Jump to content

Talk:Love is in the Bin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plugged in?

[edit]

The article currently says the frame was plugged in to power electrical lights in the frame. But in videos of the event there's no sign of a cord coming out of the frame, nor of any kind of electrical connection when people remove the artwork (including frame) and carry it away. (There's also no sign at any time of lights in the frame, though they could have been turned off.) There's no citation for the frame being plugged in, though there is a "[citation needed]". Should the statement be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DKMell (talk • contribs) 19:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was evidently powered by electricity. Not by batteries as they would be dangerous to store and wouldn't last for years. It was probably a power cord for the built-in lights. -- GreenC 20:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sotheby's wouldn't have a visible extension cord going into the frame, which would look cheap. They would have a hole behind the frame into the wall that is out of sight. Many frames have built in lights to illuminate the painting. -- GreenC 20:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy?

[edit]

This artwork is discussed in detail at Banksy#Balloon_Girl_shredding, Balloon Girl, and here. Is this appropriate? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's normal each article is a standalone work. -- GreenC 13:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalized"

[edit]

Should we removed Category:Vandalized works of art in the United Kingdom? The artwork wasn't exactly vandalized since the shredding was executed on purpose by the artist. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Removal per "not applicable". Randy Kryn (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the artwork was vandalized. Banksy has not owned the artwork since 2006, he could certainly have been charged with criminal damage to property. At least according to official sources, neither the seller, buyer, nor the auction house gave permission for this action.--Pharos (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another good point, although the new named artwork which is the subject of this page exists as is, and has not been vandalized. It can be also be argued that the destruction mechanism was already an inherent part of the artwork, and was put into operation at the timing predetermined by the artist. He'd given the artwork to a friend and waited to see (thus actually anticipating) if and when the friend was going to take advantage of the profit side of the gift. Doing so would, at that point, set into motion part two of the artwork. So its eventual creation and even its name is as much a statement about friendship and the dynamics of friendship as anything else. Of course Banksy couldn't know for sure if his friend was going to someday sell it, keep it and pass it on to heirs, or donate it to a museum (would a museum donation have put the shredder into play? a good question for Banksy). But in literal terms the shredding was always a potential part of the artwork which was to be triggered by an action - the sale of the gift. So I personally would not label it as vandalism but as an already built-in artistic statement about friendship and the human urge to eventually profit from friendship. The auction house and buyer could be said to be incidental to the situational dynamics central to this "new" artworks full creation. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting analysis that makes sense (I didn't understand "love is in the bin" until now); should be in the article if there were a source for it! -- GreenC 14:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your motivational analysis (I had the same idea), and also your explanation of the new title, though it would be good to have a source. I still think it was vandalized, this is no different than if Bansky was saving his very special hammer for a dozen years to use for a self-directed smashing performance art in case of an auction. I think this Wikipedia article is fundamentally about the two phases of the artwork, both of which are quite notable - the original work was still the most expensive Banksy ever, although the remade work is certainly the more interesting one.--Pharos (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was it in Barely Legal?

[edit]

The Sotheby's site says it was given away shortly after Barely Legal in 2006, but it's unclear whether or not it was actually in that exhibition. I couldn't find any source directly about it being exhibited in 2006, or at any time before 2018.--Pharos (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Video on Banksy's homapage

[edit]

I reverted your deletion - look at the video at 0'11" - a test sheet of black paper is clearly cut by the circular blades, four strips (white on the back side) have gone around the roller... Greetings, --Janke | Talk 15:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's original research. Per WP:OR "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." You are engaging in an analysis of the source (a WP:PRIMARY source worse) and reaching a conclusion not stated by the source or any other source. Also I suggest you use article talk pages, moving this discussion there from my talk page. -- GreenC 15:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for moving the discussion here. How can consensus be reached? Do you have any reference that the conclusion suggested by the video is incorrect? PS: I think the conclusions on Bored Panda may be "original research", as well... Is Josh Gilbert any kind of authority on this, or is that just his speculations? Then that paragraph should be removed from the article as well. Nobody really knows, until the frame is dissected or X-rayed... ;-) --Janke | Talk 17:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We report on what other people say, we don't create original interpretation. I would suggest wait a few days for others to respond, and if that is not enough start an RfC and bring in the wider Wikipedia community to look at it. If what your saying is true you should have no trouble finding sources that see or say the same thing. Our job is to find sources and summarize, not original interpretations. There are millions of people following this story you won't be the only one who will see circular blades. Give it a few days and see what sources show up on Google. If nothing then it's likely the interpretation is novel or doesn't have all the facts. -- GreenC 18:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW my novel/original interpretation of the first 15 seconds: the circular tube is not blades but holds the canvas up against the blades on the other side of the canvas, to keep it in place so it doesn't bunch up caused by the friction of moving and cutting. But the closer I look at the video there are inconsistencies like we are seeing different renditions of the device. I don't think the video is reliable to reach a conclusion there isn't enough information about how the mechanism works. -- GreenC 19:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No responses here, so I removed the "boredpanda" blog speculation - it's just as OR as my conjecture. --Janke | Talk 19:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it's in a reliable source (indiatimes) there's no reason to delete it. We report on what other people say, including other people's "OR". The difference is you were making up your own OR, synthesizing sources to reach your own theory and conclusion. -- GreenC 18:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

Is Love is in the Bin or Love Is in the Bin more appropriate? We have the artwork's official name vs. WP's manual of style. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a proper noun of an art artifact. Similar to a book title. It should reflect the official name IMO. How is the official name determined? -- GreenC 16:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the artist has named it should be the piece's name (and listed so in Wikipedia unless it is extremely removed from standard titling). When an artist names a work it becomes a proper noun. Now I have no idea if policy/guideline/essays/watercooler talk say the same thing, although common sense seems to. Did Banksy name this with the upper-case 'Is'? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well the most authoritative source we have is Pest Control, Banksy's official artwork authentication body. According to CNN, the Pest Control certificate for this work uses lower-case. source. If there is a source that says otherwise, the question becomes why that source is more authoritative than Banksy's official artwork authentication body and the official certificate. -- GreenC 18:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sales price?

[edit]

Multiple reliable sources differ considerably on the 14 October 2021 sales price:

I believe the BBC source is a typo or misinformation. They also say "The sale... beats the previous record of £16.8m set for Banksy in March." .. How can £16.0m million "beat" £16.8m? It makes no sense. This article is not reliable. The majority say £18.6m however I believe this is a stylistic rounding so they write a clean "£18.6 million". Sotheby's itself reported £18,582,000 which is the most reliable figure. Even the Sotheby's article first states £18.6 million than gives the precise figure further down. -- GreenC 01:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of speculation section

[edit]

@GreenC replying here as put in changelog. Really have to disagree with the continued inclusion of the speculation section in this article as it is completely non-encyclopaedic information that is not noteworthy in regards to the article subject of the piece itself. Both items ("was Banksy present" and "random self-claimed magician claims it was staged") clearly fall afoul of WP:RSEDITORIAL. For the former there is no evidence that Banksy was there, and even the articles used as sources at most refer to that unnamed 'people online' claimed it was him (the Sky News source doesn't even go so far as to suggest it was Banksy, rather calling them "the person who filmed for Banksy"). For the latter, there is only a single source provided from a website whose output is clearly not of a reliable nature and more akin to Buzzfeed (itself not considered reliable) given titles such as "50 Hilarious Pics From People’s ‘Blunder Years’ That’ll Forever Live Online As A Cringy Reminder (New Pics)", that quotes simply some guy who claims they're a magician saying they've "analysed the video" and therefore think it was staged.

If it had been confirmed Banksy was there (and thereby revealing his identity at the same time) that would be notable to warrant inclusion. If say the respected expert illusionist Derren Brown proved with evidence it had been staged, that would be notable enough to warrant inclusion. However two bits of speculation that effectively boil down to "random people on social media think Banksy was there/staged it" then that isn't of the quality level to warrant inclusion in the same way we don't document every claimed sighting of wild panthers in the UK every time someone tells their local tabloid they definitely saw one. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, somehow I missed seeing this post. Let me consider it and will respond before any more reverts. -- GreenC 20:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Love_is_in_the_Bin&oldid=1208598675"