The taped banana - now perhaps one of the most expensive fruits ever sold - was actually bought earlier in the day for a mere $0.35, according to the New York Times.

  • nucleative@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I too have a nearly perfect replica of this piece. I’m selling each piece, which is part of an extremely limited run of 1000 pieces in total produced this week on demand, signed and sealed in a Tupperware container for freshness, for $2,990 each, worldwide shipping is just another $299.

    • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Yo I was about to comment this.

      Like literally.

      How do you transfer a huge amount of money.

      Just get the receipient to create “art”

      Instruct receipient to sell “art” for the amount of money

      Voila, legal money laundering!

      • Gsus4@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        Yeah, it’s the first thing I thought. Everybody else sees it too, right? This is well past dadaism.

        …but wasn’t this the case all along in the art market, except for institutional buyers?

      • Danquebec
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I don’t understand how buying art with 6.2 m in cash is not going to be suspicious though?

        • edric@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Because you “can’t put a price on art”. Assuming there’s a sales tax or something for the sale, it’s pretty much a legit sale.

  • Chessmasterrex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    It’s really just one of a limited number of licenses which allows the owner of the license to showcase the work and legally regard it as an official work from the artist who first came up with the idea. Anyone can tape a banana to a wall, but only a few can do so and say that it’s an ‘original’.

    • Mojave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago
      • who gives a shit if it’s original or derivative
      • Tape a different fruit and it’s now a new original
      • huginn@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        Do this as an institution you’ll get nuked in court.

        Do this as an individual nobody will pay to see it.

        The more you complain the more it’s worth.

        People pay money to see it because it’s controversial.

        That’s why it’s art.

        • TriflingToad
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          That’s why I consider AI art actually art.

    • Klear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I don’t know if I can trust the license. Any way to make it burn a ton of electricity to function?