I’ve just read this on the BBC. Basically someone has ‘vandalised’ a piece of ‘street art’. The artist behind the vandalism has not yet been identified yet the street artist is someone who goes by the name of Banksy (who also has not yet been identified). Neither person was given permission to adorn the wall with their own particular bit of art, yet why does one person get lauded for it and the other castigated? Anyway, here’s the link https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-51515557
99.9% of graffiti is absolutely shyte. It's neither original, interesting or decorative. If I was 'in charge' I'd have convicted offenders out, at the crack of dawn on community service, obliterating the previous night's efforts. Give them pressurised back packs, full of black paint, so that hours of 'work' is obliterated in seconds. I'd do exactly the same with any Banksys which only encourage idiots to cause all this ugly damage. If he complained I'd tell him to grow up and stop creeping around like some kind of infantile ninja. He thinks he's entitled to make a 'statement' so shouldn't have a problem with someone else doing the same thing.
I'd be quite happy for him to paint a mural on my house, I'd promptly remove it, sell it to some art nob and buy a better house.
It encourages vandalism as the story indicates, therefore not condoned but condemned, whether good or bad.
But neither ‘artist’ had permission from the owner of the wall to install their ‘artwork’ there did they? Goes back to my original point of why is one seemingly allowed yet the other not?
What annoys me most about the whole Banksy rubbish is the pretence that he is some mystery street artist when everyone in Bristol seems to know who he is. Because he lives there.
Given the way 'Art' gets defined by the intelligentsia, surely both can be considered as art. I seem to recall that when Charles Saatchi's whole collection was destroyed by fire when the warehouse it was stored in went up in flames, (why would you store a collection in a warehouse if it was worth looking at?), Tracey Emin was reported to be devastated that her 'everybody I've ever slept with bed' was reduced to ashes. There was a view that the destruction of all the installations was, in itself, a supremely artistic event and she should celebrate it as such. It seems to me that Art can be whatever and whenever someone thinks it is. There's a world out there that I can not even start to comprehend. (Must confess that I laughed, fit to bust, when Banksy's 'girl with a balloon' self destructed just after it had been sold at auction for over £1mil).
Must admit I've often wondered about that. Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of Banksy's stuff, he makes some very strong statements with his work and unlike most "artists" I can see his appeal. It is vandalism though. Always get the feeling that if someone else had done the exact same thing on someone's wall but it had no value because it wasn't "a Banksy", the proprietors would be a lot less keen to "protect it" and a lot more keen to report it to the police. Seems strange that he's almost got to the point where he's allowed to graffiti what he wants because it's good and valuable
I like Banksy's stuff and would have no problem at all with him vandalising my garden wall. I quite like a lot of spray paint vandalism street art stuff tbh, just tags and names are a bit **** to me. And I've never seen the point in going over someone else's work as that just comes across as petty jealousy to me.
AFTERTHOUGHT, on my part. Consider that the builder who erected this wall along with the plasterer who did the rendering, (not a builder so I can only hope I have the right terms), might well have been proud of their work and considered it as a work of art. Craftsmen do exist whatever the cynics might say. So along comes two graffiti artist and paint over it. So who was vandalising who?
Exactly my thoughts. I'd be a bit peeved about anyone 'decorating' my property without my permission but I do like Banksy's stuff and having the value of your house double overnight wouldn't be bad either.
I find the whole thing hypocritical tbh. An image of a child worker making clothes is sold for a million pounds or whatever ... ... surely, if the point is to raise awareness and help these children, the money would be better spent helping these children. The paintings are good and the messages important but I don't think they'd have received anywhere near the same attention if they'd been paintings in a frame ... ... it's the same situation with tattoos imo. People say they're works of art but, if you put them on a wall, I doubt they'd have the same allure.
Aye, I get the idea that waking up on a morning and finding a mural on the side of your house may be a bit of a shock like, but I'd prefer to see something like this rather than a blank wall. Actually saw this the first morning it appeared and never realised that it was a fresh Banksy. Just thought it was some Bristol street art that the council left up, and I'm glad they do leave them up, but Bansky is far too popular nowadays for anything he does to stay up and not get tagged or sprayed over, as you can see with the blue splats on the window. please log in to view this image
It's sad how inevitable it is that they're going to be defaced by jealous people or dumb kids. Cool that you got to see it.
The whole defacing someone else's work has always been part of the spray art vandalism thing. Saw plenty of good works get ****ty tags sprayed over them within a week back in the day. Whoever did this used a paddleboard to get on the water and spray this on some derlict industrial build. Really hard to get to and I still think someone would want to tag over it. please log in to view this image edit: Lad is called Sean Yoro, goes by Hula, if anyone is interested. Got some lovely work imo.
Think most towns/cities seem to have their own "banksy" now. The one here is lauded by local council etc which is laughable when , ok its far better than normal graffiti, it's still graffiti, so one rule for one . For anyone interested. The miner. The merchant seaman. The steelworker.
I guess as a general rule if it adds value it's seen as ok and if it takes it away, like 99% of graffiti, it's not.
