Sure showed them, chief.

Banksy is the bourgeois artiste of our time. Lauded by critics and the smooth brains that get paid the most to post, Banksy has come under applause for “self-destructing” their latest work after it sold for just over a million dollars in a Sotheby’s auction. It didn’t self-destruct, though. That’s a pretty clever turn of phrase to get clicks, but the painting was actually shredded halfway, and remains attached to the frame. Is it a critique of the multimillion dollar art world? Maybe, but it’s probably already spiked in value to three times that amount, so whether it’s a critique or not has no bearing on the fact that Banksy has solidified their position in the ranks of the art elite.

Regardless, we plebs now get to see a plethora of copycats imitating the PR stunt to varying degrees, and a hundred articles telling us we should be shocked or surprised, because some kind of esoteric art statement was made. I’d argue it’s more likely this is the same out-of-touch “fuck the system” message I frequently saw in college, when many people begin to explore, often for the first time in their lives, what art even is.

Videos of the stunt happening live during the Sotheby’s auction don’t elicit angry yelling or shocked screams as these upper echelons of society watch their worldview crumble to dust. They’re still filthy rich, and now they’ve been pleasantly surprised for a few minutes. All of those bourgeois assholes can now point back to a day when this one eccentric but ultimately conforming artist joined their ranks. One witness could be heard saying “Oh, that’s so cool!” with the MC calling for a round of applause, near-instantly obliged by the audience.

Self-destructing implies that the construct, the artwork, ceases to be, which is neither true in the metaphorical or literal senses of the word. The painting still exists, and the grand reveal was that it simply wasn’t finished yet. The media attention the stunt has gained, because it’s fucking Banksy and of course it was going to make the news, tries to preach this angle that this artist is somehow rebelling against the system. Their painting “self-destructed,” after all. Is it still attached to the frame? Yup. Can you still appreciate the work, to whatever meaning you want? Absolutely. Did the painting cease to exist in a form resembling art? No.

The thing is, this idea of artists somehow destroying their own work isn’t even anything new. Monet took a paintbrush and a knife to at least fifteen of his own large paintings during an exhibit in Paris. John Baldessari burned his own art in 1970 when he began his “Cremation Project,” an art project in and of itself, during which he destroyed all of his early works completed from 1953–1966. Gustav Metzger “pioneered” art that destroys itself by rigging his paintings to be eaten by acid, all the way back in the 60s. What’s the statement here?

It’s not even a novel idea, since the Auto-Destructive Art movement, started in the 1960s, already exists. That movement itself responds in large part to the horrors of World War II, but it also explores the ways that increasing development of new technologies can be used to conceptualize art. Banksy didn’t seem to have any connection to ADA, instead implying that the artwork was somehow destroyed now.

Banksy wrote “Going, going, gone” on Instagram in response to the event. What’s gone, exactly? Not the painting, and certainly not the artwork. What did we lose when we gained Banksy as a member of the aristocracy? All I lost was the fifteen minutes it took me to write this.