Maurizio Cattelan’s notorious taped banana disappears from gallery; museum not particularly amused; value of missing artwork unclear for obvious reasons
PARIS, France
Maurizio Cattelan’s notorious artwork “Comedian” — which consists of a banana affixed to a wall with duct tape and which sold at auction for $6.2 million in 2024 — was stolen from a Paris gallery exhibition, according to reporting that CNN described as “someone stole Maurizio Cattelan’s notorious banana artwork — and the museum isn’t amused.” The characterization of the museum’s emotional response as “not amused” suggests the institution would prefer the public understand that this is a serious art theft rather than a prank involving a piece of fruit, a distinction that is simultaneously legally correct and aesthetically complicated by the artwork’s inherent relationship to pranks involving pieces of fruit.
The theft raises questions that are either profound (what constitutes the theft of an artwork whose primary material is replaceable at any supermarket for approximately 30 cents?) or simple (the specific banana affixed to the wall by the specific tape constituting the specific certificated artwork is the thing that was taken, and this is a crime regardless of what the artwork’s philosophical content implies about material value). French law does not distinguish between important and unimportant artworks when applying theft statutes. The gendarmerie are involved. The artwork is missing. This is now a police matter.
The Artwork’s History: Context for the Uninitiated
Cattelan’s “Comedian” was first exhibited at Art Basel Miami in 2019, where it sold immediately for $120,000 and then $150,000 for subsequent editions, prompting both international media coverage and the kind of commentary that divides into two camps: those who see it as a profound statement about the art market’s relationship to value, authenticity, and the artist’s certificate of authenticity as the actual artwork rather than the physical banana; and those who see it as a banana taped to a wall, the $120,000 purchase price as evidence that the art market has lost its mind, and the subsequent $6.2 million auction result as confirmation of this assessment.
Both interpretations are available to the reader. The artwork’s conceptual content explicitly invites both. Cattelan, whose previous works include a solid gold toilet installed in the Guggenheim and a sculpture of Pope John Paul II struck by a meteorite, does not appear to be attempting to make straightforwardly beautiful objects, which makes the audience’s aesthetic distress about the banana partly a feature of the experience the artist intends to produce.
The Thief’s Possible Motivations: A Taxonomy
The thief(ves) might have: stolen it for resale, in which case the market for a stolen Cattelan banana is extremely limited given that the certificate of authenticity cannot be legitimately transferred; stolen it as a statement about art theft or art market value, in which case it is a performance art piece of debatable quality; stolen it to eat it, in which case the artwork is approximately three years past its optimal consumption window and the nutritional value was available at any grocery in Paris at dramatically lower legal risk; or stolen it for reasons that will become clear when they either surrender the artwork, are arrested, or post the explanation online.
French galleries exhibiting highly valuable but physically small artworks face the specific security challenge that the artwork’s monetary value and its physical appearance are not obviously correlated in the way that a Monet painting or a Rodin sculpture communicates its value through its material presence. A banana on a wall, however certified, does not produce the same security impulse as a recognized masterwork. This is the precise vulnerability that the theft exploited, which is either a commentary on how we value art or simply how a thief identified the easiest target in the room, depending on whether you prefer your art crime analysis to have conceptual dimensions.
The Museum’s Response
The gallery hosting the exhibition confirmed the theft to authorities and noted it was “not amused,” which is a dignified institutional response that resists both the temptation to treat this as inherently funny (one banana was stolen) and the temptation to engage with the conceptual questions the theft raises about whether stolen art that is also conceptual art about material value is itself a form of art criticism. They have filed a police report. The police have opened an investigation. Cattelan has been notified. The wall has a space on it. The tape is still there. The banana is not.
SOURCE: https://bohiney.com
