*Dave Datuna eats Maurizo Cattelan’s lunch*

Maurizio Cattelan - whose duct-taped banana has become the latest virulent meme - was one-upped at Art Basel Miami by hungry artist David Datuna, who calmly pulled the banana off the wall and ate it.

According to Gallerie Perrotin, who represents Cattelan, the banana lampoons "popular culture and offers a wry commentary on society, power, and authority".

Cattelan's banana is just the latest iteration of a long-running joke that goes back at least as far Michangelo, who painted the people he had to deal with while working on the Sistine Chapel as characters in the frescos he painted there.

Marcel DuChamp's 1917 Fountain (a urinal) was aimed squarely at the Society of Independent Artists, which had set up an exhibition without a jury that would accept all submissions (and from which Fountain was rejected). DuChamp's 'readymades' were products.

Jean Tinguely's 1960 performance Homage to New York was a machine that self-destructed. With performance art there is nothing to buy except perhaps a ticket. Most of the remains of Homage to New York were thrown away, with a few small pieces kept as mementos.

Part performance and part product, Piero Manzoni created Artist's Shit in 1961 by canning his own (fortunately we have been spared the performance part). Merda d'artista last sold at auction for £182,500.

Wim Delvoye took the concept to another level with Cloaca, a series of machines that transformed food into feces and then vacuum-packaged it - a striking metaphor for art, consumerism, life, and just about everything, especially if you subscribe to Sturgeon's Law*. Delvoy's Cloaca is part performance - the machines digest food in front of the audience - and part product, as shrink-wrapped poop is available for purchase.

Finally we get to Banksy, whose painting Girl with Balloon partially self-destructed at auction. Banksy is without doubt the most socially and culturally relevant artist alive today. The remote-controlled destruction of an artwork that had just sold for £1 million was a deliberate act of class warfare - which with exquisite irony made the work even more valuable.

So yes - Cattelan's banana (title: Comedian) is a joke. But on who?

Certainly not on Perrotin, the high-end French art gallery that is basking in the global publicity. It is most certainly a joke on the buyers - if indeed there really are any. Perrotin's claim that three were sold at $120,000 to $150,000 each remains just that - a claim. Like many such claims (such as some of the red dots posted at art fairs) they should be taken with some large grains of salt.

For those attending the fairs it is - like almost all "culture" - just more entertainment. Few are educated enough to view this in historical perspective or even get past the obvious one-liners. Most are busier looking at each other ("Miami is more fun if you speak Spanish. And are very rich. And skinny too.") than they are at art. In this respect Cattelan's banana is well-placed, a spectacle (neither product nor performance) that adds to the experience of Art Basel ("I was there when ..."). This leads us to art fairs as the lowest level of commercialism, venues profiting on galleries, artists, advertising, and sponsorships without regard for the quality product or concern for the profitability of those providing the draw. This is the only relevant interpretation of Comedian.

In the end the joke is on those of us struggling to survive by navigating the cesspool of art dealers who make used car salesmen look like Mother Teresa and art fairs that strive to be the Amazon of Art with a business model based on Uber. We are the butt of the joke.

Thus kudos to David Datuna, who in a brilliant performance accelerated the transition of Cattelan's banana into pure shit, completing the metaphor and stealing the show.

Performance art is an act, an event encapsulated in a moment of time. It can only be experienced - it cannot be owned. You can buy the photograph of the event, the catalog and the book, and even a copy of the film made about it, but you cannot buy the experience.

* Sturgeon's Law: "90% of everything is crap"

For the most part, the art at art fairs reflects the changing whims of the ravenous hordes of investors banging on the door of the contemporary art world, looking to “flip” works of art like stocks. — Hyperallergic

I’m not sure if this was written out of hope or ignorance, but in either case it is dead wrong.

The “ravenous hordes” are those cashing in on artists who remain - as the foundation of the entire industry - at the bottom of the food chain. Some of the most egregious offenders are the Art Fairs themselves, which have found a way to insert themselves as yet another middleman into sales - or the hope of sales, to be more accurate.

Art fairs are highly profitable affairs - for the fairs, not necessarily for artists and galleries. Exhibition fees are steep and the additional costs for transport, travel, staffing, and lodging can make participation a dubious venture at best. It’s gotten so bad that many galleries have abandoned the fairs altogether or are charging artists to participate in them. Some formerly brick and mortar galleries now exist only on paper, having traded their rental overhead for the costs of participation in the fairs. Some artists have gone so far as to represent themselves as galleries, trading the art dealer’s commission for the art fair attendance fees (and the hope of sales).

Art fairs are the Uber of the art world, and the galleries are the drivers. The fairs provide (in theory at least) high volumes of traffic for the centralized shopping of curated art. In reality the curation is largely based on which galleries can afford to buy in. The vast majority of traffic is there for entertainment, not buying, and volume is subject to weather. Attendance figures are like box office receipts; a fair’s success is measured by the number of visitors.

The shift in the marketing of art from galleries to art fairs has most obviously come at the financial expense of the galleries. But the negative effects go far beyond the cost. The vast quantity of work displayed - often of questionable merit - is overwhelming and dulls the senses, and is multiplied by the sheer number of often simultaneous art fairs.

Art galleries face enormous competition at the fairs: rather than having an identity and place within a local community, galleries are placed in stall in what amounts to an international flea market. For quality galleries collector relationships are critical and client lists are fiercely guarded. Personal relationships are typically not built at fairs, except maybe with the art fair staff. Some galleries try to poach artists from other galleries - they look for what is selling (or supposedly selling, as not all Red Dots are genuine).

The artwork itself is at risk not just from shipping damage but also from excessive handling under high pressure in ridiculously small time frames. The necessity of a gallery to sell anything to help recoup the costs can have a negative effect on the artists in the form of high discounts - which not only can mean less for the artist but devalues the work as well (note to artists: have a clear consignment agreement that specifies the maximum allowable discount).

In the end it comes down to separating hype (as quoted in the Hyperallergic article above) from reality.

Meditations on a Banana

Art Fairs and The Economics of Art

Life of an Artist