The whole "high-art = big money" mindset is what ruins everything. Just let it be. It's an image that people enjoy looking at, and it's right there for everyone to see - touchable, fragile, transient. Giving it a monetary value defeats the whole purpose of it. It's not meant to be preserved, it's just a curio that livens up the outdoor scene.
Stop valuing it so much - it's meant to be weathered and destroyed. Enjoy the art for what it is and let urban nature take its course.
This is one of those things, like complaining that the developer of a webapp you like "sold out" to a large company, that sounds nice unless it's your app with an offer or your building that just got tagged by Banksy. The owners of this building didn't assign the value; they inherited it. In any case it would be plain dumb to ignore it and I have no idea why anybody would upvote a comment suggesting that they do so.
I don't understand your attitude. Money is a very good way to genuinely quantify the value of something. Putting a dollar amount on a piece of art means people do enjoy looking at it for what it is. Unless you're defining "value" in some manner unfamiliar to me, you can't say "enjoy it" but "stop valuing it."
The whole "high-art = big money" mindset is what ruins everything. Just let it be. It's an image that people enjoy looking at, and it's right there for everyone to see - touchable, fragile, transient.
I agree but I'd like to point out that Banksy is as much a part of the "high-art = big money" as the galleries and the press.
Value in art comes from excess of money in too few hands. Much too rich people need investment vehicles, and because of this sad state of the matter art, collectible cars, London flats and many other rich toys get ridiculously expensive, completely disconnected from any sense of utility or real value of any sort.
Mayor Bloomberg's reaction is interesting - I'm curious to know when a person transitions from vandal to artist. I don't think anyone could argue that Banksy hasn't cemented a place in the 'history of art' and the books our children read that cover this period will feature his work.
In the UK a lot of people are genuinely gutted when a Banksy gets removed or covered - like something (a gift?) has been removed from the community. People who have their buildings 'vandalised' are often incredibly proud. But at the end of the day, it's still graffiti, still vandalism and I can understand Bloomberg's zero tolerance attitude. I wonder how he'd feel if it was on a building he privately owned (not that he needs the money...)?
If he says the city condones Banksy's work then he's going to immediately get asked "Who's job is it to decide which graffiti is art and which will get you arrested?" He's got 10,000 more important things to deal with so he just says it's vandalism and will be treated as such and then moves on to the rest of his day.
Why can't vandalism be an artistic medium? I don't see any reason why someone can't be labeled both "vandal" and "artist". (edit: re-reading my sentence an hour later, I think even better wording might be "an outlet for artistic expression" rather than "an artistic medium".)
> I'm curious to know when a person transitions from vandal to artist.
Asking for a transition point makes the assumption that they are mutually exclusive. But Banksy is by any reasonable definitions both a vandal and an artist. Hence Bloomberg is simultaneously cleaning up vandalism and destroying art. Whether you think this is a good thing depends on how you weigh these two aspects. Personally, I think it just makes his work more precious. It is the nature of the medium that his work is temporary.
> But at the end of the day, it's still graffiti, still vandalism
It's not vandalism if the owners of the buildings are happy to have the piece.
If I scrub a brick wall clean, is it vandalism? No.
If I glue a solid pound of gold to a brick wall and the building owner takes it, is it vandalism? No.
If I have a work painted on my property that draws crowds and will probably have a "market value" of a lot of money, and I'd rather have the work have been painted than not exist, is it vandalism? No.
If I'd be happy or even would actively desire to have a Banksy piece painted on my property, is it vandalism when it does happen? No.
The line to me is clear - tagging is vandalism, but if it exists to send a message it's art. A high level of skill is required to make art, either aesthetically or emotionally. Of course there is the grey area where a tag can be so well done you're questioning if it should be in a gallery, but by then the artist has built up a large repertoire of skills.
Well, most art critics don't take Banksy seriously, so I wouldn't count on him having a place in the history books any more than a novelty musician like Weird Al, for example. In fact that comparison makes Banksy sound more important than he is. David Blaine, maybe?
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/20...
That's terribly comical, considering it's just a graffiti piece. Banksy will find the fuzz it creates hilarious, I'm certain.
Actually, the reactions it creates could be seen as the much grander art performance, compared to his previous 'art sale' [1]
Yeah, it is really comical, but it's not "just" a graffiti piece, the same way that the painting of the Campbell's soup can it's not just a painting of a Campbell's soup can, or football is not just 22 guys chasing/transporting a ball. You have to look at the context.
What an effective display of the issues I have with art.
Only a few people want these pieces, they are worthless in a vacuum. Only when shown in the context of "These pieces are by legendary artist banksy" do they become valuable treasures, in great demand.
It distresses me the number of things on this planet that are valuable because people think they are valuable, not because they have any actual use.
I suppose their value is in manipulating others. That is a form of utility, I admit.
It took ten minutes of reading articles and comments to convince myself this was real and not a joke. You can't make this stuff up:
"A scuffle broke out at the scene of Banksy's latest piece in Williamsburg as a building manager and bystanders manhandled a vandal who tagged over the piece [of graffiti]."
"The building manager grabbed him and threw him down and was calling the cops, but the guy bolted"
Banksy most likely doesn't care about them being vandalised, he still gets to make his point and picks up the publicity beforehand. The interesting part is that by tagging over them others could actually be hurting new york, Banksy pieces have been known to attract visitors (as with the one in east new york) and may even increase property values (though never proven).
On the other hand, the residents may just appreciate the artwork and not consider it to be vandalism, but some guy scribbling over it because "this is his turf" is. Usually pieces tend to remain intact for quite a bit longer but ny vandals seem to have taken a dislike to him. If they actually responded with art (King Robbo[0] as an example) I'd call fair game, but scribbling a quick tag is just vandalism.
To be fair, Banksy put up something good-looking, and the vandal put up his tag. If you caught someone putting the latter anywhere, grabbed him and called the cops, I'd say you're probably on the right track.
It's got more in common with "graffiti on a tasteful outdoor mural" than with typical graffiti-on-graffiti.
I tried to find out the owner of a commercial building that was Banksied in order to buy a cut out of the wall from him, but by the time I had gotten anywhere the work had been overtagged :(
The whole Banksy craze tells me how much of the value in art is things being famous for their own sake. It isn't that it's art (or graffiti) that causes the problem (or value) it's that it's someone famous.
There is a story in NYC about the French embassy finding they had a Michelangelo in the lobby of their building. (It was there when they bought the building) Once they realized what they had (years later) then they had a problem. They couldn't sell, it, and it required security, so ultimately they gave it to a museum.
"Will it make us money?" and describing this as "our plight" are wrong-headed and hilarious, but par for the course in a city where the mayor doesn't see the beauty in such art.
I think my favorite one so far was his "art stand" where he was selling his original Banksy stencils for $60 -- I'm assuming these will likely start popping up in auction for quite a bit more.
I would have likely walked by a stand like that and assumed it was a scam. But if you had told me it was real and I could have bought one for $60 bucks, I would have tried to immediately buy them all.
In my opinion, graffiti is a very temporal, fleeting art form. Enjoy it while it lasts, but it's impossible to preserve graffiti, especially from an infamous artist..
everything in the article suggests they are looking to preserve this piece, not take it away from the city, I'm not sure where you believe your disagreement comes from, considering the inherently ambiguous definition of "ours". Thus far, the owner is out of pocket for security guards to protect the piece after someone vandalized it. In fact, most of Banksy's pieces have been vandalized, so sadly, it seems security is needed.
They were, confusingly, referring to 'No[v]. 17'. The prior sentence refers to a new day coming, which is 'No[v]. 18'. I have no idea why they didn't go with the accepted abbreviation of November as 'Nov'. They weren't referring to building number 17.
Just clarifying, not disagreeing with your statement :)
If the mayor was serious about catching Banksy then he would go to the phone companies and get all of the phones that were within a 200 metre radius on the night that the artwork went up for each and every piece. Then he could put them in a database, get his 'SQL for Dummies' book out and select just the phone records that are common to all incidents.
He can then go back to the phone companies and get the billing details for Banksy and his entourage. He could also ask them to let him know exactly where they are, follow them and catch them red handed doing their next piece.
Personally I see Banksy as a cartoonist rather than as a graffiti artist. He does not have a formal arrangement with the papers to syndicate his work, he does not even have to churn something out every day. Instead he gets his work prominently shown in all of the British papers, reaching an audience that no other cartoonist can. He has Robin Hood grade street cred. due to this audience reach.
Whereas other cartoonists use pen and paper, Banksy uses the side of some house or another wall as the medium. It is an intermediate form much like the conventional cartoonist's paper is. Although of value to the crazies that go mad for such things it is of no value to Banksy if his aim is to get his work into the paper, to reach a mass audience.
As for the people who have inherited the work, they could just let the boring 'tag' graffiti artists vandalise the Banksy masterpiece as quickly as possible, whilst there is still the media interest. It will then be known that it has been destroyed and the troublesome visitors will cease to turn up. They can then paint it over, to restore their property back to normal and get on with life.
Getting back to the mayor, if the trick works for catching Banksy then it will probably work for all of the inane tagging losers out there. So long as citizens report new tag-vandalisms in a timely fashion then the police should be able to get a reasonable sized list of phone numbers to work with.
I have known and known of 'tag' graffiti artists in my time. I still don't see why they are so determined to do what they do and for so late into adult life. I feel sorry for them not having any meaning to their 'art'. The strangest thing to me are the 'tags' put up in some foreign town. Imagine going to another country, a place you do not live, just to paint your tag up on some walls that you are not going to see again.
With a Banksy it cannot be said to truly exist until the papers report the new birth. With small time tedious tagging types they get Facebook instead of the media to show off their efforts. Invariably those that tag post their tags online somewhere. The phones can lead the authorities to where this is and get the evidence needed for prosecution.
as someone who in her time did millions in "damage" to the rail network your average writer has decent opsec besides the fact they almost all use burner phones on a day to day basis. they wont take phones with them on missions. last thing you want is your phone to ring when your hiding from the transit police. (what banksy opsec is like IDK ) also stencils are for people that cant actually paint.
Requesting personal information is what warrants are for.
Denying overly broad warrants that infringe on many people's privacy in order to catch one person who is hurting no one and rather than costing the city is possibly generating value from thin air is what judges are for.
[+] [-] lifeformed|12 years ago|reply
Stop valuing it so much - it's meant to be weathered and destroyed. Enjoy the art for what it is and let urban nature take its course.
[+] [-] dionidium|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baddox|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joe_the_user|12 years ago|reply
I agree but I'd like to point out that Banksy is as much a part of the "high-art = big money" as the galleries and the press.
[+] [-] skue|12 years ago|reply
And what if the purpose is the absurdity of its monetary value?
I don't believe that Banksy's goal is to have his work be seen as curios. It's getting us to have these conversations.
[+] [-] wazoox|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gettheyayo|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] iamben|12 years ago|reply
In the UK a lot of people are genuinely gutted when a Banksy gets removed or covered - like something (a gift?) has been removed from the community. People who have their buildings 'vandalised' are often incredibly proud. But at the end of the day, it's still graffiti, still vandalism and I can understand Bloomberg's zero tolerance attitude. I wonder how he'd feel if it was on a building he privately owned (not that he needs the money...)?
[+] [-] harryh|12 years ago|reply
If he says the city condones Banksy's work then he's going to immediately get asked "Who's job is it to decide which graffiti is art and which will get you arrested?" He's got 10,000 more important things to deal with so he just says it's vandalism and will be treated as such and then moves on to the rest of his day.
[+] [-] saurik|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Millennium|12 years ago|reply
When they start asking for permission before painting other people's stuff.
[+] [-] justinpombrio|12 years ago|reply
Asking for a transition point makes the assumption that they are mutually exclusive. But Banksy is by any reasonable definitions both a vandal and an artist. Hence Bloomberg is simultaneously cleaning up vandalism and destroying art. Whether you think this is a good thing depends on how you weigh these two aspects. Personally, I think it just makes his work more precious. It is the nature of the medium that his work is temporary.
[+] [-] brenschluss|12 years ago|reply
It's not vandalism if the owners of the buildings are happy to have the piece.
If I scrub a brick wall clean, is it vandalism? No.
If I glue a solid pound of gold to a brick wall and the building owner takes it, is it vandalism? No.
If I have a work painted on my property that draws crowds and will probably have a "market value" of a lot of money, and I'd rather have the work have been painted than not exist, is it vandalism? No.
If I'd be happy or even would actively desire to have a Banksy piece painted on my property, is it vandalism when it does happen? No.
[+] [-] mhurron|12 years ago|reply
When they stop vandalizing.
[+] [-] mcantelon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pippy|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theoh|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pantalaimon|12 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX54DIpacNE
[+] [-] next89|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GhotiFish|12 years ago|reply
Only a few people want these pieces, they are worthless in a vacuum. Only when shown in the context of "These pieces are by legendary artist banksy" do they become valuable treasures, in great demand.
It distresses me the number of things on this planet that are valuable because people think they are valuable, not because they have any actual use.
I suppose their value is in manipulating others. That is a form of utility, I admit.
[+] [-] yetanotherphd|12 years ago|reply
"A scuffle broke out at the scene of Banksy's latest piece in Williamsburg as a building manager and bystanders manhandled a vandal who tagged over the piece [of graffiti]."
"The building manager grabbed him and threw him down and was calling the cops, but the guy bolted"
[+] [-] dbond|12 years ago|reply
On the other hand, the residents may just appreciate the artwork and not consider it to be vandalism, but some guy scribbling over it because "this is his turf" is. Usually pieces tend to remain intact for quite a bit longer but ny vandals seem to have taken a dislike to him. If they actually responded with art (King Robbo[0] as an example) I'd call fair game, but scribbling a quick tag is just vandalism.
[0] http://twistedsifter.com/2012/01/banksy-vs-robbo-war-in-pict...
[+] [-] fennecfoxen|12 years ago|reply
It's got more in common with "graffiti on a tasteful outdoor mural" than with typical graffiti-on-graffiti.
[+] [-] radley|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 3pt14159|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mathattack|12 years ago|reply
There is a story in NYC about the French embassy finding they had a Michelangelo in the lobby of their building. (It was there when they bought the building) Once they realized what they had (years later) then they had a problem. They couldn't sell, it, and it required security, so ultimately they gave it to a museum.
http://www.thearttribune.com/The-Cupid-attributed-to.html http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/a-statue-for-a-...
[+] [-] danielharan|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sharkweek|12 years ago|reply
I would have likely walked by a stand like that and assumed it was a scam. But if you had told me it was real and I could have bought one for $60 bucks, I would have tried to immediately buy them all.
http://instagram.com/p/fa_ndFq-3W/
[+] [-] cromulent|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] recroad|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RockyMcNuts|12 years ago|reply
hacking is just like painting and all that - http://www.paulgraham.com/hp.html
[+] [-] zakarum009|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brunoqc|12 years ago|reply
imho art like this belongs to the city.
[+] [-] cowsandmilk|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NamTaf|12 years ago|reply
Just clarifying, not disagreeing with your statement :)
[+] [-] intelliot|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drcode|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcantelon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Theodores|12 years ago|reply
He can then go back to the phone companies and get the billing details for Banksy and his entourage. He could also ask them to let him know exactly where they are, follow them and catch them red handed doing their next piece.
Personally I see Banksy as a cartoonist rather than as a graffiti artist. He does not have a formal arrangement with the papers to syndicate his work, he does not even have to churn something out every day. Instead he gets his work prominently shown in all of the British papers, reaching an audience that no other cartoonist can. He has Robin Hood grade street cred. due to this audience reach.
Whereas other cartoonists use pen and paper, Banksy uses the side of some house or another wall as the medium. It is an intermediate form much like the conventional cartoonist's paper is. Although of value to the crazies that go mad for such things it is of no value to Banksy if his aim is to get his work into the paper, to reach a mass audience.
As for the people who have inherited the work, they could just let the boring 'tag' graffiti artists vandalise the Banksy masterpiece as quickly as possible, whilst there is still the media interest. It will then be known that it has been destroyed and the troublesome visitors will cease to turn up. They can then paint it over, to restore their property back to normal and get on with life.
Getting back to the mayor, if the trick works for catching Banksy then it will probably work for all of the inane tagging losers out there. So long as citizens report new tag-vandalisms in a timely fashion then the police should be able to get a reasonable sized list of phone numbers to work with.
I have known and known of 'tag' graffiti artists in my time. I still don't see why they are so determined to do what they do and for so late into adult life. I feel sorry for them not having any meaning to their 'art'. The strangest thing to me are the 'tags' put up in some foreign town. Imagine going to another country, a place you do not live, just to paint your tag up on some walls that you are not going to see again.
With a Banksy it cannot be said to truly exist until the papers report the new birth. With small time tedious tagging types they get Facebook instead of the media to show off their efforts. Invariably those that tag post their tags online somewhere. The phones can lead the authorities to where this is and get the evidence needed for prosecution.
[+] [-] x7z42zg4y|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kbenson|12 years ago|reply
Denying overly broad warrants that infringe on many people's privacy in order to catch one person who is hurting no one and rather than costing the city is possibly generating value from thin air is what judges are for.
[+] [-] stevewillows|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] confusedev|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robabbott|12 years ago|reply