Anyone got a problem with this?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Archie_tect

De Skieven Architek... aka Penfold + Horace
Location
Northumberland
It's clearly an anti bigotry message being depicted. What complete idiots.

That could be said of a lot of art. Most of the value lies in it's desirability and not it's inherent worth.
It's inherent worth was in the original materials before they were used. After an artwork is finished the materials have been used so they have no value. The art installation is only worth what someone will pay for it- and if they want to pay ridiculous sums for it you can virtually guarantee that most original artists won't benefit in their lifetime.
 

Archie_tect

De Skieven Architek... aka Penfold + Horace
Location
Northumberland
Well, the many people who would have appreciated it have lost out.
I still say it would make a weird greetings card. (Happy Birthday? Happy Anniversary?)

3) 'Financial' is not the only measure of value. But even by that (somewhat philistine) definition:

"Last year London's Haringey Council backed an unsuccessful campaign to return Slave Labour (Bunting Boy) to the wall of a pound shop in Wood Green.

The "symbol of local pride" had appeared on the north London wall just before the Diamond Jubilee celebrations in May 2012, only to be sold to a US collector through Keszler for £750,000." - BBC
No-one's lost out because the image has been recorded for anyone to see for nothing.
Paying to take away an art work is a selfish act... displaying an artwork publicly makes it free. Covering up grafitti on a building is perfectly reasonable.
 

BigAl68

Über Member
Location
Bath
Art is for anyone to enjoy, dislike or have no opinion at all if thats how they feel. In Bristol we have many of Banksy works and numerous that have been painted over by the owner of the properties or haters of his work. It's just graffiti and was never meant to last forever and as @Archie_tect has stated it's only worth what people with stupid amounts of cash are willing to pay for it.
 

Archie_tect

De Skieven Architek... aka Penfold + Horace
Location
Northumberland
[QUOTE 3308748, member: 45"]No. But architecture is as full of subjective and pompous ****e as graffiti.[/QUOTE]
Now that's true!

Anything by Zaha Hadid... or Charles Jencks, or Manfredo Tafuri.... or [Robert] Adam or Vanburgh... I'd better stop.
 

green1

Über Member
My only beef is that it's criminal damage.
Not always, I knew someone who was quite happy for the local kids to use his garage wall as long as they keep it tasteful and respect each others work for a week or 2.
 

tadpole

Senior Member
Location
St George
Did the scrote own the wall he sprayed his paint on? No
Did he have permission No
Did it damage or deface the wall he sprayed his paint on Yes

Vandalism is an action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private Property. ergo vandalism
You might not like it, but it does not make it any the less a fact.
 

Archie_tect

De Skieven Architek... aka Penfold + Horace
Location
Northumberland
I don't suppose Banksy cares one way or the other.
He'll think it's funny I should imagine.... he vandalises buildings- it's just that some people think he does it more 'artistically' than daubing BANKSY! in three foot high black letters.
 

swee'pea99

Squire
Did the scrote own the wall he sprayed his paint on? No
Did he have permission No
Did it damage or deface the wall he sprayed his paint on Yes

Vandalism is an action involving deliberate destruction of or damage to public or private Property. ergo vandalism
You might not like it, but it does not make it any the less a fact.
The key terms being 'destruction' and 'damage'.

The term 'vandal' is a direct derivation from the Vandals, a Germanic tribe who were big in the later years of the Roman Empire. This is the kind of thing they got up to:

King Gaiseric landed in North Africa with over 80,000 men including Alans, Roman-Spaniards, former slaves and several Germanic tribesmen with their families. They seized lands from the local Berbers and some Romans near Tingi (Tangier), from there they overran the country and spread all over Mauritania. There was no limit to their savage atrocities and cruelties. Everything within their reach was laid waste, with looting, murders, tortures of all kinds, brigandry, and countless other unspeakable crimes, without any mercy to men, women, children, priests and ministers of god. Also they destroyed church buildings.

Not much by way of artwork, it seems. Good or bad.

This kind of behaviour explains why their name became synonymous with, say, people who slash train seats, or smash up bus shelters. People engaged in wilful and pointless destruction.

Now, you may not like Banksy's work. But you must surely recognise that whatever else, it is a work of construction, not destruction. He is making, not destroying.

What's more, and what's important, he is in the business above all not just of making art (as he, and a lot of other people, see it) but more importantly of making people think. Of changing people's perceptions. Of questioning, and challenging, their prejudices.

I don't know much about art. But if - as in the OP - it makes people at least think about things like the anti-immigrant bile that infects so much of our Murdoch/Mail-driven culture, I'd say that's a good thing. A thing, certainly, that puts Banksy in a rather different category from your average bus shelter smasher.
 

Archie_tect

De Skieven Architek... aka Penfold + Horace
Location
Northumberland
Do you think the person on the Clapham omnibus sees beyond the picture or the irony, or would they agree with Banksy that immigrants should go home?
 

glasgowcyclist

Charming but somewhat feckless
Location
Scotland
... it is a work of construction, not destruction. He is making, not destroying.

That view won't always be shared by the owner of the property that's been altered, and surely it's that person's view that counts, not Banksy's or anyone else's.

What's more, and what's important, he is in the business above all not just of making art (as he, and a lot of other people, see it) but more importantly of making people think. Of changing people's perceptions. Of questioning, and challenging, their prejudices.

I don't know much about art. But if - as in the OP - it makes people at least think about things like the anti-immigrant bile that infects so much of our Murdoch/Mail-driven culture, I'd say that's a good thing.

He could do that by renting a massive billboard and doing his art on that. Same message, less controversy. Oh, hang on..


GC
 

swee'pea99

Squire
I think the person on the Clapham omnibus would have any number or responses, depending on who he or she is. The mere fact that he or she is at least giving the matter some thought is, other things being equal, of more benefit to society than another square metre of bare wall.
 

swee'pea99

Squire
That view won't always be shared by the owner of the property that's been altered, and surely it's that person's view that counts, not Banksy's or anyone else's.



He could do that by renting a massive billboard and doing his art on that. Same message, less controversy. Oh, hang on..


GC
I don't think you'd find many people protesting at having a section of their wall turned into half a million quid's worth of artwork. he can decorate my wall anytime he wants.The council didn't remove his work because they objected to what had been done to their wall; they removed it because as bureaucrats they had had the above-mentioned irony-bypass, and live lives governed almost entirely by risk-aversion.
 
OP
OP
Beebo

Beebo

Firm and Fruity
Location
Hexleybeef
Do you think the person on the Clapham omnibus sees beyond the picture or the irony, or would they agree with Banksy that immigrants should go home?
I think you are under estimating the person on the Clapham omnibus.
And (joke answer) have you ever been on a bus in Clapham, most of them would be immigrants anyway! :laugh:
 
Top Bottom