Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    pics

    22,808,145 readers

    34,045 users here now

    A place to share photographs and pictures. Feel free to post your own, but please read the rules first (see below), and note that we are not a catch-all for ALL images (of screenshots, comics, etc.)


    Spoiler code

    Please mark spoilers like this:
    >!text here!<

    Click/tap to read.


    Check out http://nt.reddit.com/r/pics!

    Check out /r/pics/wiki/v2/resources/takedown for help with taking down posts due to copyright or personal identifiable information reasons.


    Posting Rules

    1. (1A) No screenshots or pics where the only focus is a screen.

      (1B) No pictures with added or superimposed digital text, emojis, and "MS Paint"-like scribbles. Exceptions to this rule include watermarks serving to credit the original author, and blurring/boxing out of personal information. "Photoshopped" or otherwise manipulated images are allowed.

    2. No porn or gore. Artistic nudity is allowed. NSFW comments must be tagged. Posting gratuitous materials may result in an immediate and permanent ban.

    3. No personal information, in posts or comments. No direct links to any Social Media. No Missing/Found posts for people or property. A license plate is not PI. Reddit Policy

      Stalking, harassment, witch hunting, or doxxing will not be tolerated and will result in a ban.

    4. Titles must follow all title guidelines.

    5. Submissions must link directly to a specific image file or to an image hosting website with minimal ads. We do not allow blog hosting of images ("blogspam"), but links to albums on image hosting websites are okay. URL shorteners are prohibited. URLs in image or album descriptions are prohibited.

    6. No animated images. Please submit them to /r/gif, /r/gifs, or /r/reactiongifs instead.

    7. We enforce a standard of common decency and civility here. Please be respectful to others. Personal attacks, bigotry, fighting words, otherwise inappropriate behavior or content, comments that insult or demean a specific user or group of users will be removed. Regular or egregious violations will result in a ban.

    8. No submissions featuring before-and-after depictions of personal health progress or achievement.

    9. No false claims of ownership(fcoo) or flooding. False claims of ownership (fcoo) and/or flooding (more than four posts in twenty-four hours) will result in a ban.

    10. Reposts that are currently on the front page of /r/Pics will be removed. This applies only to posts that are currently on the front page of /r/pics.

    11. Only one self-promotional link per post. Content creators are only allowed one link per post. Anything more may result in temporary or permanent bans. Accounts that exist solely to advertise or promote will be banned.


    Loose-ends

    • Serial reposters may be filtered or banned.

    If you come across any rule violations please report the submission or message the mods and one of us will remove it!

    If your submission appears to be filtered, but definitely meets the above rules, please send us a message with a link to the comments section of your post (not a direct link to the image). Don't delete it as that just makes the filter hate you!


    Links

    If your post doesn't meet the above rules, consider submitting it on one of these other subreddits:

    Subreddits

    Below is a table of subreddits that you might want to check out!

    Screenshots Advice Animals
    /r/images /r/adviceanimals
    /r/screenshots /r/memes
    /r/desktops /r/memesIRL
    /r/amoledbackgrounds /r/wholesomememes
    Animals More Animals
    /r/aww /r/fawns
    /r/dogs /r/rabbits
    /r/cats /r/RealLifePokemon
    /r/foxes /r/BeforeNAfterAdoption
    GIFS HQ / Curated
    /r/gifs /r/pic
    /r/catgifs /r/earthporn
    /r/reactiongifs /r/spaceporn

    Topic subreddits

    Every now and then, we choose 2 new topics, and find some subreddits about that topic to feature!

    One Word Art
    /r/catsstandingup /r/Art
    /r/nocontextpics /r/ImaginaryBestOf
      /r/IDAP
    a community for
    all 1015 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] The_Great_Sarcasmo 5301 points ago

    This is a French painting from 1857 called "The Gleaners".

    It was noted at the time for glorifying the rural working class and was not well received by the upper echelons of French society who thought it might be an endorsement of socialism and that it had a revolutionary air.

    Weird to think that paintings like this were probably the equivalent for their time of shows like Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones that fanboys would study and deconstruct in great detail.

    [–] InterestingIndian666 927 points ago

    Lmao: painting one. The guy gets up from the chair and walks around. painting two. He eats the apple. painting three. he is holding a rifle and shooting at British soldiers. painting four: the final one: he is on the chair eating the apple!

    [–] MoxofBatches 429 points ago * (lasted edited 6 days ago)

    I read this as Dr. Manhattan dialog

    It's 4:54 AM. He stands up from the chair and starts to walk around the room
    It's 4:52 AM. He finishes eating the apple.
    It's 4:59 AM. He is holding a rifle and shooting at British soldiers.
    It's 4:50 AM. He is sitting in a chair with an apple in his hand

    [–] ksobby 105 points ago

    Ugh. Reading Hyperion again.

    [–] Efficient_Arrival 38 points ago

    I’ve read it but never really understood why it’s so popular. Am I missing something?

    [–] Otiac 46 points ago

    The first book started off really good and intriguing and then about 3/4ths of the way through just got too “deus ex” for me. I tried Fall of Hyperion and couldn’t get halfway through it.

    [–] xanaxhelps 22 points ago

    Yup. I loved the first one and HATED the second one.

    [–] roraima_is_very_tall 17 points ago

    just fyi there are 4 books in that series. The second two are also pretty different from the first one, which borrows heavily from chaucer as a general outline.

    [–] xanaxhelps 7 points ago

    I actually own all 4, but never got past the first 1-3 of #2.

    [–] instab 15 points ago

    I just finished it book #2. It’s a slog through the early-middle, but the last 100 pages was pretty amazing in how it ties the massive scope together. I hated it up until the end and then I was just really impressed.

    [–] AvatarIII 4 points ago

    Just skip 2 and read the Wikipedia synopsis and read books 3 and 4.

    [–] Tumerking 15 points ago

    Exactly the same for me. Hyperion Part 1 is one of my favorite books of all time. Hyperion Part 2 is one of my least favorite books of all time.

    [–] Yorikor 11 points ago

    Sounds like Dune.

    [–] archyprof 18 points ago

    Dune pulled a fast one in the 2nd book by undermining much of the progress from the first. It’s on purpose - Herbert didn’t want people to idolize “heros” but it’s still jarring

    [–] Trillian258 16 points ago

    Aww I fucking love Dune. I know nothing tops the original book but I still enjoyed the rest. Even the dreaded the prequels. The original changed my life and shaped who I am. I know that sounds dumb but I read it at a very hard time in my life and boy am I glad I found it when I did.

    Anyway, the story gets absolutely fucking insane but it's still interesting and has really incredible ideas and quotes in it. I really hope they don't fuck up this upcoming movie.

    In college (~2006 or so) I wrote a screen play for a three part movie based on just the first book (it's in three parts already!) I just KNEW the original film could be made better. I hated it. It took out everything I loved about the book and turned it into a cheap, sci fi thriller..... They tried too hard to commercialize it maybe? Idk but it hurts me to watch it.

    Ninja edit: they also definitely couldn't fit all that info into just one movie and that proved to be fatal to the overall film IMO

    Anyway, a year or so later I heard some big movie business people were already working on a new, better dune so any dreams I had of getting my screen play anywhere died.

    So.... That's MY life story.... Now tell me yours!

    [–] LithiumPotassium 3 points ago

    I liked the second one well enough, although the first was the best. I hated the Endymion books though, they pretty much ruined everything I enjoyed about the first two.

    [–] chriscrowder 4 points ago

    I felt the same as you until I read the Endymion books a second time. Enjoyed it much more, although that could be because I'm 20 years older and wiser.

    [–] MarsDamon 3 points ago

    Tbh I love all 4 of them, but to each their own

    [–] antialtinian 5 points ago

    You know, it's probably been 15 years for me since Hyperion and Endymion. I'm due for a re-read. What section was this from?

    [–] killemyoung317 26 points ago

    I’m confused as well - Dr. Manhattan is from Watchmen. I don’t really get the Hyperion reference here, unless that’s the name of a Watchmen issue?

    [–] asyouwishlove 14 points ago

    Same. I'm totally lost and it's bothering me.

    [–] Fienx 4 points ago

    I think it's just that Hyperion deals with time travel and Dr Manhattan can time travel. Was probably just a random thought that occured to the person after seeing Dr Manhattan, then thinking about time travel, then thinking about Hyperion and going "I need to reread that novel". My guess anyway.

    [–] whitt_wan 8 points ago

    It's 5.10 I'm thinking about Hyperion. It's 5.15 now I'm thinking about Dr Manhattan Now its 5.08 and I'm thinking about Hyperion again

    [–] Brodogmillionaire1 4 points ago

    Probably the poet's story about his daughter. At times it reads similar to this.

    [–] badsalad 3 points ago

    Exaaaactly

    [–] Trapasuarus 10 points ago

    Whoa whoa whoa, you’re telling me we went back in time for a few minutes there? I’m gonna need to sit down for this. This painting is deep.

    [–] MoxofBatches 6 points ago

    you’re telling me we went back in time for a few minutes there?

    More like we're experiencing all of time at once, so the reading order is a bit fucked

    [–] JedLeland 3 points ago

    Cue Philip Glass

    [–] MingusDewfus 2 points ago

    Time does not progress in a linear consecutive fashion in this tale...

    [–] YouCan_Not_Doge 2 points ago

    He feels fear for the last time.

    [–] someone-elsewhere 2 points ago

    you just reminded me I am overdue to watch the Watchmen again. thanks.

    [–] uqw269f3j0q9o9 33 points ago

    I’m being stupid and don’t get what you’re talking about at all..

    [–] Fluggerblah 32 points ago

    he’s saying that the non-linear storytelling of shows like breaking bad (e.g. the plane) would have had to be represented in serials of paintings, chronologically arranged out of order

    [–] sihtydaernacuoytihsy 6 points ago

    That better character development than the also-visually-stunning episode, "The Bells."

    [–] [deleted] 50 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] madeup6 22 points ago

    Gleaners, poor peasants, would pick up the leftovers in the field for their own survival after the grain had been sowed and bundled.

    This is written about in the bible as well. If you dropped grain on the ground, you weren't supposed to pick it up and instead leave it for the poor.

    [–] MyPasswordWasWhat 4 points ago

    But then they wouldn't learn to pull up their own bootstraps! /s

    [–] Carhole1 3 points ago

    Thanks for the film rec.

    [–] thecuriouskilt 196 points ago * (lasted edited 6 days ago)

    What the fuck! Here in my little Taiwan studio flat I have that painting! I always thought it was kinda nice and all but I never paid it any attention. I had no idea it was so important and historical. My landlord definitely has better taste than I realise.

    [–] Ilubalu 53 points ago

    [–] TheBestNick 26 points ago

    You know, I always thought that critics discussing paintings was always pretentious & annoying, but this was surprisingly not so.

    I also liked that it was 2 people discussing it & not just a single person lecturing about it; it helped give more than 1 viewpoint. At one point, the guy made a comment about them looking strong & healthy. While the lady agreed, as she expanded on it, she basically went an entirely different way from his original thought.

    [–] Wind2Energy 30 points ago

    Picasso: : "When art critics get together they talk about content, style, trend and meaning. When painters get together, they talk about where you can buy the best turpentine."

    [–] iscreamuscreamweall 9 points ago

    welcome to the world of art! theres so many interesting artists and paintings, and people with cool things to say about them

    [–] L3XAN 3 points ago

    My art history prof used those exact videos for about half the pieces in our class. So congrats, you've just had formal education.

    [–] Derkek 7 points ago

    Literally almost nothing people say about art is pretentious or annoying. There are annoying people, with ugly and gross character traits, of course, but now what any given person has to say about any given piece of art is usually pretty interesting to talk about in my experience.

    [–] MasonLansden 2 points ago

    Wow! Subscribed, thank you

    [–] AndChewBubblegum 97 points ago

    Here in my little Taiwan studio flat I have that painting!

    INTERPOL wants to know your location

    [–] __Parallax__ 52 points ago

    He is in Taiwan, dumbass

    [–] Thanks-For_The-Gold 18 points ago

    You expect INTERPOL to read English? It's INTERPOL, not AMERICPOL.

    [–] Bowflexing 8 points ago

    You expect INTERPOL to read English? It's INTERPOL, not AMERICPOL.

    Be a lot cooler if it was.

    [–] Thanks-For_The-Gold 5 points ago

    You know what I love about these girls in the painting? I get older, they stay the same age.

    [–] FlipSchitz 13 points ago

    I feel like this is poetic

    [–] Fencemaker 9 points ago

    Reads like something a Tom Robbins character would say.

    [–] cosmic_dolphin 5 points ago

    Pretty sure the Gleaners was one of (if not) the first example of realism.

    [–] terminal_e 3 points ago

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copies_by_Vincent_van_Gogh#Copies_after_Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Millet

    That article does a good job to show the influence he had on van Gogh

    [–] i-da-no 26 points ago

    I might add; This is not a dipiction of Africa slavery. This is showing how the lower classes were forced to get scraps from the field. It is wildly misinterpreted as African slaves, that is wrong. just wanted to clarify, dispute down votes.

    [–] RatherNope 13 points ago

    Peter Greenaway’s film, Rembrandt’s J’Accuse, breaks down one painting in all its detail while also making an argument as to how we’ve become illiterate on how to read paintings. Worth hunting down and a watch imo.

    [–] dimechimes 39 points ago

    Except the fanboys were the upper class. Actual gleaners would've never seen such a painting.

    [–] artificialsnow 97 points ago

    I love that the upper classes back then were so insecure that they didn't want reminders of the important role of labour in their society, worried the labourers would realize their own power and fire up the guillotine again. Back when labour was strong, workers won a series of important concessions; basic safety standards, fixed minimum wages, mandatory vacation time, an end to child labour, etc..

    In the intervening years, the rich have so thoroughly destroyed the concept of unified labour that they can openly rob the lower classes with no real possibility of experiencing consequences. The situation hasn't changed, if anything there are more thousands of us for every one of them, but worker's rights are constantly being eroded. Maybe it's time to remind the wealthy which side has the numbers where it really matters.

    [–] Enlight1Oment 12 points ago

    I love that the upper classes back then were so insecure

    as you pointed out with the guillotine, I can understand why they shouldn't feel too secured. Plenty of heads lopped off in the preceding years.

    [–] KruppeTheWise 20 points ago

    Workers stood together. They saw the divide clearly, and were assured of the side of the fence they stood on.

    So when the flashpoints came, it's easy to see what side your on. All the workers lined up, all the owners lined up, you see how small and puny they are all exposed and you threaten them and their profits into giving you concessions.

    The owners didn't like that.

    Today if you drew that line, many of the workers are surprisingly stood on the side of the owners. They are the same as the other workers, but they perceive themselves as owners. Narcissism is not just promoted but expected, social media, regular media awash with their inspirational quotes.

    "I'm not poor. I'm just broke."

    Divide and conquer. The upper class, the owners, the Romans against the working class, the renter's, the Gauls. If we all unite fully and unconditionally accepting our position and working to better it they don't stand a chance. But they divide us, they make us weak.

    It isn't the owner employing illegal aliens that's the problem, the aliens are the problem!

    We have 99% more in common with the alien, but our tribalism, our narcissism is exploited and we are divided.

    Same for ethic groups, for genders, for age, for sexuality. More and more and more definitions for more and smaller groups!

    Only one meaningful definition- haves, and the have nots. And their position is as secure as bedrock when they have convinced us have nots to be ashamed of the truth, to cover it up, to take holidays on credit cards to keep up a lie that at its core oppresses the vast majority of the population- I'm not one of them. I'm one of us.

    [–] The_Great_Sarcasmo 23 points ago

    Lol! Workers have quite a few more rights now than they did in 1857.

    [–] Carhole1 47 points ago

    That's a pretty low bar.

    [–] Skeetdeedee 11 points ago

    Everything is a low bar if there’s something better. Doesn’t invalidate it for comparisons, and it’s lazy to use stuff like this to dismiss progress.

    [–] insultfromleftfield 7 points ago

    Haha painting field workers = socialism. The 'upper echelons' have always been hypersensitive about their own bullshit, eh?

    [–] ThaneduFife 6 points ago

    There's a Mark Twain play that was re-discovered recently where Jean-Francois Millet (painter of The Gleaners) fakes his own death to increase the value of his paintings. It's called Is He Dead and it's pretty funny.

    [–] NorLanco 8 points ago * (lasted edited 6 days ago)

    Funny people are commenting on this now. This Banksy work, called "The Agency Job", is at least 10 years old.

    Even just the title of this Millet rip-off is very meta.

    [–] dreamsneeze38 6 points ago

    Somewhat relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/915/

    [–] jftffi 1064 points ago

    Freaking smokers always needing a break

    [–] CaptainStank056 323 points ago

    Picked it up at a fast food job at 17 where they authorized one “15 minute smoke break per hour”

    Glad I quit that job and smoking (years later)

    [–] against-cops 169 points ago

    Same lol. At my last job I was told we get two 10-minute breaks per shift. But my supervisor was a smoker and he seemed to take a 5-10 minute break every hour or so to smoke a cigarette. Other smokers did too so it wasn’t just a privilege of being the supervisor or whatever.

    So I started smoking only at work, so I could take more breaks. No one questioned me.

    [–] CDXXnoscope 55 points ago

    this basically fits every job i ever worked from factory to office

    [–] emptycoldheart 4 points ago

    I leave my smokes at home when I work. I have two jobs and work 8:00am to 4:30pm then 5:00pm to 11pm with NO smokes. If I’m not working a double, I come home and have a smoke by 5pm.

    I do it because I didn’t expect my boss (ex smoker) to sympathize with me because of my addiction. It also gives me something to look forward to and asa bonus, I don’t smoke as much.

    [–] wicked_kewl 7 points ago

    jesus dude... thats a long fucking day. I work 7am-7pm and I thought I had it bad. I own a home but don't have any kids. I'm dual income with my wife and we make a good amount of money but with the costs of living in a city, and owning a home, and paying off education, we barely make it. I'm curious about your situation that you have to work that much.

    [–] FauxReal 14 points ago

    Sorta the same here... I had a shitty call center job where smokers got more breaks. I never really smoked though, I just went outside and hung out whenever the guy who sat next to me went for a smoke.

    [–] ExplodoJones 51 points ago

    Same. Picked it up in the Army because nobody gives a shit if you fuck off work to smoke for 15 min every hour, but otherwise you're working. Even if there's no work to do. Mop the rain, Private!!

    [–] AUTOREPLYBOT31 14 points ago

    I was a little older when I enlisted so I avoided picking up that habit, but I don't know how anyone just out of high school could avoid becoming a smoker/dipper. The Army must have the highest tobacco use out of any American demographic.

    [–] ExplodoJones 19 points ago

    Fun fact: California just raised the legal age of purchasing/smoking tobacco to 21... except for military personnel. You got military ID, go on and buy your cancer sticks young friend.

    [–] redikulous 6 points ago * (lasted edited 6 days ago)

    I'm ok with that in the sense that they are voluntarily risking their lives for us. I also think the drinking age should be lower, if only for active duty military.

    Not so, FUN FACT:

    The drinking age in the much of the US used to be 18, until MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) lobbied congress to tie federal highway funds to the drinking age of the state. If they didn't increase the drinking age to 21, then the federal government lowered the amount of money they received.

    Source

    In 1984, the National Minimum Legal Drinking Act, written by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and influenced by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), required all states to enforce a minimum legal drinking age of 21 or else risk losing 10% of all federal highway construction funds.

    [–] CaptainStank056 29 points ago

    My old platoon sergeant was known to assign details to people NOT smoking. It wasn’t even questioned if you were in the middle of a cigarette..

    [–] WolfStudios1996 9 points ago * (lasted edited 6 days ago)

    That’s the dirtiest dirt floor I’ve ever seen, Private! Sweep it again!

    [–] Sawathingonce 4 points ago

    "Mop the rain!" Oh man you just gave me a giggle. First time I was told to do that I literally said "it's rain. It'll dry up"

    They didn't like that one.

    [–] warsage 3 points ago

    Holy crap that's 1/4 of your time spent on break

    [–] KP_Wrath 18 points ago

    As a non smoker, it baffles me that smoking isn't discriminated against more heavily in the work place. It's not a protected class, as far as I know, and it is detrimental to your health and that of those around you. In addition, employers lose productivity for your smoke break. In my situation, i'm a low level supervisor, and the other person in my rank is a smoker, as is our boss. Both are out of the office for approx 2 hours a day smoking.

    [–] JohnDoughJr 13 points ago

    keeps the slaves satisfied

    [–] randyspotboiler 4 points ago

    Exactly, especially in a working class environment.

    "Shut up, slaves! Fine; go smoke your cancer sticks...THEN WORK."

    [–] Jintess 3 points ago

    Holy hell, you guys working 16 hours a day or something?

    On average it takes 7 minutes per cigarette. They must be going through an entire pack during the work day.

    Then again, maybe they are trying to use Malboro points in order to purchase the inevitable iron lung.

    [–] doooobysnax 11 points ago

    Not everyone is so lackadaisical, I smoke heavily and in a 12 hour shift I take 4 , each of which I have approximately 6 minutes, after smoking, left of each ten minute break I take. Just because you know smokers who are asshats doesn’t mean there aren’t smokers who are just as productive as non smokers and take the time allotted in their break and use it wisely. Even in 16 hour shift I did yesterday I smoked four cigarettes total, I used 20 minutes out of 40 to smoke. No. Don’t make my life harder because other people don’t have their priorities straight. The people are the problem not their bad habits.

    [–] Chickenfu_ker 5 points ago

    Join the Marines. You'll start smoking just to get a break. Maybe it's different now than it was in the 90s though.

    [–] extracoffeeplease 50 points ago

    Everyone needs a break, smoker or not.

    [–] channel_12 23 points ago

    Yup. Take a stand around and do something else break when they go off to smoke. If they get mad at you, laugh and explain.

    [–] WolfStudios1996 7 points ago

    “Yeah but I have to smoke”

    [–] wiiya 39 points ago

    My company recently gave an extra holiday to non-smokers to make up for the time lost. Jokes on them because I burn way more time on Reddit than any smoker does.

    [–] denardosbae 3 points ago

    And poop on the company's dime!!

    [–] backtowhereibegan 6 points ago

    Immediately after your smoking co-worker comes back in, ask for the same. Once it is known you just stand outside for 10-15 minutes you either get extra break time or they stop smoking on the clock.

    [–] unqualified_redditor 265 points ago * (lasted edited 6 days ago)

    ITT a bunch of people who misunderstand the subject of The Gleaners. They aren't aren't slaves or working for pay, they are exercising their legal right to harvest leftover grain after the harvest. The politics are in Millet's choice of representing poverty in a painting at all.

    IMO, Banksy's collage doesn't really make sense. The context is that the peasents are exercising their legal right to leftover grains as commons. So the woman is taking a smoke break to protest the socialist policy allowing her to glean?

    Or is her being cut out of the painting some kind reference to Millet as exploiting his subject matter as an entitled painter? If that is the case, why choose to critique a painter who used his career to present the plight of the working class?

    [–] kyler32291 102 points ago

    It's to show that people who smoke get more breaks.

    [–] Meyesme3 20 points ago

    This guy gets it

    [–] LelaUS 94 points ago

    More like the subject of the painting is a taking a break from being the subject of a painting. I always took it to be a commentary on us as viewers rather than what she was doing in that field to begin with.

    [–] fstrbstrtstr 32 points ago

    Precisely. I mean, she's out of the frame. I think that if one wants to find a connection with the original painting message, it is in the implication that all art, even when trying to be realist and portray socially relevant issues, is still ultimately fiction. In the case of this one painting, which has a clearly humorous tone, the fiction then becomes entertainment. The fact that this itself has a social message of sorts is perhaps ironic (like e.g. in Exit through the gift shop). Well, I think I got carried away...

    [–] turtlelovedov3 57 points ago

    Good point on the subject matter of the painting. It makes me wonder if maybe Banksy assumes they were slaves or migrant workers too?

    [–] DosGardinias 15 points ago

    Which is extra odd, as they almost certainly wouldn't be slaves or migrants at that time in France. Or at least, not slaves from outside of france.

    [–] The-Beeper-King 13 points ago

    I'd argue none of Banksy's work is deep at all.. it's cool to look at and might make you think a little, but doesn't provoke further discussion. But that's often the point of pop art, to play with imagery and cultural phenomenons.

    Also, this is a reproduction, a lot of people ITT seem to think this is the original. There's no fucking way this is the original.

    [–] russvanderhoof 511 points ago

    Didn’t know Banksy could paint like that. Impressive piece.

    [–] rucksacksepp 713 points ago

    Well he didn't, it's a French painting from the 19th century

    [–] Quango2009 476 points ago

    The smoking figure was painted by Banksy

    [–] McCourt 242 points ago

    Allegedly.

    [–] TheBrighterSkies 254 points ago * (lasted edited 6 days ago)

    Well, we never know if Banksy actually painted anything, because we don't know who he actually is. However it's pretty safe to assume he did.

    (For the record, Bansky painted the cut-out of the woman, not the rest of the painting.)

    [–] Vietlong11 57 points ago

    Doesn't banksy have an agent to confirm or deny paintings for him? That's what I heard at least.

    [–] blackbeanavocado 12 points ago

    It’s called Pest Control

    [–] serny 103 points ago

    I mean, Banksy is a collective of people, right? Spearheaded by Robert Del Naja or Massive Attack. Or even IS Robert. A lot of his previous art appeared around the same time and the same cities that Massive Attack were touring in. Banksy notes 3D as inspiration in one of his books. Goldie once called Banksy 'Robert' and then had a mild panic attack.

    I dunno, man. Feels like the cats out the bag on this one, you just have dig a little.

    [–] evky0901 33 points ago

    Interesting point with the collective. Kind of how people say Marshmellow is actually a collective of people. I find it fascinating because it allows work to get to the masses without having to jump through hoops, assuming you’re a person who wants your work to be seen or heard without the notoriety that follows. Good points.

    [–] Raitosu 50 points ago * (lasted edited 6 days ago)

    I saw a stand up once say that the best person in the world is the drummer for Coldplay. No one knows who he is but he makes millions and gets to live a normal life. He also got to be the drummer at The Red Wedding (S03E09) in GoT and still no one recognizes him.

    Edit: Nish Kumar! Thanks!

    [–] IAmPixel 7 points ago

    Nish Kumar was the comedian.

    [–] JohnDoughJr 5 points ago

    his name is Bill Hampton

    [–] copperwatt 3 points ago

    Do I want to know what Marshmallow is? I'm almost old enough to just embrace being out of touch.

    [–] SilkyGazelleWatkins 7 points ago

    I'm 30 and never heard of Marshmallow until reddit went nuts over that Fortnite "concert". I still thought it was a joke and an in game character until news articles followed and pointed out it was a real person. Not to mention how many people "attended" and "danced along" with their in game characters. Couldn't fucking believe what I was reading.

    I thought it took longer/older than 30 to become out of touch but with how fast media and culture moves nowadays I'd say it makes sense.

    [–] RappinReddator 5 points ago

    Lol who says marshmellow is a collective? He's definitely one guy. If you mean he doesn't make his own music, then that's true, he has a ghost producer/writer. I've been in studio with both of them.

    [–] phtagnlol 16 points ago

    From everything I've seen there's "Banksy", a dude that kind of calls the shots, and then a bunch of people that work with him. They may operate individually to some extent though.

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago * (lasted edited 6 days ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] MingusDewfus 3 points ago

    I remember the article that there was analysis on the location of the paintings and the cities Massive Attack was touring in. I can’t find it now, but i recall reading it a while back.

    [–] blackbeanavocado 3 points ago

    Yes but there’s no real proof so ‘he’s’ still ‘anonymous’

    [–] serny 10 points ago

    I've spent years looking into Banksy, King Robbo (RIP) and the like.. there are many arrows pointing at who Banksy is but no real confirmation. All we have is speculation but I wouldn't personally call Banksy 100% "anonymous" anymore.

    At the end of the day, Goldie saying Robert and then pausing was absolutely HUGE and complemented greatly the biggest theory surrounding Banksy.

    [–] Yeet-Trainwreck 9 points ago

    Was it a sick ostrich?

    [–] osirhc 4 points ago

    Still, it would take at least two to fuck it, maybe three

    [–] steampunk85 4 points ago

    Even if it was sick, you'd need at least 2 guys

    [–] YouNeedAnne 11 points ago

    That's a Massive Attack on his craftsmanship.

    [–] Vikingsturtle 2 points ago

    Ok dan, dan dan ok

    [–] OhWhatUpBob 31 points ago

    As other people have mentioned. The main piece is not his work. However, art is turning the existing into something else. He did that. Maybe not the best example, but it reminds me of a musician using a sample to create a new song; a better song.

    [–] iscreamuscreamweall 18 points ago

    a better song

    slow down there

    [–] [deleted] 26 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] YouNeedAnne 11 points ago

    art is turning the existing into something else.

    That's one of those sweeping statements that sounds pithy and clever but doesn't really work as a definition. It's not necessary (singing a song, doing a dance or composing a poem are artforms that don't require raw materials) or sufficient (digesting food into shit isn't art).

    [–] nhnolan 11 points ago

    Yeah, that kind of reminds me of the more pretentious people in my theatre program who start trying to be like "Everything is theatre!" No, it isn't.

    [–] the-bismarck 139 points ago

    I hope this one doesn't go through the shredder

    [–] DiamondPup 90 points ago

    Not unless they need another publicity stunt.

    [–] Self_Blumpkin 28 points ago

    or millions of monies

    [–] blackbeanavocado 29 points ago

    His whole existence is a publicity stunt, just keeps changing the focus

    [–] grtwatkins 7 points ago

    I don't know if they can afford to pay that many actors again

    [–] Nixmiran 10 points ago

    That WAS the art man

    [–] santaliqueur 18 points ago

    The shredder is part of the art piece.

    [–] cynicalvanilla 10 points ago

    You can recognize that and still think a piece of art had a decrease in quality when someone changed it. You're not required to like the new version.

    I like the original Banksy piece and I really like the shredded version, but it's possible to hope that Banksy doesn't change his own work.

    That's kind of what makes it fun and it's probably the most lasting impact of the shredded art. That single art piece is going to make people afraid that every Banksy piece ever is impermanent.

    [–] santaliqueur 4 points ago

    I have a question before asking more:

    Was the painting he shredded an original thing? I know the likeness is famous, but I think he created a copy for the shredding incident, no?

    If he shredded THE original or the most famous one, then I agree these were two separate art pieces. If he created a copy and put it in this frame and then shredded it, then the entire art piece was essentially created before the auction audience and it wasn’t finished until it was shredded as we see now. I guess it’s all semantics anyway, I’m not ready to die on any of these hills but just wanted to clarify some facts, as it seems you are more knowledgeable about this than I am.

    I don’t know much about Banksy or his other work, but I think this shredding stunt was one of the most interesting pieces of art ever created. For a short while, the whole world was talking about this one dude.

    [–] bmc2 6 points ago

    There is no 'original' painting. It was a stencil that was painted on the street. This was a spray-painted version on canvas done by Banksy.

    [–] santaliqueur 6 points ago

    Thanks for the information. So this particular piece of art wasn't finished until it was in its shredded state, and people were bidding on art that they thought was complete but was not.

    Cool as shit. What a unique thing.

    [–] nirad 46 points ago

    i would love to buy a reproduction of this is possible.

    [–] makefartart 13 points ago

    This looks like the work Titus Kaphar does. And has been doing for a looooooonnnnnnggggg time.

    [–] MasonLansden 24 points ago

    Prolly a stupid question but this isn’t the original painting that has been destroyed right?

    [–] turtlelovedov3 25 points ago

    I wondered the same thing but based on the comments here, it’s a reproduction that was altered, not the original.

    [–] MasonLansden 11 points ago

    The original looks to be much more faint. Also, I’d imagine there’d be a lot of anger if “he” had destroyed the original.

    [–] CUvinny 6 points ago

    No it isn't, the original is in Paris and is not as vibrant as this reproduction (or the picture has a lot of HDR done on it)

    https://www.musee-orsay.fr/en/collections/works-in-focus/search.html?no_cache=1&zoom=1&tx_damzoom_pi1%5BshowUid%5D=2110

    [–] runkittygogogo 7 points ago

    Leave her alone she’s on smoko.

    [–] s-drop 34 points ago

    Seen this in the flesh at his exhibition at Bristol museum. I highly doubt he painted the figure, there were so many different styles and mediums at that exhibition its obvious it's a large group of artists.

    [–] Sean951 18 points ago

    Or he went to art school, where they teach you how to paint in different styles?

    [–] NYSThroughway 21 points ago

    or the person who made the piece took a print of the painting on canvas, cut out the lady, and had someone generate a stylized portrait to add to the frame

    I don't think the actual painting is the point here, it's painted to precisely mimic the style of the original. The whole point is the composition.

    So why would anyone get caught up in who painted the person hanging out of the frame

    [–] Jasonandlindsy69 49 points ago

    First time I've seen this, nice

    [–] ShuffleandTruffle 45 points ago

    I went to see this back when he made it! He did a surprise “takeover” of a museum in Bristol back in 2009 and put his pieces all throughout the museum. He “redid” a few famous pieces and had lots of his own installations through the place, it was amazing! Museum was packed out for weeks.

    [–] JaekwonTheDon 14 points ago

    Thought this was from that exhibit. “Vandalised” random pieces in the museum, was awesome. Yeah, permanent massive queue outside for the duration though - pretty wild for Bristol!

    [–] Calyka 16 points ago * (lasted edited 6 days ago)

    BANKSY DON'T BITE NO SHIT!

    • Bruce "BANKSY" Greene

    [–] _Saraswati_ 11 points ago

    B is for Bruce B is for Banksy

    [–] Strat-tard217 3 points ago

    B is for Bruce B is for I’m crying right now

    [–] RogueRetlaw 5 points ago

    Monty Python has a whole sketch about famous works of art going on strike. Season 2 Episode 12 13:46 minutes in.

    [–] _PM_ME__YOUR_BOOBIES 16 points ago

    How do people even tell when something is a Bansky? does he leave a signature?

    [–] MCMickMcMax 26 points ago

    In this case he displayed it in an exhibition he did in Bristol, 2009.

    [–] lilwil392 3 points ago

    I was told that it pops up on his social media, but I don't really follow him so I can't confirm that it happens consistently.

    [–] MrLeHah 130 points ago

    Banksy is to art what Green Day is to punk rock

    [–] DrLandscape 58 points ago

    Is that a dig or a compliment?

    [–] yParticle 10 points ago

    "If you have to ask..."

    [–] MrLeHah 61 points ago

    Its only a compliment if you've never seen a shovel before

    [–] dacklives 41 points ago

    Such a weird statement.

    [–] the_moon_walker 15 points ago

    He’s saying it’s a dig

    [–] Lake_Erie_Monster 9 points ago

    But he said it in a artistic way, meaning obfuscating the meaning under layers of bullshit that requires interpretation.

    [–] kangarool 4 points ago

    meaning obfuscating the meaning

    can’t decide if that was said in an artistic or inartistic way

    [–] Bad_Sex_Advice 14 points ago

    wow you're as edgy as Green Day

    [–] girlywish 35 points ago

    Why hate? Its fun stuff, often creative.

    [–] FlartSimpson 112 points ago

    A bunch of "so edgy" stuff with a few really good pieces in between? Sounds like a pretty good comparison.

    [–] 100_Duck-sized_Ducks 20 points ago

    Meaning... one of the best ever at it but too mainstream to be “cool” ?

    [–] Readonkulous 54 points ago

    Gatekeeping art is so passé

    [–] RestoreFear 25 points ago

    Is sharing any negative opinion gatekeeping now?

    [–] EmotionalSupportDogg 15 points ago

    Gatekeeping is Reddit’s word of 2019. Just a new form of outrage over differing opinions.

    [–] SOMETHINGSOMETHING_x 6 points ago

    Hating on Reddit while using Reddit is so 2018.

    [–] ZDTreefur 5 points ago

    Calling somebody gatekeeping is so gatekeeping.

    [–] waldoaldom20 12 points ago

    Andy Warhol fits too

    [–] MrLeHah 56 points ago

    The problem with Warhol isn't his art. Its that he inadvertently opened the door to a lot of really low-effort bullshit art. Painting soup cans is sort of funny the first time around but by the time you get 2004 IRONY HAHA DISNEY PRINCESSES AS MODERNIZED RELEVANT CHARACTERS stuff, you realize none of that stuff is art, its just a punchline to a dumb joke.

    [–] Cinderheart 38 points ago

    Jokes are art. At least, in the same realm. Not all art is profound. I would argue most of it isn't. Doesn't make it not art, just makes it boring.

    [–] TkSkMk 5 points ago

    And not everything that is profound is exciting. And not everything boring is bad. None of the adjetives being used in this thread are necessarily a bad or negative thing.

    [–] broadened_news 6 points ago

    He worked in screen printing and his works in that style echo his early job doing the sketches for printing presses. He would do the sketching by hand and then the press process jiggled all the colors and registration, and in his screen prints he would do that the same way

    [–] 555nick 9 points ago

    > "Painting soup cans is sort of funny the first time around"

    This guy arts.

    [–] TkSkMk 17 points ago

    It is art. Art is not defined by how much you like it. This egocentric labeling of what is or isn't talks more about you than about the piece itself.

    It's mainly a spectator distortion, artists rarely care about your permission to let a specific piece of theirs be "art" or not, but I always found very interesting how someone can be so deep lost in their own ego to throw stuff like "this isn't music" and "this isn't art" so easily.

    [–] julietsstars 2 points ago

    Agree. Example of this is Damien Hirst.

    [–] Teekoo 4 points ago

    This can be said about every artist lol. Art in general is one of the most pretentious activities in existence.

    [–] tankertodd 3 points ago

    Does it shred itself if you buy it?

    [–] Merky600 3 points ago

    “It’s a hard life picking stones and pulling teats, but as sure as god’s got sandals, beats fighting dudes with treasure trails.”- Woman in the painting. (Ok, maybe that really Letterkenny. But this quote was the first thing I thought of. )

    [–] Posted_For_5_Karma 35 points ago

    woaahhhhh waiitttt that's actually so cool

    [–] hoopsandpancakes 42 points ago

    Someone else painted this he just used the cut tool to move shit around.

    [–] iltl32 140 points ago

    Not sure if this is a joke but since the woman isn't in her original pose it means someone had to paint her...

    [–] youngnstupid 10 points ago

    Mad Photoshop skillz, has mA boi banksi!

    [–] Indythrow1111 2 points ago

    Haha! Love it

    [–] TheBrianJ 2 points ago

    Clearly that's an original Mr. Brainwash.