Anyone got a problem with this?

[Archie_tect]

You are looking at this as if Banksy has a right to do whatever he likes wherever he likes. He doesn't but has reached that stage where his work is seen as an appreciating asset by people with money to invest.

I visited a gallery once in The Lakes when a couple walked in, took a cursory look round and asked the proprietor if the artist was 'collectable'...

The value of an object is irrelevant except to those collectors who are prepared, for whatever reason they think, to buy something. Their only requirement is that it has a re-sellable provenance. If someone who 'owns' it doesn't care to keep it or destroy it then it is nobody else's business but their own.

 

[John the Monkey]

You are looking at this as if Banksy has a right to do whatever he likes wherever he likes.

No - I'm addressing tadpole's insistence that it constitutes "damage", and then the idea that there isn't a criterion beyond the opinion of a viewer as to whether the art/graffiti is valuable or not.

If someone who 'owns' it doesn't care to keep it or destroy it then it is nobody else's business but their own.

Yep.

(Assuming your reply is to me).

 

[Markymark]

The spokesman for the council that scrubbed it off gave an interview on LBC yesterday and he was very candid.

The issue was not the graffiti but the perceived offensive nature. He said that had it just been graffiti it wouldn't have been taken down with such haste. The issue is with the content. He said it was clever and that it would be obvious to most that the statement was not intneded as rascism in as much that it shows how ludicrous racism can be.

However, many people may not 'get the irony' and a council would not want, dawbed on a building, a line about being sent back to Africa as someone seeing that message can easily think that was what it was conveying.

He also said that it was a council building, the council is currently in the run-up to an election and as immigration is a key election point, having a political statement would possibly be seen as interfering with the process.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, just relaying what was said.

 

[Rezillo]

Whatever the merits or otherwise of graffiti/art/vandalism and whether anyone agrees with market values or not, Banksy works do have a market value - an awfully big one that is well tested. We could have had:

Scenario 1. Council carefully removes vandalism/art and makes good publicly-owned building at cost of several hundred pounds. Council flogs excised painting for anything up to several hundred thousand pounds. Council gets huge windfall for public benefit.

Scenario 2. Vandalism/art stays where it is. Loads of people visit to see vandalism/art. Risk of council being drawn into immigration satire row that it wants no part of.

Scenario 3. Council scrubs off painting, makes good publicly-owned building. Council makes loss and becomes laughing stock.

If I were a Tendring council tax payer, I'd be fuming at the Council's kneejerk reaction to the original complaint that prevented a more measured response. For scenario 2, I can understand them wanting not to get caught up in social commentary on immigration, satirical or otherwise, at such a sensitive election time but I expect its finance director spent the day with their head in their hands.

 

[Markymark]

Again, to be fair, it was not a council decision to remove it. A contractor (or possibly and employee, I forget) was sent out after a complaint. They saw the message about Africans Go Home, decided it was potentially offensive and removed it.

They are obliged to remove offensive graffiti very quickly, obviously. They do not have the luxury of assessing each graffiti's artistic and cultural merits in a committee everytine something is put up. Sometimes they get it wrong, but I also see that the risk of leaving potentially offensive material up is worse and could cost more that the unlikely chance it's worth a lot of money.

 

[John the Monkey]

Whatever the merits or otherwise of graffiti/art/vandalism and whether anyone agrees with market values or not, Banksy works do have a market value - an awfully big one that is well tested. We could have had:

Scenario 1. Council carefully removes vandalism/art and makes good publicly-owned building at cost of several hundred pounds. Council flogs excised painting for anything up to several hundred thousand pounds. Council gets huge windfall for public benefit.

Council possibly then cops flak for allowing valuable art work gifted to it to go into private hands, inaccessible to locals?

There's possible backlash for every option, I think.

 

[Markymark]

[QUOTE 3310111, member: 45"]...that makes it a council decision to remove it.[/QUOTE]
Was adding to post when you quoted.

 

[Rezillo]

Council possibly then cops flak for allowing valuable art work gifted to it to go into private hands, inaccessible to locals?

There's possible backlash for every option, I think.

Yes, but that's flak that can be coped with, plus whether keeping or selling, both options have public benefits. Simply erasing the work has none.

It's all a bit unfortunate really. It's reported as graffiti and councils clean up graffiti largely because the public want them to. I don't think we can seriously expect the staff involved to be trained "possible Banksy" assessors - just that the reason given for the removal was remarkably small-minded.

 

[John the Monkey]

It's all a bit unfortunate really. It's reported as graffiti and councils clean up graffiti largely because the public want them to. I don't think we can seriously expect the staff involved to be trained "possible Banksy" assessors - just that the reason given for the removal was remarkably small-minded.

Assuming that they respond more quickly to that sort of graffiti though.

If they respond equally quickly to "Immigration is Aces" or "I like cakes" based graffiti, the point may be moot

 

[Markymark]

Spokesman said they try and remove offensive graffiti within 24hr.

That's the time to attend. Decision to remove or not is taken on site immediately.

 

[Rezillo]

I know you aren't being serious, but fact checking most racist arguments will prove them to be not true.

I was deadly serious, swallows don't eat worms.

I assumed that was the artist's point, with Jefmcg explaining why.

 

[Ganymede]

Most of this discussion is completely irrelevant. I think Banksy is fairly selective about locations for his artworks, he might even negotiate behind the scenes with owners of property sometimes. The ones I've seen seem to be discreetly placed, not just splurged over some building's frontage. But once the piece has been created, it's ephemeral, done ... and gone. One particular Banksy was deliberately sited where a struggling youth club could remove it and sell it to boost their funds. One well-known one in Bristol has had blue paint thrown over it. The point is, it doesn't matter what actually happens to the piece once it's done, unless you're an art dealer or a greedy wall-owner of course.

One of my favourite artists is Andy Goldsworthy, and you can't get more ephemeral than some of his artworks - plaited twigs and leaves that are photographed as they float off downstream to who knows where, and piles of rocks that get covered by vegetation. All this stuff about how the council are philistines or not, throwing money away or not, is just silly hot air.

I bleddy LOVE Andy Goldsworthy. Saw a big exhibition of his in Edinburgh many years ago (1990?) and was blown away by the emotional/spiritual force of the work - also, what a craftsman. And a lot of his pieces are quite funny and playful too.

 

[Fnaar]

Banksy's got nothing on these guys:

http://www.boredpanda.com/er-riadh-village-street-art-djerbahood-tunisia/