Oh yes, so very terrible. A "living nightmare" with a clearly labelled and painless exit door. They could of course just paint over it, but no, they want to sell it and make money, therefore they have no choice but to hire a security guard and remove the wall. Crocodile tears.
I get very attached to my home. If Banksy painted on mine, I suppose I would be initially elated, but:
- I wouldn't want to live there anymore with it up
- I wouldn't want to paint over it, because it would feel wrong to do so to me for reasons I can't explain
- I wouldn't want to cover it up also because I wouldn't want to deal with stress and controversy over such
- I wouldn't want to move, because of how attached I get to my home
Comments like "why don't they just move" seem to miss the point that it really is quite rude to swoop in overnight and do something to someone's house that will make them
want to move, even if the sale price goes up because of it.
- I wouldn't want to cover it up also because I wouldn't want to deal with stress and controversy over such
Isn't graffiti art supposed to be ephemeral by nature? Banksy could have put that seagull on a wall of his own, or on a canvas.
100 liters of white latex, one afternoon, and all the troubles disappear. The art was up for a while, now it's gone, poignant moments were had by all and let's move on.
While I can't read his mind of course, I would think Banksy especially would not be annoyed with destroying it if it causes issues for ordinary people. Treating it as important art specifically is the problem here and he's destroyed his own art as a statement before.
I would go so far as to guess that the entire reason the piece exists is to be a commentary on the arbitrariness of important art, and that the real art intended was creating a situation where someone who isn’t an insider gets to decide what’s important.
These and your parent comment are all excellent observations, and I fully agree with this line of reasoning.
I'm sure there is some zen koan hidden in this story about chaining your own mind by inflating the importance of things that were never really that big a deal...
You then become immortalized as the curmudgeon who painted over culturally important artwork. Who knows how people would react? I'd say there's a good chance that your property would become a target for graffiti artists and vandals. You may have people in your life no longer want to associate with you. You'll definitely have strangers giving you the look for years to come after they find out what you did. You'll forever have to explain yourself.
That's totally reasonable, imo. To relate, earlier today I was talking with Spectrum support because after a simple service transfer a TV package was mysteriously added to my bill. When I called to have it removed the agent presented me with several options that would improve my service for no immediate extra cost (i.e. what if we have Banksy paint a mural on your house). I told the agent that I would prefer to have things stay the same as I've always had them. I don't want any surprises, I don't want any "special deals". I just (edit: typo) *want things to go back to how they were before you complicated them.
Maybe sell the art as an NFT and then remove it, or even better, sell an NFT for the act of removal of the mural, like the shredding painting thing.
(Partly /s)
> forced to either pay for the bird’s protection and preservation, which would cost almost $50,000 per year. Otherwise, they could have the mural removed, which could cost up to a quarter of a million dollars.
I don't get it. Who is doing the forcing here. Is there some kind of law that you have to preserve graffiti if they are by banksy?
Yes, actually. The US has the Visual Artists Rights Act which means an artist can sue if you destroy their artwork. France has even stronger laws where you can’t destroy an artwork even with the permission of the artist. I assume the UK has similar laws.
The US also has strong don't paint other people's houses laws. If what you say is true, I could graffiti your front door and sue you if you tried to fix it. I don't think that's at all how the law works for us.
I understood that they want to profit. But people are stealing parts or painting over, so they either have to put security (50k per year) or sell it paying 200k for the removal. They really are asking potential buyers to pay the bill.
For what I read about VARA, it applies only if you paid the artist to paint the graffiti, and later you decide to destroy it, as the artist keeps some rights even if you own the art.
For what it's worth, I don't think this would be protected in the US.
In the US, graffiti artists' rights have only been upheld under VARA if their work was permitted by the property owner. The artists suing the developers who painted over 5 Pointz were successful because their work was created with the consent of the property owners.
However, more recently a property management company in California was not held responsible for painting over murals on their building that were painted without the owner's consent:
"CCI concedes that the statutory provisions of the VARA “do[] not expressly state that the consent of the building owner is necessary.” Id. Instead, CCI argues that “common sense” implies a requirement that a plaintiff must plead consent of a building owner to establish standing and access the protections of the VARA. Id. The Court agrees with CCI, at least with regards to works of art that cannot be removed from a building without causing their destruction."
The Sun article mentions the council having the ability to make some sort of preservation order? Ostensibly this is to protect historic properties, but it seems like an overreach to apply that to a mural painted without the property owner's consent.
I can't otherwise explain how the property owners are being held responsible for damage done to the mural.
It says:
>But after the Coutts’ were told by Suffolk council it would cost tens of thousands of pounds to maintain every year - they made the decision to have it removed.
Mr Coutts told The Times: “At first it was obviously incredible but as things have gone on it has become extremely stressful. I’m not sure Banksy realises the unintended consequences on homeowners. If we could turn back the clock, we would.
“We had the council get in touch to tell us that they could put a preservation order on the piece and we would be responsible for maintaining it at a cost of £40,000 a year.
That linked article also says "Another time vandals were caught with a dozen pots of white paint and were apparently going to paint over it." so it seems like a free solution to the problem is already presenting itself, but they actively took steps to prevent that from happening.
The real villain here seems to be UK law and local busybodies. I don't think Banksy meant for people to make such a big deal over his graffiti, let alone force random people to pay thru the nose for its preservation.
> I don't think Banksy meant for people to make such a big deal over his graffiti, let alone force random people to pay thru the nose for its preservation.
His painting shredder piece suggests that he's specifically making the point that his art is temporary and that ties in with his general graffiti style. If he wanted it to be easy for people to buy and sell his art, he'd do it on something a bit more portable than the side of a house. A lot of his art around Bristol (where I live and Banksy's home town) is very much designed for the public to enjoy rather than to be traded.
It also says "East Suffolk Council told Eastern Daily Press: "While we are naturally disappointed by the reported removal of the Banksy seagull from the side of a building in Lowestoft, it is ultimately the right of the owner to make decisions about their own property."
As I read it, I don't think anyone from the city council forced them to do anything, "could put a preservation order on the piece" doesn't mean they did.
It's all a bit unclear though what the exact situation is though and why they chose to spend £200,000 instead of £200 on some paint.
It's not clear to me it even was a threat; the context of that comment is entirely unclear. It's possible the couple just asked what could be done about the situation and the council responses with "well, we could put preservation order on it, but you'll be on the hook for protection then".
Given the later "it's their property and right to do with as they want" comment, I think something along those lines is more likely, but hard to be sure.
The reporting on all of this has not been of stellar quality.
> The only way forward, the Couttses say, is to have the 22-ton mural removed, a major undertaking which over the last month has involved “reinforcing it with 12 layers of resin, fibreglass [sic] and five tonnes [sic] of steel and using a 40ft crane to take it away.”
> The Couttses hope to sell the massive work in order to offset the $250,000 cost. “We are just normal people,” Mr. Coutts told the Sun, “so we’d like to sell it and make something back on it.”
I find the [sic] amusing because those would both be the correct British way to reference the material and the mass. The oddball in that blurb would be interspersing feet.
Given that the costs are in dollars in the quoted passage, it's clear that this article is aimed at a US audience. So when reporting a written quote with sections that a reader might assume was an error but is actually correct because it's a direct quote, using [sic] is exactly the right thing to do.
This article references The Sun[1] which references The Times[0], which is probably what the URL should be. The artwork has already been removed (last Monday, May 22nd), it's not clear where the £200,000 estimate comes from since the move has already happened (wall rebuild, transport to buyer perhaps?). There is even a photo of their house exposed to the elements in the original.
They should have a protective case installed (similar to those in museums) and then sell the property. That can’t possibly be as much as $250k. Then have someone clean it periodically.
There are probably ways to profit off of it without selling though.
This title is misleading. The $250k is the cost to remove the brick walls its painted on if they want to sell the mural, not something that is being forced upon them.
Come on, it's clear this article is just a way for them to find a buyer for the mural. If someone puts a painting on your property without your permission it's called graffiti and you have the right to just paint it over.
Why will they not do that? Did Banksy come over one day with a contract saying "hey, I'd like to paint here, sign on the dotted line you'll care for the thing forever"? I doubt that. They probably are trying to extract as much value from it as possible (as anyone else would in their position). Do I blame them? Of course not. Do I belive their "struggle"? Not really.
They're not hiding that, quoted at the end 'we are just normal people, we want to make something back from it' and gives an example of another one that was (carefully) removed and sold for a tidy sum.
If banksy painted on my house I would paint over it, I really don’t give a rats ass about their art and I think vandalizing people’s home is distasteful.
I think he's a disgrace to artists (if he even is an artist) and a menace to society if he's literally vandalising private property like this. I know the arguments people have against that and I don't care, get a canvas like the rest of us.
Some of it, yes, but definitely not all of it. Don't pretend they had to pay 250k. It wouldn't have cost more than a couple hundred just to paint over it.
> “We are just normal people,” Mr. Coutts told the Sun, “so we’d like to sell it and make something back on it.”
The normal people approach to vandalism is to just paint it over and continue your life. These people are gamblers who are spending 250k on a lottery ticket that might not pay out.
97 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 162 ms ] threadThis just adds to the "cry me a river" vibe.
- I wouldn't want to live there anymore with it up
- I wouldn't want to paint over it, because it would feel wrong to do so to me for reasons I can't explain
- I wouldn't want to cover it up also because I wouldn't want to deal with stress and controversy over such
- I wouldn't want to move, because of how attached I get to my home
Comments like "why don't they just move" seem to miss the point that it really is quite rude to swoop in overnight and do something to someone's house that will make them want to move, even if the sale price goes up because of it.
Isn't graffiti art supposed to be ephemeral by nature? Banksy could have put that seagull on a wall of his own, or on a canvas.
100 liters of white latex, one afternoon, and all the troubles disappear. The art was up for a while, now it's gone, poignant moments were had by all and let's move on.
I'm sure there is some zen koan hidden in this story about chaining your own mind by inflating the importance of things that were never really that big a deal...
If nobody wants it, let it go and paint it over.
I don't get it. Who is doing the forcing here. Is there some kind of law that you have to preserve graffiti if they are by banksy?
For what I read about VARA, it applies only if you paid the artist to paint the graffiti, and later you decide to destroy it, as the artist keeps some rights even if you own the art.
In the US, graffiti artists' rights have only been upheld under VARA if their work was permitted by the property owner. The artists suing the developers who painted over 5 Pointz were successful because their work was created with the consent of the property owners.
However, more recently a property management company in California was not held responsible for painting over murals on their building that were painted without the owner's consent:
"CCI concedes that the statutory provisions of the VARA “do[] not expressly state that the consent of the building owner is necessary.” Id. Instead, CCI argues that “common sense” implies a requirement that a plaintiff must plead consent of a building owner to establish standing and access the protections of the VARA. Id. The Court agrees with CCI, at least with regards to works of art that cannot be removed from a building without causing their destruction."
https://casetext.com/case/canilao-v-city-commercial-invs
EDIT: -Chicago +California
I can't otherwise explain how the property owners are being held responsible for damage done to the mural.
It says: >But after the Coutts’ were told by Suffolk council it would cost tens of thousands of pounds to maintain every year - they made the decision to have it removed.
Mr Coutts told The Times: “At first it was obviously incredible but as things have gone on it has become extremely stressful. I’m not sure Banksy realises the unintended consequences on homeowners. If we could turn back the clock, we would.
“We had the council get in touch to tell us that they could put a preservation order on the piece and we would be responsible for maintaining it at a cost of £40,000 a year.
His painting shredder piece suggests that he's specifically making the point that his art is temporary and that ties in with his general graffiti style. If he wanted it to be easy for people to buy and sell his art, he'd do it on something a bit more portable than the side of a house. A lot of his art around Bristol (where I live and Banksy's home town) is very much designed for the public to enjoy rather than to be traded.
As I read it, I don't think anyone from the city council forced them to do anything, "could put a preservation order on the piece" doesn't mean they did.
It's all a bit unclear though what the exact situation is though and why they chose to spend £200,000 instead of £200 on some paint.
Given the later "it's their property and right to do with as they want" comment, I think something along those lines is more likely, but hard to be sure.
The reporting on all of this has not been of stellar quality.
> The only way forward, the Couttses say, is to have the 22-ton mural removed, a major undertaking which over the last month has involved “reinforcing it with 12 layers of resin, fibreglass [sic] and five tonnes [sic] of steel and using a 40ft crane to take it away.”
> The Couttses hope to sell the massive work in order to offset the $250,000 cost. “We are just normal people,” Mr. Coutts told the Sun, “so we’d like to sell it and make something back on it.”
[0]: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/homeowners-spend-200-000-... [1]: https://www.the-sun.com/news/8193316/huge-bansky-mural-plast...
There are probably ways to profit off of it without selling though.
Why will they not do that? Did Banksy come over one day with a contract saying "hey, I'd like to paint here, sign on the dotted line you'll care for the thing forever"? I doubt that. They probably are trying to extract as much value from it as possible (as anyone else would in their position). Do I blame them? Of course not. Do I belive their "struggle"? Not really.
https://schulzmuseum.org/timeline/8497/
(Charles Schulz was the artist who created the Peanuts cartoon with Charlie Brown, Snoopy and others...)
Besides you forget the house owners here were happy: initially they thought it was cool. Then, instead of painting over it, they sold it for a profit.
So they can take that profit to pay for 250k
The normal people approach to vandalism is to just paint it over and continue your life. These people are gamblers who are spending 250k on a lottery ticket that might not pay out.