In a belated response to Rebecca's comments on the Banksy Exhibition at Bristol Museum (have you seen it yet Rebecca?...what's it like?) I thought I'd add some further ingredients into the discussion. I noticed a report in
The Art Newspaper on the exhibition (appropriately in the 'Art Market' sections), stating; 'all of the 100 works exhibited are for sale, and
The Art Newspaper understands that a work showing a policeman on a child's rocking horse sold for £140,000.'.....
Kate Brindley, the museum's director, is reported to say that Bristol Museum would not get a cut of the proceeds, but "it was usual practice" for living artists (excuse the obviousness there) to sell work shown in public galleries. Did I miss something here? When did this become 'usual practice'? (Saatchi, perhaps, but you can't actually 'buy' the things off the wall at the Duke of York's Headquarters (can you?)...and I'm aware of 19th century precedents - I'm a museum historian! (of sorts...). It is clear that public museums play a significant, and synchronic, role in the art market - but surely Bristol Museum is not (should not be?) Gagosian?
Or is it another subtle subversive move by Banksy?
Mark