The Washington Post

A photo of a 4chan post sold for almost $100,000, because ‘art’


A framed photo of a post from the forum 4chan sold for $90,900 on eBay over the weekend.

Nope, that’s not a typo. That’s two nines and three zeroes. That’s almost twice the median annual household income in 2013.

“Art used to be something to cherish / Now literally anything could be art / This post is art,” reads the 4chan post.

“This auction is for a One of a Kind work of art by Anonymous,” reads the listing, which opened bids at $500. “This work is untitled. This item will be shipped in a frame for convenience. This artwork will be sold with no refunds accepted.”

And indeed, the artwork was sold Aug. 1, after 45 bids, by an eBay seller named Xhacker02, who has not elaborated further on the “One of a Kind work.”

But wait, Xhacker02!! We have so many questions. Like, doesn’t the mysterious Anonymous own this “work” of “art,” not Xhacker02? And is this whole thing just an elaborate joke? And even if it is, does it still qualify as art??

A screenshot from eBay. (eBay)
A screenshot from eBay. (eBay)

Questions one and two are easily answered: It’s clearly a photo of a computer screen, not a screenshot, so Xhacker02 owns it. And this being 4chan, the probability that it’s a hoax is overwhelming — although the winning bidder has a long history on the site and hasn’t retracted any other bids in the past six months. That said, eBay does allow sellers and buyers to agree to cancel bids — so if Xhacker02 and the winning bidder are in cahoots, money will never change hands. And we will never know!

As for the art issue, we’ll leave that to someone who hasn’t SMH-ed her way through many a modern art museum. But, for the record, a wooden plank with two pom-poms on it was exhibited at last year’s Frieze Art Fair. And in 2011, the conceptual art duo Praxis — in collaboration with James Franco, naturally — raised more than $16,000 for a “non-visible art museum.” In other words, a museum of … nothing.

“Art itself is nothing,” the artists (“artists”?) explained in their confounding manifesto.

Under that definition, at least, the 4chan post seems to qualify. As does the 4chan-post-art-auction-hoax, if that’s indeed what’s going down here.

Caitlin Dewey is The Post’s digital culture critic. Follow her on Twitter @caitlindewey or subscribe to her daily newsletter on all things Internet. (



Success! Check your inbox for details. You might also like:

Please enter a valid email address

See all newsletters

Show Comments
Most Read



Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Your Three. Videos curated for you.
Play Videos
Don’t be ‘that’ sports parent | On Parenting
Miss Manners: The technology's changed, but the rules are the same
A flood of refugees from Syria but only a trickle to America
Play Videos
John Lewis, 'Marv the Barb' and the politics of barber shops
Kids share best advice from mom
Using Fitbit to help kids lose weight
Play Videos
This man's job is binge-watching for Netflix
Transgender swimmer now on Harvard men's team
Portland's most important meal of the day
Play Videos
5 ways to raise girls to be leaders
How much can one woman eat?
The signature drink of New Orleans
Next Story
Caitlin Dewey · August 5, 2014

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.