Anyone got a problem with this?

[tadpole]

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.

The problem is the person doing the spraying of paint on the wall is damaging another persons property, the damage has had to be repaired at cost to someone, be it the private owner or the council. As for what it is, No I don't have to recognise it as constructive, it's destructive. Art has to add some value to the person viewing it, and this does not.

 

[Cyclopathic]

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.

Fair point.

 

[Beebo]

How would you know?

I dont, it was a joke answer, as clearly flagged by the yellow laughing face and the fact it said Joke Answer in brackets.

 

[Cyclopathic]

The problem is the person doing the spraying of paint on the wall is damaging another persons property, the damage has had to be repaired at cost to someone, be it the private owner or the council. As for what it is, No I don't have to recognise it as constructive, it's destructive. Art has to add some value to the person viewing it, and this does not.

If the art actually increases the value of something can it be said to be damaged?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

[QUOTE 3309764, member: 45"]And what was this owner's view?[/QUOTE]

I've no idea. I was generalising, not talking about a specific painting.

GC

 

[tadpole]

If the art actually increases the value of something can it be said to be damaged?

value depends on the persons point of view. to the person looking at it, there is a positive value, to the person who has to pay for the mess to be cleaned off, there is a negative value.

 

[Archie_tect]

I suppose this comes down to people's perception of worth... forget the 'message' for a moment as I agree with Swee'pee that the image helps to bring attention to the message and that can only be a good thing [assuming people 'get' it the right way]...

What would people's reaction be if a street grafitti painted it, someone unknown and without the kudos that a "Banksy" has, is it still worth preserving or is it merely grafitti?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

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.

What if his artwork wasn't worth that?

There must be hundreds of Banksy wannabes yet to take the leap from painting trains, when is it okay for them to paint your wall?


GC

 

[swee'pea99]

The problem is the person doing the spraying of paint on the wall is damaging another persons property, the damage has had to be repaired at cost to someone, be it the private owner or the council. As for what it is, No I don't have to recognise it as constructive, it's destructive. Art has to add some value to the person viewing it, and this does not.

How erasing a work valued at £400,000 constitutes 'repairing damage' is a mystery. Still, as you seem determined to keep seeing it that way, I'll leave you to it. I've said my say, I'm off.

 

[Fnaar]

On the subject of vandalism...

 

[Ganymede]

Just to mention, the bloke whose wall Bansky used in Folkestone is absolutely over the moon. Another bloke I know there wishes it was one of his walls that got "defaced". Visitors are flocking to see it and spending good money in the coffee shops, pubs and restaurants. Everyone's having fun.

Of course this is in a town where the conscious regeneration of the place via investment in art has been seen to make a big financial and civic difference so people's attitude towards it is much more playful, accepting, and open - as well as grateful for the dosh.

 

[Cyclopathic]

value depends on the persons point of view. to the person looking at it, there is a positive value, to the person who has to pay for the mess to be cleaned off, there is a negative value.

A Banksy clearly increases the value. I'd rather have good graffiti than a lot of other things.

 

[Archie_tect]

The artwork on Rome's trains and the approach from Ciampino airport are priceless.

Everyone loves it and new trains are quickly decorated throughout- the added value to the rolling stock and the decorated surfaces is immeasurable, it's a constant evolving display of contemporary and relevant art with moving and often disturbing content designed to provoke- the permanent etched glass art installations are particularly creative.

I imagine the embellishment of the London Tube is adored for the same reasons.

 

[John the Monkey]

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.

If he makes the wall worth £400,000, is that still "damage" though?

Leaving aside questions of whether the art market is rational, or whether Banksy's pieces are overvalued, and looking at things as we find them today.

A Banksy on the "right" wall could make the wall worth double or triple the value of the entire building prior to the "damage".

 

[John the Monkey]

value depends on the persons point of view. to the person looking at it, there is a positive value, to the person who has to pay for the mess to be cleaned off, there is a negative value.

Nope.

There's proof of these things being sold for the figures quoted. Value doesn't depend on a person's point of view, it depends on what the market is willing to pay. There's ample evidence that that's hundreds of thousands of pounds in this case.