that maximizing the potential, and the freedom of the individual while reducing institutional restrictions is what produces wealth, opportunity etc. There is no shortage of money in this world, just a shortage of where to productively put it. Why productively? Because money simply represents value previously produced, new value/wealth needs to be produced with it to continue a positive cycle, but we are responsible for that value creation, not the government.

[Yonatan Katznelson]

Good luck changing the chart in the video you linked to when money votes.

[Stan B.]

I remember posting this when it first came out, so the question(s) are: have people gotten any smarter since; do they now realize a huckster when they see and hear one; will they decry economic policies that only skew an impossibly skewed chart even further? And should we question our own sanity for not already realizing this, not choosing to rectify it and allowing ourselves to ride this wave of self inflicted pain and ignorance?

[Terry Letton]

I suppose I should print one of my photos as large as possible with a home office style printer on non archival paper and promise to never sell another photo, pricing it at at least $100,000,000.
Seems to make sense in this new world.

[Zyni]

What is described in the video is only part of the cause.

Let me introduce you to Rock Star Syndrome (RSS). RSS is a disease that was originally diagnosed in rock musicians in the 1970s, hence its name. The symptoms are excessive behaviour combined with the development of extremely obnoxious and generally difficult personality traits. The infection mechanism is easy to understand but hard to treat. It is this: the sufferer has some small talent which develops in their teenage years. This talent gives them fame and riches: they now spend their lives in recording studios, at parties, travelling to gigs on private jets and sometimes all three at once. They are surrounded by fawning record company executives, drug dealers, fans who are willing to offer, well, the services fans offer their objects of worship. They cannot go out in public without being recognised and surrounded by worshippers and paparazzi: normal life is impossible, all contact with reality is severed. Personality disorders and treble albums follow: the suffer comes to believe they are a god and incapable of error.

This is RSS: it is a nasty disease which has destroyed many musicians.

But these musicians did have great talent. Jimmy Page was a really good guitar player and a better record producer, whatever you think of his behaviour. And he had taste: look at the house he bought.

These people made millions of dollars. Multiply the height of that wall of money by between a thousand and ten thousand and you have today's plutocrats. Reduce the raw talent significantly while you are doing so: there is copious evidence that extreme wealth is entirely unrelated to how smart you are, and if you doubt this well one word will do: Einstein. Indeed, the plutocrats became plutocrats by virtue of two things: being alive at the right time, and having various personality disorders, usually described as psychopathy and narcissism.

So you have a group of people with metastatic RSS. These people did not start with either great talent or taste. But nobody they ever meet will, ever, tell them that. Indeed they are entirely surrounded by people who will tell them anything at all if it means that some tiny shaving of the vast mountain of money that is all these people, really, are can be theirs.

This does not end well, for anyone.

(Incidentally: I have seen some of Hirst's shark things: they are strange and wonderful: not all such art is bad.)

[Tex Andrews]

As an artist, art worker, art repro photographer, MFA holder (studied under Jack Burnham!),life-time art lover since I was a child, and I mean like 4 years old---married to a museum curator, son in law of a museum curator and an antiquarian and curator---I have for a long time had a theory about this...nonsense...going back to the '80's when Van Gogh's Irises sold for something like 80 million, at the time the most breathtaking auction sale of any art (Jack Burnham had a very interesting theory of his own about that...). Yes, that was almost a Faulknerian sentence, but seems appropriate here.

And my original theory is that what these prices (bear in mind, because it's important, that these are auction prices) represent is the valueless-ness of money to the hyper rich. Once you're worth a bunch of billions, what does money actually mean?

And now add money laundering to the mix.

[Stan B.]

A couple of helpful viewpoints:
From a billionaire-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th3KE_H27bs&t=605s
From a cartoon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVX_NjKmIcg
(the 1st 3 Solutions are spot on, voting- Hhmmm...)

[Ken Bennett]

I mean it's one banana, Michael. What could it cost, $10?

[ASW]

Ah... Ken Bennett beat me to it.

Instead I'll attempt to answer Stan B.'s questions in light of the our recent US election.
No, no, no, and... I've been questioning my sanity and/or wondering if I might be in purgatory since 2015.

[Robert Roaldi]

I've said this before, maybe even on these pages. We basically all act as if society is a support system for commerce, whereas it's actually the other way round. We seem to have forgotten this.

[John Camp]

Mike,

I have to say I hate seeing political and economic commentary on a photo blog. It's always tendentious, and I really don't need that. I come here for photography, and value TOP for that.

[Sean]

That Banana has caused a split in our house. Her indoors is convinced it’s art, whereas I think it takes the piss more than Duchamp’s Fountain.

[Robert Roaldi]

Would the eating of the banana be performance art?

I have some sympathy for the original artist. He was making a point, make not a serious one, maybe he was just having some fun, I have no idea. It's not his fault that others went a little too far and overpriced the work. But somehow I think that he ends up tainted by this experience. Because of the way these episodes are popularized, we confuse the work with the price. At these stratospheric levels I don't think the two are related very closely.

On one level this "collector" blew $6 million on a whim and that rubs people the wrong way. I get it, but some people start wars and kill people for less. I am not saying that in the grand scheme of things this doesn't truly matter, it does matter a little. The collector makes his money in crypto though, so it's not immediately clear to me how that work of art differs much from how he makes his living.

[JOHN GILLOOLY]

My work over the years has brought me into environments where I get to witness some of the most extreme wealth. I have often thought that if the masses actually knew how wealthy the extremely wealthy were, there would be a revolt.

You watch that auction and can't help but to watch the people in the room. Waiting for someone to break out in laughter at the ridiculousness that they are part of! But no. They're serious! The only person that hinted at the joke was the auctioneer.

[Dennis]

It did come with certificate of authenticity. It's hard not to blame Warhol at least in part. Have you seen the shrine to Lizzy the borden's cow. It's visually stunning and totally banal. the banana bit is just banal. Purchased by a Chinese cryptodude

[Kirk]

John Camp for the win.

[Kenneth Tanaka]

Ditto John Camp.

As always, it's your blog and you can use it for whatever you please (and usually do!). But is it really The Online Photographer any more? I'd argue not.

[janekr]

"By the way, a few years ago Cattelan donated to Milano an enormous marble finger"
A very big street finger can be found in Paris https://www.travelfranceonline.com/le-pouce-de-cesar-sculpture-la-defense/

[Kenneth Tanaka]

I must partially retract my earlier critical comment. I still do not like to find personal economic or political commentary here. This is one place where I come to escape that bs. I do, however, acknowledge that you’ve greatly trimmed such (way) off-topic posts in recent months. So, yes, 👍

Again, Mike, it’s your blog so posts are your call. I just see so many interesting topics at-hand that are so far out of reach from what remains of the online “photography” crowd that I sometimes squirm when they don’t appear here. But you probably know your audience well.

[ASW]

Respectfully - I often wonder if the folks who don't like seeing discussions of economics and politics in public, or on TOP, are in financial/life situations that have released them from minute-by-minute worry about their own economic or political status.

[Rob Griffin]

Mike, It looks to me that a few of those that have commented are saying to you, "shut up and dribble!" Athletes and photographers should stick with their sport and photography. What BS!

So much of photography and art is social commentary. To me, the distribution of wealth is an appropriate topic for photographers to discuss. Thanks for the link to the video that clearly showed the statistics of a fact of life today. I do not see this as controversial at all.

[darlene]

Me = John Camp x 10

Bringing up politics in a photography blog is like serving pickles at a cake party—it leaves readers confused and frustrated, especially when they've voiced their annoyance over the years. But Michael? Oh no, he carries on like he's either blissfully unaware or just enjoys tossing the occasional grenade into the room. It's his blog, of course, and I'm just a visitor, but I can't help feeling a little insulted by his political takes. Maybe life's a bit dull for Michael, and ruffling feathers is just his way of spicing things up!

[John Krumm]

I like my art blogs, and my art, occasionally controversial, and in the U.S., serious politics is always considered controversial. Look at Robert Frank's book, The Americans. It made many people uncomfortable. Do we really look that ugly in our inequality? We do, and it's hard to look at. Of course, political discussions, especially around economics, can feel uncomfortable in polite company, and at TOP, we are both polite and familiar. As a socialist, I often hold my tongue here, but this post on art and inequality is something we should be able to handle, even if people disagree.

[Ken]

"Mike, It looks to me that a few of those that have commented are saying to you, "shut up and dribble!" Athletes and photographers should stick with their sport and photography. What BS!"

The counter to that is that I don't go to a football game to be lectured by a player about economics, nor do I read a photo blog for the same. Not to say people can't have opinions, but there is a time and place for everything. Or should be.

[So you're saying I'm a football player? Should be be offended, or complimented, or--? I'll have to think about that. --Mike]

[David Wagner]

Those saying “I come to a photography blog for photography” have, in my opinion, unnecessarily limited what a photography blog can or should be. Of course it’s his blog etc etc, but one major value of art is its ability to illuminate different realities. Discussing income inequality and the art world is talking about art and the context in which art exist. It is talking about photography.

To use the football example, you don’t just go to a game to see the players play. You go also to be a part of something bigger: community, rivalry, vicarious competition, memories. Imagine telling tailgaters to stop because it’s not football.

[Ben]

What happens when the banana fungus makes replacing the banana impossible? Zucchini? Cucumber?

https://theconversation.com/banana-apocalypse-part-2-a-genomicist-explains-the-tricky-genetics-of-the-fungus-devastating-bananas-worldwide-236770

Anyway I was amazed at the stark difference in the cover design of the $12m stuffed shark book in hardback vs softcover. Check it out. If I was in the market I know which one I’d shell out for.

Finally, about “political commentary” and poverty/income inequality, that’s quite a major strand in both the history and current practice of photography. Migrant mother, the Americans, American Geography… all I have for the haters is …sigh…

Now back to my Edith Wharton novel

[TC]

Regarding ASW's comment, you can fairly accurately predict which posters will object to "politics" posts by looking at their status/demographic, so yeah, it's quite telling in fact.

As Maisel so astutely intimated, photography is about everything else.

[Dan Gorman]

FWIW, I felt the video was wholly apropos given the content of the post above it, and I for one don't mind hearing political points of view in ostensibly non-political contexts.

We're all citizens of our respective home countries before we're photographers or athletes or auctioneers or whatever, and there's little harm done by being exposed to a viewpoint with which we might disagree. The reader/viewer always has the option to skip content they find objectionable.

Happy holidays to all,
Dan

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Huh, I've been thinking it's too late to satirize the art market since the 1960s.

[Like when Andy Warhol sold an edition of blank pieces of paper with his signature on them for $5,000 each? --Mike]