Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 180 posts

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#111

Post by arrrg »

GhotiFish wrote: post #41
pantalaimon wrote: post #2

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] [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX54DIpacNE

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 th…

What’s your definition of “no use”? I’m quite confused by that. When I was last walking through a museum I felt tremendous joy and very much loved looking at everything. That’s a use, right? That makes those are pieces useful. It should be quite obvious that things capable of doing that acquire value.

Sometimes that gets a bit ridiculous but a blanket claim that art has no use (or, even more specifically, that Banksy’s art has no use) seems equally ridiculous.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#112

Post by jasomill »

anabis wrote: post #76
yetanotherphd wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a criminal matter, not a civil matter. It's just like if a guy punches me on the street, but I decide it was cool and edgy and added to the gritty vibe of the neighborhood. The prosecutor can still bring charges.

You are right, my mistake. Although it seems hard to press charges without the property owner's cooperation. Can express permission to paint a graffiti given afterward?

Surely not. Better question: is "vandalism" without criminal trespass or property damage actually a crime? If it's on private property, and the property owner enjoys the painting, it seems like it'd be quite a stretch for the state to establish that the artist damaged the property by creating it.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#113

Post by NamTaf »

e28eta wrote: post #45
NamTaf wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

It means the #17, as in the 17th painting by Banksy, as the article says early on.

Aha, my bad. Thanks for the correction.

It makes more sense now that I think about it; I'm almost a month early for it to be Nov. 17th.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#114

Post by joe_the_user »

Amadou wrote: post #89
dionidium wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 upvoted it because I was going to write essentially the same thing. I've been thinking about it since Colbert publicly non-invited Banksy to paint the wall outside his studio. I don't believe that dollars are an appropriate unit of measurement for life experiences. I do believe that graffiti and oth…

I don't believe that dollars are an appropriate unit of measurement for life experiences. I do believe that graffiti and others forms of street art are intentionally impermanent and functions of their location.

But Banksy isn't graffiti in general or something other people decided was worth money after someone just did it for joy. Banksy's shtick is calculated to generate publicity and a whiff subversion specifically as a part of him maintain his position as a highly paid, highly valued, highly publicized. Banksy could have gone to NYC and done anonymous graffiti for year and no one would have notice if there wasn't any publicity.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#115

Post by joe_the_user »

lifeformed wrote: post #75

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 t…

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.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#116

Post by lifeformed »

dionidium wrote: post #85
lifeformed wrote: post #75

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 t…

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.

My comment isn't direct at the individual in this article; I don't blame them for what they did. I just was thinking the whole culture that's evolved out of this is kind of annoying. Our society had the opportunity to just enjoy some cool images, but turned it into some stupid meta-drama.

The whole point of these works is to bring out this drama and highlight the absurdity of it all. It's not absurd in the sense that people are acting irrationally, but absurd in how our culture treats art as some mystical thing that has to be set on a pedestal behind protective glass. We've elevated "art" into something that supposedly only highly-cultured people can appreciate, and shut it away from the layperson.

By doing his art in the cheap and fragile form of graffiti, intimately accessible to everyone, he's giving art back to the people. It's just a simple creative expression for a creator to enjoy sharing. Yet, as Banksy surely predicted, we've tried to apply our weird notions of art onto it, that it should be locked up, cut out of the wall, sold for millions, viewable only to the elite.

There's no easy way out, because no individual is incentivized to change, yet society as a whole needs to change.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#117

Post by grey-area »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #42
Millennium wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm curious to know when a person transitions from vandal to artist. When they start asking for permission before painting other people's stuff.

The job of an artist is to break the rules.

That idea is a relatively recent one, starting with movements like the fauves. Throughout history prior to that, the job of an artist was to produce work his patron/client was satisfied with.

Some would argue that even those now 'breaking rules' have been subsumed by the massive market around art - as soon as the price tag is astronomical, and the method of display only a safe gallery, the rebellion has been captured in aspic and rendered safe.

Banksy is an interesting take on this as much of his work is trying to break out of the confines of the gallery, but he has still been trapped in a system he's at least partly unhappy with by the rising value placed on his work, and has resorted to trying to undermine this with stunts like that $60 sale. It's interesting that the perceived value of the spraypaint with his signature has resisted even that sort of rebellion.

So I don't think saying it must be provocative or break the rules is a very good definition of art, indeed, for most people, even those buying faintly rebellious work in the 20th/21st century, art is decoration (I don't mean that in a derogatory way, but that is how it is consumed), rebellion is an optional extra.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#118

Post by lifeformed »

skue wrote: post #88
lifeformed wrote: post #75

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 t…

> Giving it a monetary value defeats the whole purpose of it. 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.

I agree, and I think the message is clear: we've perverted what people call "high art". To paraphrase another post I made, we've raised "art" on a pedestal behind protective glass, as something that supposedly only highly-cultured people can appreciate. We've applied this perversion to Banksy's graffiti in a very ironic way:

People want to preserve the paintings, even though they're intentionally transient. They want to cut them out of the wall, even though the environmental context is critical to the piece. They want to sell them for tons of money, even though it's been freely given in a public space, for everyone to appreciate.

In short, people want to destroy the whole artistic value of the piece in order to increase the monetary value. I guess all that remains is the meta-message that predicts this outcome.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#119

Post by lifeformed »

Millennium wrote: post #17
iamben wrote: post #7

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 th…

> I'm curious to know when a person transitions from vandal to artist. When they start asking for permission before painting other people's stuff.

I don't see why they couldn't be both. They're a vandal when they do it without permission on someone's property. They're an artist when they decide they're doing it out of creative expression. That doesn't necessarily mean they're automatically a good artist, but an artist nonetheless.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#120

Post by foobarbazqux »

grey-area wrote: post #117
foobarbazqux wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The job of an artist is to break the rules.

That idea is a relatively recent one, starting with movements like the fauves. Throughout history prior to that, the job of an artist was to produce work his patron/client was satisfied with. Some would argue that even those now 'breaking rules' have been subsumed by the massive market around art - as soon as the price tag is astronomical, and the method of display only a safe gallery, the rebellion has been captured…

I see what you're saying, but we probably don't have the same interpretation of the words 'job' and 'artist'. More broadly, the nature of creativity is to challenge authority. Look at any time period, any medium, and the most creative work is always going against the grain. Breaking the rules can be as simple as using an uncommon kind of brushstroke. It doesn't have to be against the wishes of whoever is paying for the work, and furthermore, just because something is challenging authority doesn't mean it's creative.
Post reply on HN