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

131–140 of 180 posts

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#131

Post by lmm »

markost wrote: post #128
baddox wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

But don't you see, you're missing the entire point. Banksy is a graffiti artist . At no time have any of his works been capable of being bought or sold. His graffiti has routinely been lost, painted over, weathered, or ignored. That is the whole point of his work. Not only that, but often the point of his work is to devalue some other seemingly valuable thing--witness his Ronald McDonald statue[1]. Just because some…

If people enjoy seeing it it seems decidedly churlish not to preserve it for future generations. As does someone who can only enjoy it because other people won't be able to.

As for missing the point, I'll raise you death of the author. A piece of art must stand on its own merits, not the intentions of its creator.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#133

Post by lmm »

brenschluss wrote: post #90
JamesArgo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s funny he contrasted Banksy with Pollack. I’ve always thought of Pollack (and many other modern artists) as a sort of charming guy who figured out that the art industry is a weird product of status games and so decided to create positional goods with the least amount of effort possible.

Seriously? This is like saying "poets are just lazy writers who decided to create work with the least amount of effort possible."

Poetry requires quite a bit of technical skill. You can immediately tell the difference between a good poet and someone trying to imitate them. Not so with Pollock - a painting by someone trying to imitate Pollock looks very much like an actual Pollock.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#134

Post by lmm »

yetanotherphd wrote: post #31
alwaysinshade wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"banksy wouldn't even exist without what filtered out of upper manhattan and the southern bronx and was known as 'tagging.'" Fair, but we've reached the point where we can discern the difference between something that conveys a message, and what is merely a trademark. A tag is territorial and self serving - a trademark. It might have been what gave birth to other forms of street art, but its value is intrinsically le…

What you say gets to the essence of the difference: a man who wants to assert his ego, against others and the state, vs a man who entertains the middle class with whimsical, nostalgic, left wing drawings (basically the XKCD of graffiti). I think both are equally valid forms of expression. However my main surprise was with the people in the story who believe that artistic merit should determine who gets to break the l…

> However my main surprise was with the people in the story who believe that artistic merit should determine who gets to break the law.

Really? The law is and should be subservient to morality; people who've done something good but illegal are naturally lauded (and those who've done something bad but legal are condemned). I don't think any of this is surprising.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#135

Post by icebraining »

lmm wrote: post #131
markost wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But don't you see, you're missing the entire point. Banksy is a graffiti artist . At no time have any of his works been capable of being bought or sold. His graffiti has routinely been lost, painted over, weathered, or ignored. That is the whole point of his work. Not only that, but often the point of his work is to devalue some other seemingly valuable thing--witness his Ronald McDonald statue[1]. Just because some…

If people enjoy seeing it it seems decidedly churlish not to preserve it for future generations. As does someone who can only enjoy it because other people won't be able to. As for missing the point, I'll raise you death of the author. A piece of art must stand on its own merits, not the intentions of its creator.

But you can't preserve it for future generations, because the location and inevitable impermanence is part of the work. By covering it, you'd be defacing the work to protect it.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#136

Post by lmm »

arrrg wrote: post #111
GhotiFish wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

But an original and a copy of a great picture inspire just as much joy when looking at them. Yet one is treated as far more valuable than the other. So something's funny there.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#137

Post by lmm »

michaelwww wrote: post #46
mcantelon wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is interested in the indivudal or collective knows as Banksy as he/it successfully hacks mainstream culture with critical messages.

Your language exhibits a bias that says: a) Banksy is a culture hacker b) Banksy is outside mainstream culture c) Banksy is a successful hacker. All of that is arguable, but one thing we can say for sure is Banksy is interesting because people are interested in Banksy - famous for being famous like Paris Hilton.

So was Paris Hilton a successful culture hacker? I'd be very interested in an article on her strategy, assuming it consisted of more than just being in the right place at the right time - or even a piece like this one, on someone who was influenced by contact with her fame.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#138

Post by lmm »

icebraining wrote: post #135
lmm wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people enjoy seeing it it seems decidedly churlish not to preserve it for future generations. As does someone who can only enjoy it because other people won't be able to. As for missing the point, I'll raise you death of the author. A piece of art must stand on its own merits, not the intentions of its creator.

But you can't preserve it for future generations, because the location and inevitable impermanence is part of the work. By covering it, you'd be defacing the work to protect it.

The defence of the value of his work was that "people enjoy looking at" it. Is that compromised by covering it? No.

(Any measure of art preservation is an inconvenience to viewing it, but we generally consider this a worthwhile tradeoff)

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#139

Post by James_Duval »

Tichy wrote: post #127
arrrg wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That entirely depends on your definition of “vandalism” and that is an extremely boring discussion to have. It’s quite pointless, actually. Who cares about the definition of what is and what isn’t vandalism?

Do you own a building? Or may I perhaps defecate your web site, for the sake of art?

You'd have to eat it first, and servers can be crunchy.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#140

Post by arrrg »

Tichy wrote: post #127
arrrg wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That entirely depends on your definition of “vandalism” and that is an extremely boring discussion to have. It’s quite pointless, actually. Who cares about the definition of what is and what isn’t vandalism?

Do you own a building? Or may I perhaps defecate your web site, for the sake of art?

What are you talking about?

I’m talking about definitions and the argument about definitions that’s happening here. Arguing about definitions is foolish, it’s point- and meaningless. Who cares what vandalism is? The important thing is how one views a certain act, not how one defines vandalism. That only clouds the issue.

Also, I find people who think there are absolutes when it comes to this issue extremely funny.

Post reply on HN