Original art by Banksy is reportedly valued at millions of £ or $ [0]
The BBC says "Banksy works cost public almost £150k" because "The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) says it has spent £50,000 trying to remove paint from the wall of the Grade II-listed building in Carey Street."
Therefore, the title is incorrect. The cost to the public is much more than £150k. The Ministry's damage to this freely-contributed artwork has probably already cost the public a few million £, not just £150k
The article's photo of the art barricaded from public view with two security people standing guard in front of it speaks even louder than the original artwork.
And then, further down in the article, the picture of a whole structure built to block the view of the piece, with a locked door. Satire writing itself!
The Banksy cost-benefit and clean-protect loops are part of my favorite modern civic dialogs. I like it when the BBC takes the obvious side of the establishment because it is honest.
It costs only 150k? Pay the man. Its public art. Its art, and a damn sight better than the advertisements, wait... are you comparing art to ads? Get the ads to pay for the art? This article is merely government propiganda. Oh Charles... wake up! Knight Banksy noe..
Why does it take 85k to remove it from the wall? I'm pretty sure it doesn't cost that much. There is some ridiculous government inefficiency or embezzling happening or some kind of learned helplessness or malicious compliance. Just go, wash it off and done.
For the comments questioning why the MoJ are doing this, and the reason for the costs, the information can be found in the article:
> A HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) spokesperson said: "The Royal Courts of Justice is a listed building and HMCTS are obliged to maintain its original character."
This is the why. HMCTS don't have the option to "just leave it" because they're obligated by legislation to remove the graffiti. Discussions about whether it'll bring in tourism are irrelevant to the discussion. The law requires the listed building to be maintained in its original state, so the government department follows the law.
As for the costs:
> Court staff barricaded off the area and guarded it. Attempts to clean off the mural began immediately.
> Westminster City Council will have to inspect the wall and if the removal is deemed incomplete, another cleaning method will have to be used.
> As a final option, the affected stonework may have to be removed and replaced.
> A Listed Building Consent (LBC) application has been submitted for the installation of railings across the wall that Banksy targeted.
All of this costs money, it's not just a case of putting a bit of turps on the wall and job done. It'll require experts to remove it without causing further damage.
> Laws are not set in stone, and the first step towards changing them is having the discussion.
You’re correct but missing the point entirely. I’m answering “why are the MoJ spending money on this?” Whether one should change the law is irrelevant to answering that question.
Banksy is an establishment-approved protestor, they promote him regularly [1]. His artwork is regularly on display in galleries [2]. They could easily seize the works to pay for costs, but don't. His name is supposedly Robin Gunningham from Bristol [3], they could take him to court. The whole thing is ridiculous.
In case it's not clear from the story: a big part of the expense here is that the mural was painted onto the Royal Courts of Justice building, which is a Grade I preserved building, putting it in the same tier of building preservation as the Tower of London and the Palace of Westminster. Some of the things you'd do to get graffiti off a subway tunnel wall or a brutalist municipal building in the US (like using a high-powered pressure washer) can't be done to the RCJ building without risking damage to the structure.
>the mural was painted onto the Royal Courts of Justice building, which is a Grade I preserved building, putting it in the same tier of building preservation as the Tower of London and the Palace of Westminster.
The section in question is not a Grade I preserved building, it's Grade II, which is a significantly less stringent standard. That building is in fact a quasi-brutalist tower built in 1968[0], adjacent to a much older building.
Ironically, in that picture you can see that the wall just above the mural was already badly defaced by the installation and removal of security cameras during several decades.
The scars and drilled holes from old, removed cameras and wiring are still plainly visible. Contrary to its rapid reaction to the mural, the government has made no attempt to repair this self-inflicted damage, which calls into question the whole argument about protecting the building
(You can verify that the damage has been there for decades, by looking at older Google Streetview pictures back to 2008).
25 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 7.8 ms ] threadThe BBC says "Banksy works cost public almost £150k" because "The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) says it has spent £50,000 trying to remove paint from the wall of the Grade II-listed building in Carey Street."
Therefore, the title is incorrect. The cost to the public is much more than £150k. The Ministry's damage to this freely-contributed artwork has probably already cost the public a few million £, not just £150k
[0] https://www.dawsonsauctions.co.uk/news-item/how-much-is-an-o...
It seems like someone doesn't get the symbolism of the Banksy piece.
how much does graffiti cost the public in general?
And then, further down in the article, the picture of a whole structure built to block the view of the piece, with a locked door. Satire writing itself!
If they're so concerned about cost, why not do what you'd do with any other vandal with a spray paint can...
Immediately paint over it with grey paint to neutralize the "blight", then efficiently do a deeper clean / removal / repair the facade.
Seems like they gave the Banksy very special treatment of fence, guards, etc. and now are paying for the side effects of that.
How in the world do you spend £50k to remove a graffiti?
> A HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) spokesperson said: "The Royal Courts of Justice is a listed building and HMCTS are obliged to maintain its original character."
This is the why. HMCTS don't have the option to "just leave it" because they're obligated by legislation to remove the graffiti. Discussions about whether it'll bring in tourism are irrelevant to the discussion. The law requires the listed building to be maintained in its original state, so the government department follows the law.
As for the costs:
> Court staff barricaded off the area and guarded it. Attempts to clean off the mural began immediately.
> Westminster City Council will have to inspect the wall and if the removal is deemed incomplete, another cleaning method will have to be used.
> As a final option, the affected stonework may have to be removed and replaced.
> A Listed Building Consent (LBC) application has been submitted for the installation of railings across the wall that Banksy targeted.
All of this costs money, it's not just a case of putting a bit of turps on the wall and job done. It'll require experts to remove it without causing further damage.
No, it's not - it's very relevant. Laws are not set in stone, and the first step towards changing them is having the discussion.
> The law requires the listed building to be maintained in its original state, so the government department follows the law.
This is true, but is orthogonal to the point above.
You’re correct but missing the point entirely. I’m answering “why are the MoJ spending money on this?” Whether one should change the law is irrelevant to answering that question.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cp7r8vglgj1t
[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz91zpgn43do
[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98q8llqq4po
The section in question is not a Grade I preserved building, it's Grade II, which is a significantly less stringent standard. That building is in fact a quasi-brutalist tower built in 1968[0], adjacent to a much older building.
The site of the mural is visible here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Queen%27...
Ironically, in that picture you can see that the wall just above the mural was already badly defaced by the installation and removal of security cameras during several decades.
The scars and drilled holes from old, removed cameras and wiring are still plainly visible. Contrary to its rapid reaction to the mural, the government has made no attempt to repair this self-inflicted damage, which calls into question the whole argument about protecting the building
(You can verify that the damage has been there for decades, by looking at older Google Streetview pictures back to 2008).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Courts_of_Justice_(Banks...