In that particular case, because people will pay money for them, and in the other cases in the article, because people agree with the political messages or like the appearance of the approved graffiti better. More to the point, though, the conceptual distinction which the article is trying to draw between "graffiti", as opposed to "street art" is just made up philosophically bankrupt nonsense.
To my eye, pieces attributed to Banksy have a unique and appealing aesthetic, and the art generally is thought-provoking. He also has a knack for pushing all sorts of buttons. See his immigration piece in Clacton-on-Sea [1] for an example of all of the above.
A paint splash hastily thrown on his art is less compelling to me, on all these dimensions. Perhaps it’s a particularly well-splashed bit of paint, but even so, the closest it can really come to commentary is something along the lines of “Banksy works in a transient medium, and all things in life, including street art, are destined to be painted over” or perhaps “this, too, is art”. But at this point, that is a not particularly original bit of expression, and I’d just as soon have the Banksy on display.
I certainly think that a paint-covered Banksy could be considered art.
My post above was simply my answer to why, of the two, the Banksy is worth saving. For sure, others might think that the thrown paint is more worthy of saving, and I’m sure plenty of people think both iterations can go in the dustbin.
I guess a better question is, why is the Banksy stencil something that needs to be protected, but the work by the unknown street artist not.
Because Banksy is a famous brand, and his work has big price tags attached to it.
The whole thing is totally unique and fascinating. Banksy has developed his concept so well. He clearly also acknowledges the absurdity of the situation. His self shredding painting is clearly a comment on the contradiction between the ephemeral and the valuable.
Street art is inherently ephemeral. It's the wild west. There are no rules (although sometimes etiquette), because by its very nature it is breaking the rules.
Seeing newspaper articles where people are talking about a Banksy piece having been "vandalised", or that someone cutting out a piece of their wall to sell it is "stealing something that belongs to the community".
At the same time, street art in general is viewed as vandalism. The law doesn't try to make distinctions based on the artistic merit of a specific bit of unauthorised public space modification.
But money and fame, that's something anyone can understand! If something is worth money, then it's good. You painted on my wall! How lucky I am! Oh yeah and the pictures great too, what a clever image!
I personally think his work is pretty good. But much more interesting is how society has reacted to it.
The whole point of Bansky is that it is ephemeral and performance art. Sure, Bansky has a famous brand but if someone decides to throw paint on top of the Banksy then it honors his art better than literally auctioning or cleaning the actions of others on the art. When the painting he made shredded itself and after being auctioned for $1.4 million it was still the same price [1]. But, others who owned Banksy's did the same and they obviously lost value because they didn't get the point and that was Banksy's intention.
Its just marketing...Banksy isn't just some anonymous street artist, its a well funded art studio. And they Banksy style itself was ripped a guerilla artist Blek le Rat...hence the use of Rats in Banksy works.
Society never really reacted to Blek Le Rat because he was a legit guerilla artist and as such his work remained unknown. Whereas the well funded art studio behind Banksy work mass marketed his art, it just so happens the marketing strategy was that of an anonymous street artist. Yet in reality his work was often shown and sold in galleries catering to the rich and celebrity types reinforcing its "value", now the studio even sells the work direct through auctions houses, it is anything but an organic reaction by society.
I'm definitely willing to entertain the notion that "Banksy" is actually a collective "pen name" like Nicolas Bourbaki.
If I follow... The self professed answer in their FAQ that Banksy is inspired by 3D from Massive Attack is actually just fabrication, the true inspiration is hidden in the artwork. Which definitely fits with the kind of artist that I can see participating in such a pseudo-anonymous collective effort... But it's definitely far from being proof...
Id love to hear more if you have anything else to back up the theory!
Which is equivalent to asking, what is the nature of subjective beauty?
If you figure out the answer to such deep questions, i'm sure the philosophers would like to know. In the meantime the answer we'll have to stick with is because a plurality of people with power say so.
One way of looking at it: ask whoever owns that wall.
In my view, since he didn't ask the wall's owner, Banksy took his chances when he painted it. So they're free to remove it, keep it, or remove something else to restore it.
The value of art (in general or one piece compared to another) is subjective, so there's no objective answer to this question.
Why is this getting downvoted? This was my first thought when I saw the title. I would prefer having tagged walls in the city than polluting the ocean with a new class of persistent chemicals.
Serious vandals / taggers want to dominate others. They’re the same personalities that go to bars and look for fights. Very different than street artists.
Is this fully true? Using wikipedia as an example, lots of people go away if their vandalism is just quietly reverted. Make a fuss, it becomes a contest, but quietly just undo it as a normal part of a days work, and they get bored eventually.
To my knowledge, actual "tagging" teams are more interested in the bragging rights. If you tag a shipping container, it will eventually be removed. But your incentive isn't to leave a mark: your incentive is to just do it. Either way, this is a situation where both posts are technically correct, in my eyes: tagging teams will probably start to seek unmarked territory, whereas these "extremist" tagging attacks will be discouraged.
I guess the street art scene is being attacked just like so many other sub cultures that get ruined by the half wits trying to be part of something cool.
There is an argrument that when the shitty mainstream ruins things it makes the sub cultures adapt and create new things. ie counterfeits drive the change in fashion
I don't mind the aesthetic of street art (I'm not a particularly pretentious person when it comes to art of any kind), but I do mind vandalism i.e. changing the aesthetic of property you don't own without permission (whether the property is public or private). I'm sure someone will chime in with some treatise against private property and that's narrowly all well and good if you manage to democratically change the law of the land to abolish the right to private property to achieve your graffiti ends, but I don't see anything good or honorable or noble about circumventing the democratic process (although in fairness it's hardly more honorable to apply the democratic process to the restriction of others' rights).
As the name suggests, cosmetic damage is a kind of damage. If I key your car, it's still damage and thus vandalism irrespective of whether I (or anyone else) finds the result to be an improvement. This seems to be pretty well-within the "proper definition" of vandalism (notably, graffiti is one of the canonical examples of vandalism).
It's not quite the right word because she genuinely, plausibly believed I (the property owner) would consent to having my lawn mowed. So if you want to split hairs, we might say that vandalism requires disregard for the consent of the property owner. Note that we can't reasonably assume that someone who spraypaints my garage door or windows or etc is similarly acting in good faith because it's commonly understood that spray paint is difficult to remove and that it's not widely appreciated (I hope we can agree that 'street art aficionados' are fewer and farther between than people who want their lawns mowed--if we can't then I don't see much point in continuing the thread).
> That's not in context to the article since most (all?) of the examples to be protected were illegal attacking property rights.
I don't see how my comment is out of context. If the property owner wants to have the vandalism removed, I view that as solely his prerogative whether the vandal was Banksy or anyone else.
> This is the mainstream I'm talking about, I feel like you only support the team after they win the final. (Banksy)
I don't understand this retort. I don't support vandalism (i.e., defacing someone's property without consent) at all, whether by Banksy or anyone else. It seems like you're trying to make a distinction between Uncool Mainstream Posers and True Aficianados of Street Art, but I don't see how that distinction is relevant. As far as I can tell, the only pertinent factor is whether or not the property owner consents. Maybe this isn't the argument you meant to make, in which case perhaps you could clarify?
My point is that the way to settle the "illegal graffiti art over illegal street art" ethical argument is to defer to the owner of the property--he alone can legitimize one, both, or neither artist. Legitimacy doesn't depend on some strange need to assess which "scene" is more authentic or otherwise meritorious.
And I can't tell if I've made myself sufficiently clear, I have no special affinity or animosity for Banksy or any other modern artist.
The owner decides what stays and goes. It is theirs.
It's just complicated since the first person attacked their property. The second also, so the third, and the third might be the one they like the best, not the forth.
The doco I link is fun. It's a not bad Friday night viewing.
It's vandalism if and only if the property owner hasn't consented. If the original "artist" didn't have consent but the subsequent "graffiti" artist had consent, then the original artist is the vandal and the graffiti is legitimate.
39 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 78.6 ms ] threadA paint splash hastily thrown on his art is less compelling to me, on all these dimensions. Perhaps it’s a particularly well-splashed bit of paint, but even so, the closest it can really come to commentary is something along the lines of “Banksy works in a transient medium, and all things in life, including street art, are destined to be painted over” or perhaps “this, too, is art”. But at this point, that is a not particularly original bit of expression, and I’d just as soon have the Banksy on display.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-29446232
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erased_de_Kooning_Drawing
My post above was simply my answer to why, of the two, the Banksy is worth saving. For sure, others might think that the thrown paint is more worthy of saving, and I’m sure plenty of people think both iterations can go in the dustbin.
Because Banksy is a famous brand, and his work has big price tags attached to it.
The whole thing is totally unique and fascinating. Banksy has developed his concept so well. He clearly also acknowledges the absurdity of the situation. His self shredding painting is clearly a comment on the contradiction between the ephemeral and the valuable.
Street art is inherently ephemeral. It's the wild west. There are no rules (although sometimes etiquette), because by its very nature it is breaking the rules.
Seeing newspaper articles where people are talking about a Banksy piece having been "vandalised", or that someone cutting out a piece of their wall to sell it is "stealing something that belongs to the community".
At the same time, street art in general is viewed as vandalism. The law doesn't try to make distinctions based on the artistic merit of a specific bit of unauthorised public space modification.
But money and fame, that's something anyone can understand! If something is worth money, then it's good. You painted on my wall! How lucky I am! Oh yeah and the pictures great too, what a clever image!
I personally think his work is pretty good. But much more interesting is how society has reacted to it.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/banksy-painting-shreds-it...
Society never really reacted to Blek Le Rat because he was a legit guerilla artist and as such his work remained unknown. Whereas the well funded art studio behind Banksy work mass marketed his art, it just so happens the marketing strategy was that of an anonymous street artist. Yet in reality his work was often shown and sold in galleries catering to the rich and celebrity types reinforcing its "value", now the studio even sells the work direct through auctions houses, it is anything but an organic reaction by society.
If I follow... The self professed answer in their FAQ that Banksy is inspired by 3D from Massive Attack is actually just fabrication, the true inspiration is hidden in the artwork. Which definitely fits with the kind of artist that I can see participating in such a pseudo-anonymous collective effort... But it's definitely far from being proof...
Id love to hear more if you have anything else to back up the theory!
If you figure out the answer to such deep questions, i'm sure the philosophers would like to know. In the meantime the answer we'll have to stick with is because a plurality of people with power say so.
In my view, since he didn't ask the wall's owner, Banksy took his chances when he painted it. So they're free to remove it, keep it, or remove something else to restore it.
The value of art (in general or one piece compared to another) is subjective, so there's no objective answer to this question.
http://stylemagazine.com/news/2014/sep/03/taggers-vs-artists...
Serious vandals / taggers want to dominate others. They’re the same personalities that go to bars and look for fights. Very different than street artists.
I guess the street art scene is being attacked just like so many other sub cultures that get ruined by the half wits trying to be part of something cool.
There is an argrument that when the shitty mainstream ruins things it makes the sub cultures adapt and create new things. ie counterfeits drive the change in fashion
I guess the game will become fucking the hydrogel just like Gibson verse - http://grafarc.org/news/2007/01/william-gibson-on-graffiti/
I don’t think this is a proper definition, because most definitions include “damage” but yours includes an aesthetic improvement as well.
If she runs over your tulips, it does.
This is the mainstream I'm talking about, I feel like you only support the team after they win the final. (Banksy)
I don't see how my comment is out of context. If the property owner wants to have the vandalism removed, I view that as solely his prerogative whether the vandal was Banksy or anyone else.
> This is the mainstream I'm talking about, I feel like you only support the team after they win the final. (Banksy)
I don't understand this retort. I don't support vandalism (i.e., defacing someone's property without consent) at all, whether by Banksy or anyone else. It seems like you're trying to make a distinction between Uncool Mainstream Posers and True Aficianados of Street Art, but I don't see how that distinction is relevant. As far as I can tell, the only pertinent factor is whether or not the property owner consents. Maybe this isn't the argument you meant to make, in which case perhaps you could clarify?
To me it's Instagramers getting photos of who they are told by the media is cool with zero respect of the scene.
Banksy used to distroy other artists work. Check out Robbo vs Banksy perhaps -
https://youtu.be/ulOiB3xEkzM
And I can't tell if I've made myself sufficiently clear, I have no special affinity or animosity for Banksy or any other modern artist.
The owner decides what stays and goes. It is theirs.
It's just complicated since the first person attacked their property. The second also, so the third, and the third might be the one they like the best, not the forth.
The doco I link is fun. It's a not bad Friday night viewing.