An artwork by Banksy shredded itself after selling for $1.3M at Sotheby’s
Part of me feels like this stunt is clever because the nature of the performance improves the value of the work. So it&#x27;s self-destructive in the technical sense of the term but it was designed in such a way to essentially transform the piece. While shocking in the moment, as the pictures of the scene show, the work has three separate qualities: the original significance of the piece, the new meaning it attains after partial shredding, and its role in the historical documentation of the scene that played out. A bunch of moneyed folk at an auction recoiling in horror - either because of the money they initially thought was wasted, or more charitably because they genuinely cared about the work. What would your own assumption there tell you?<p>However, in my mind I also imagined something entirely different. What would it say for a similar work of art to self destruct at a very glacial pace, and the only way to prevent degradation was to pay attention to it? What would it say about the nature of art and wealth if the owner did not notice the piece had destroyed itself until it was too late, presumably because they bought it and left it in storage or on a wall they never looked at? This is what plenty of art will already do over the course of centuries, without maintenance or restoration, so I&#x27;m thinking about something more accelerated and deliberate.<p>And on an extra level, I have started to wonder how such a piece could be represented through programming. The website that rots, pixel by pixel, when it isn&#x27;t viewed; or the application that subtly corrupts itself over time.