The Big Banana

by Eduardo del Buey

The Big Banana

“What Cattelan is really doing is turning a mirror to the contemporary art world and asking questions, provoking thought about how we ascribe value to artworks, what we define as an artwork.”

David Galperin, Head of Sotheby’s Contemporary Art Department

Crypto investor Justin Sun paid $6.2 million for a work of art by Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan featuring a banana duct-taped to a wall and highlighting the soaring values of crypto and viral art.

According to CNBC, Mr. Sun said, “This is not just an artwork, it represents a cultural phenomenon that bridges the worlds of art, memes, and the cryptocurrency community. I believe this piece will inspire more thought and discussion in the future and will become a part of history. I am honored to be the proud owner of this iconic work and look forward to it sparking further inspiration and impact for art enthusiasts around the world.”

Is this an example of pecuniary strength run amok, or simply of capriciousness finding its way into history?

I am not an art historian nor an art connoisseur, so I won’t engage in a debate as to whether this is in fact “art” or a facetious attempt to set the art world on fire.

It does bridge a number of worlds as was the creator’s intention. It is a challenge to esthetic values and traditional artistic canons.

This type of art, known as “conceptual artwork,” can be placed in a long line of conceptual artworks where everyday objects are transformed into art.

Marcel Duchamp started producing his "readymades" 110 years ago, in 1914, when he presented a bottle rack as art. That was followed up with a snow shovel, a urinal, and many others.

The Tate Gallery in London caused a minor scandal when it acquired Equivalent VIII, a 1966 Carl Andre work comprising everyday house bricks, in 1972.

The idea of a work of art that is executed by the owner according to the artist's instructions is more than half a century old, dating back at least to a Sol Lewitt show at Paula Cooper gallery in 1968.

And, indeed, Mr. Sun’s purchase of this piece and the price that he paid will go down in history – perhaps as the actions of a visionary or the product of supreme foolishness.

Most of us engage in conspicuous consumption at some point in our lives – purchasing out of choice rather than necessity and enjoying impressing others with our purchasing power.

Sun’s purchase and Cattelan’s success may inspire other artists to emulate what some may consider this theater of the absurd and provide other self-indulgent billionaires with opportunities to demonstrate conspicuous consumption that attracts public interest and, in some perverse way, admiration of a sort to which I do not subscribe.

I am in awe as to why a billionaire would pay $6.2 million dollars for a banana and some duct tape – a banana that he will eat and duct tape that most of us have in our toolboxes.

Is it simply to prove that he can, so he does?

A perishable commodity that cannot sustain its value the way a painting or sculpture can.

As well, is this any different from paying $80 million for an original Van Gogh or Picasso when an excellent copy can be had for pennies?

I agree that everyone has the right to spend their money on what moves them.

And that this applies in this instance.

However, does anyone need to engage in this type of public self-indulgence or is it based on a necessity to satisfy some ego need?

Is not success in business and the accumulation of a fortune from hard work and creative vision enough to satisfy his need for ego gratification?

Mr. Sun has announced that he will eat the banana before it goes bad.

Thus, $6.2 million for a snack!

As emotional beings, our egos often drive our decisions, especially when it comes to conspicuous consumption and showing off our triumphs and successes.

But, as spiritual beings, can we ignore all the good our wealth could achieve in a world replete with starvation and misery?

Therein lies the conundrum.

Whether we like it or not, we all apply some judgment about the morality of other people’s actions.

I have no objection to the honest accumulation of wealth.

Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and other billionaires have taught us how to balance the acquisition of wealth with generosity towards others, sharing part of the wealth to improve the lives of millions.

I don’t know where Mr. Sun’s sense of social responsibility lies, nor what he does to ensure that his wealth is not solely confined to self-indulgence.

But I do hope, for his sake, that he finds a way to contribute to history through generosity and not only notoriety.