I hate graffiti. It's the scourge of every town and city in the UK and why people accept it, and even celebrate it, is beyond me.
At its heart, it's criminal damage. It creates an environment in which low level crime is perceived as being tolerated, and acts as a gateway to higher levels.
It looks shit. Why is "Banksy's art" any different from the ineligible scrawls on walls, railway embankments, bridges and buildings that we see everywhere? That shouldn't be tolerated, and neither should "Banksy".
If you want to produce art, do what thousands of other artists do - produce it and put it in a gallery.
Why? Why does art have to be stuck away in a gallery to get "recognition"? And recognition from who?
Until it’s on your property or all over your immediate neighbourhood then you might see it differently.
Quite a few people have significantly increased their bank accounts as a result of a Banksy being painted on their property.
TBH, the argument against graffiti is strong, but that doesn't mean that what is clearly recognised widely to be art should be classed as graffiti solely because of its location and medium.
In fairness, as well, in a number of major cities (thinking mostly US cities and Berlin) there are clear examples of what was originally considered to be graffiti morphing into art, just as the Banksy phenomenon has done in the UK (and elsewhere). The cases are vanishingly rare, however, where it happens on private property, it's mostly in public areas on public property (such as mass transit and the Berlin Wall).
I hate graffiti. It's the scourge of every town and city in the UK and why people accept it, and even celebrate it, is beyond me.
At its heart, it's criminal damage. It creates an environment in which low level crime is perceived as being tolerated, and acts as a gateway to higher levels.
It looks shit. Why is "Banksy's art" any different from the ineligible scrawls on walls, railway embankments, bridges and buildings that we see everywhere? That shouldn't be tolerated, and neither should "Banksy".
If you want to produce art, do what thousands of other artists do - produce it and put it in a gallery.
Why? Why does art have to be stuck away in a gallery to get "recognition"? And recognition from who?
Until it’s on your property or all over your immediate neighbourhood then you might see it differently.
Quite a few people have significantly increased their bank accounts as a result of a Banksy being painted on their property.
TBH, the argument against graffiti is strong, but that doesn't mean that what is clearly recognised widely to be art should be classed as graffiti solely because of its location and medium.
In fairness, as well, in a number of major cities (thinking mostly US cities and Berlin) there are clear examples of what was originally considered to be graffiti morphing into art, just as the Banksy phenomenon has done in the UK (and elsewhere). The cases are vanishingly rare, however, where it happens on private property, it's mostly in public areas on public property (such as mass transit and the Berlin Wall).
What about people who have had their property damaged because people have tagged over the top so now just have ugly graffiti or people have stolen it leaving damage to their property
I was always surprised when I went over to Europe the amount of graffiti there was compared to London. Some of it looked ok more street art than graffiti but there was also a lot especially tags are on the most part horrendous.
Question is, was the car already there, or was it part of the "installation"?
I've been having visions of Banksy a southeast Londoner getting fed up of that bloody abandoned micra he passes on his walk to the station every day. He spends his miserable time on an overcrowded, sweaty southeastern train queuing to get into London Bridge plotting how he can make something of it. In a fit of rage after a shit day in the office he slashes the back tyres and throws a discarded traffic cone at it. And in that moment his inspiration comes to him!
Couldn't see the car on Google maps. There are however a row of RMS lorries parked along that stretch and impossible to see if the car is there then (2024 street view apparently).
Interesting how banksy's work opens up the argument about private property, whether it means a property is defaced or damaged by graffiti or who owns the wall on which the work appears - and consequently who thinks they have a right to either be offended or claim it as theirs.
So the Peckham wolf was painted on a satellite dish but that was part of the installation so no-one could claim it as stolen when it was lifted from the roof, if reports and street view is to be believed. Possibly the only offence commuted was trespass, not theft nor criminal damage.
Compare this to the road sign that was stolen in Southwark- the council instructed the police (?), and arrests were made. Public property defaced and stolen had different consequences.
The one in Cheltenham got complicated 10 years ago where spies were painted on a party wall. I don't know the outcome but the person who thought they were the owner of the wall started removal then seemingly had to stop when challenged.
Council removed car because someone had already put graffiti in white paint on the painting. They did say they were going to cover it up to stop more vandalism
I wonder if it's a case of the Kings new clothes sometimes.
This is 'must have' stencil art work which people buy primarily to sell at a profit
The balloon girl was purchased at auction for £1,042,000, moments later it partially shredded, but the buyer decided to keep it anyway. She re-titled the work as 'Love is in the bin', re-auctioned it and got 18.5 million pounds.
Robbie Williams is said to be a big fan of Banksy, but despite this he sold two of his pieces for seven million - who wouldn't be a fan at that amount of profit?
Dunno about the King's new clothes, Charlie is usually in a fairly tidy looking suit unless he's on some wind blasted celtic hillside when he'll sport a Barbour, nobody seems to comment on whether he's been out in this, that or another whistle before. Unlike all his female rellys who get the nth degree over every inch of their clobber, must be tiresome. It was always the Emperor's new clothes that everybody thought they had to agree to like, for fear of something or other.
@shine166 have you got a piece of Banksy’s art? And has he got a piece of yours?
I do, I very much doubt that 😆. Admittedly I am a bit of a fan boy, been to all the big shows over the years, Palestine hotel etc. Prints and paintings go to VIPs/long standing collectors now days but for £1000 you can get an entry level piece on the secondary market.
@shine166 have you got a piece of Banksy’s art? And has he got a piece of yours?
I do, I very much doubt that 😆. Admittedly I am a bit of a fan boy, been to all the big shows over the years, Palestine hotel etc. Prints and paintings go to VIPs/long standing collectors now days but for £1000 you can get an entry level piece on the secondary market.
How much is your banksy worth and where do you live?
Comments
TBH, the argument against graffiti is strong, but that doesn't mean that what is clearly recognised widely to be art should be classed as graffiti solely because of its location and medium.
In fairness, as well, in a number of major cities (thinking mostly US cities and Berlin) there are clear examples of what was originally considered to be graffiti morphing into art, just as the Banksy phenomenon has done in the UK (and elsewhere). The cases are vanishingly rare, however, where it happens on private property, it's mostly in public areas on public property (such as mass transit and the Berlin Wall).
Or has it been moved due to the new parking restrictions on match days?
Good photo op though, some people go to pisa and take photos like they’re holding the tower up, come to Charlton and pretend to get bummed by a rhino
Bloody woke cavemen!
Compare this to the road sign that was stolen in Southwark- the council instructed the police (?), and arrests were made. Public property defaced and stolen had different consequences.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/entertainment-arts-28462835
It was always the Emperor's new clothes that everybody thought they had to agree to like, for fear of something or other.