But who decides if it adds value? If I had plastered a wall then I’d think I had added value to it. If someone had then put a painting/graffiti over it that I didn’t like then the value in my eyes had depreciated.
I suppose like any art time will tell if it has value or not. I wouldn't be surprised if Banksy's first efforts were scrubbed off without a second thought.
Well Banksy had to do something after he lost his sight in one eye and could no longer be a keeper, didn't he?
I don't know how it works in terms of art but in terms of heritage, the key factor is significance. Banksy's work could arguably be considered to have heritage significance firstly on the basis that it is representative of a particular era and secondly as it usually references social issues and can be seen as a contemporary commentary on those issues. Going back to art and Emin's bed. I once saw a documentary on 'what is art'. The art historian being interviewed said that the bed had no artistic value but that the art world tends to pick certain individuals and promote them to the extent that whatever they do is then considered 'art'. Emin, for whatever reason, was one of these individuals that got this kind of promotion.
Must admit I don't understand art at all. I've seen some absolutely amazing paintings, really intricate, brilliantly capturing a scene etc and the artist has been selling them for a few quid. Then someone else squiggles some ****e on a canvas and it's worth millions. I'm also convinced a lot of people in the art "industry" are equally blagging and are clueless. Does anyone remember that wind up of David James (was it a Rio Ferdinand show or something before a world Cup?). The show was ****e but I'll always remember that bit; David James saying he knew about art, talking all condescendingly before heaping praise on the "pieces" on display. Iirc they'd been painted by 5 year olds or similar. Sums a lot of "arty" people up imo
The art world is full of pompous self opinionated bellends. For instance. http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/pierre_brassau_monkey_artist
I think there are definitely a lot of people who are blagging in the art world. I suppose if you like it then you like it. I heard someone say recently that Canaletto (who I love) was soulless because his pieces are accurate and depict a scene in minute detail. To me, there's more soul in there than in Jackson Pollock flinging some paint at a canvass for half an hour.
Can't watch it again just now (I'm in work pretending to work) but this was the David James thing I'll need to rewatch it when I get a sec to see if he was as big a bellend as I remember
I'm with you on Canaletto and I'll add Turner to my list, but in general terms I'm a Philistine who likes pictures where I can identify the subject. Geometric patterns do nothing for me and some splurge of paint will not impress jut because it has been titled something like 'study in tranquility'. I'm rather fond of the modern idea that Monet's later paintings had nothing to do with high flown ideas of impressionism, or whatever, it was just that his sight had become so bad that what we see is the blur that he saw. As for Banksy, I don't get why he needs to express his work using peoples walls. Clearly he has immense talent and equally clearly he can use canvass. So what would be wrong in paining on canvass and sending his work out on tour so that we could all get a chance to see. Is this popping out late at night to do a quick daub on a wall some kind of showing off? It's a world I just don't understand but that's OK and I'm sure nobody inside of that world is worried about my inability to appreciate.
I don't think knowing what you like and don't like should be considered Phillistinism. I strongly believe that if you like something then it has achieved its purpose. Obviously not everything is going to be to everyone's taste and that should be fine. I have to say, I do like some abstract art and there's some that I don't. In the same way that there is some naturalistic/realistic art that I like and some that I don't. But I can appreciate its artistic merit and the technique or effort put into it, even if I don't like it. There is some 'art' that really does just seem to be rubbish though and it shouldn't be frowned upon to feel like that. I think overall, people should just be allowed to enjoy what they like without the 'art establishment' being allowed to decree what is good art and what is bad art. In terms of academic subjects I can see the merit in art history but art criticism is just self-justifying nonsense.
The Fighting Temeraire, is an image I can look at with great pleasure and always seem to get that comfortable feeling of familiarity from. It matters not that the paining would in no way match a photograph of the event, (had camera's been around then), it's Turner's impressions that count. They tell the story of one of the last of the great Trafalgar sailing ships being hauled off to her final destruction by a scruffy next generation smoke belching tug boat. How the mighty have fallen, But still magnificent. At the same time I confess that back in the 60's I was stationed in Edinburgh and used to regularly visit a pub/ folk club down town. On the walls of the bar, downstairs were displayed a number of, mostly large, paintings. All were oil on black background with miscellaneous 'trails of coloured paint' . There seemed no logic to any of them. But they fascinated me. They were for sale but the cheapest was, I think, about £15. I got paid £8- 8s 0p a week then and I couldn't really afford to buy it. So I didn't. And I've regretted not doing so ever since.
There have been pictures made up of some random splashes of paint which people have been in awe of and paid millions . Then there have been pictures made up of random splashes of paint which people have thought amusing because a chimp or an elephant did it .
Seems to me that censorship, whether official or faux social outrage, has reduced contemporary art to syrupy ****e. As a result Banksy's sugary offerings are considered controversial and thought provoking. Alternatively, maybe there's just no money in "nasty" thought provoking art or the world is all sweetness and light.
Very clearly the spray painting vandals are the felons here. And for the very simple reason that they did not have the permission of the property's owner to do their daubing.
I'm pretty sure you are allowed to create art which is thought provoking. As long as it provokes the approved thoughts of the day.
about 2 years ago i was standing at my bus stop and a bloke was spray painting a metal container, it was good i wonder if he was Banksy , i have actually walked past L S Lowery down roker, me mother took us down there loads of times in the early 60's and he was there sitting painting, she should have asked him for a quick sketch !. If we had known then what his art would fetch today. Anyone else had a 'celeb' encounter .
