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

141–150 of 180 posts

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#141

Post by wazoox »

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…

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.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#142

Post by pfortuny »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #80
md224 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a nice aphorism, but it's too vague; obviously we wouldn't condone artists breaking rules against child abuse or murder. Figuring out where to draw the line is the hard part. One could argue that if an artist breaks a law to make a statement (about either the law itself or wider sociological issues), then your perspective of the morality of the act could be influenced by whether or not you agree with the artis…

Okay, fair point. I'll revise: the job of an artist is to break the rules intelligently. Also, I think you're conflating legality and morality. I can think of situations for all 8 cases of (legal|illegal)(moral|immoral)(agree|disagree). However, you're probably right that agreement/disagreement influences morality judgments.

So probably neither Raphael nor obviously Murillo nor Gongora nor probably any romantic poet were artists. Not to talk about the Egyptians.

I do not know about Shakespeare 'breaking' any rules, or any pre-XIX Century painter. Or the Greeks, you know? What rules did the Parthenon's architect break? Or the sculptor of the Laocoon group?

The 'breaking rules' stuff is all very well for some things but it is not the definition of art. Please.

(Spanish examples because I am a Spaniard, but you understand).

Edit: romantical/romantic.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#143

Post by Theodores »

x7z42zg4y wrote: post #107
Theodores wrote: post #77

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 det…

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.

> "stencils are for people that cant actually paint."

That is a bit like saying that those that use a sewing machine for embroidery cannot sew. Or musicians that use a computer cannot perform live. Or writers that use word processors 'cant' use punctuation.

Banksy has a style, technique and message that makes his work his, and highly regarded by untold millions of people. People that do gormless tags (most graffiti 'artists') have just the tag.

There is a difference between art and craft. So what if you have learned the craft, i.e. how to hold a spray can, it does not make it art. There is more to it than that. You have to find a voice deeper than a tag.

'Opsec' is a confabulated word to describe 'trying not to get caught'. Obviously anyone committing a crime does what they consider prudent to not get caught. However, the intelligence level of a tag 'artist' is not that high, hence, when they do get caught there is invariably pictures of their tags on their mobile phone and facebook-instagram-whatever page. So, the HN reading you might be that clever at 'opsec' to not get caught, but, the rest of those taggers out there - fish in a barrel (if only the police didn't have such small fish to dry).

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#145

Post by alwaysinshade »

lmm wrote: post #134
yetanotherphd wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"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)"

Really thoughtful response. I think that really captures the spirit of what people find attractive in modern day Robin Hoods like Dread Pirate Roberts, Satoshi Nakamoto and, in the art world, Banksy (consider that they could be collectives, not individuals). People would argue it's romance, and wouldn't necessarily be wrong, but the core of our admiration is fighting things which inhibit progress.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#146

Post by epo »

mcantelon wrote: post #57
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…

Banksy is adept at leveraging the Streisand effect.

You badly misunderstand something. The Streisand effect is an unintended consequence whereby trying to minimise attention actually increases it. "Banksy" has known all along that maintaining the mystique of secrecy would create attention where otherwise there would be none. So the exact opposite of the Streisand effect. His secrecy is to create attention, not avoid it.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#147

Post by icebraining »

lmm wrote: post #138
icebraining wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

we generally consider this a worthwhile tradeoff

Yes, generally we do, and I'd agree for graffiti done in canvas or similar mediums, but I think street art is an obvious exception, since the canvas is the whole street. You could only preserve the artwork by preserving at least the whole building, and possibly more than that.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#148

Post by lmm »

icebraining wrote: post #147
lmm wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

we generally consider this a worthwhile tradeoff Yes, generally we do, and I'd agree for graffiti done in canvas or similar mediums, but I think street art is an obvious exception, since the canvas is the whole street. You could only preserve the artwork by preserving at least the whole building, and possibly more than that.

Are people going to enjoy looking at it less if the building changes (assuming the painted part doesn't)? My guess is that the overwhelming majority of the enjoyment will be preserved.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#149

Post by thibauts »

pippy wrote: post #19
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…

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.

Writers used to have some untold rules. Nevertheless tagging / grafiti is at its core, and before being an art form, a subversive means of expression for people that usually are invisible.

Why do you think writers use names like ads ? This is a quest for identity by people that have essentialy been made transparent and ignored by society. They reclaim urban space. "This is mine too, it has my name on it". "You can't do as if I didn't exist".

Being the target of such vandalism is no fun, for sure. I have been. When I did, I tried to remind myself tags are scars forgotten kids draw into average and blind people's landscape.

In this world of writers Banksy is a pacifist. He's addressing average people in their own language. He's talking to us with subtlety and good points, he's touching us, instead of shouting on us.

Be it him or any other writer, don't kill the messenger. If tags are pimples, then our society is sick. Would removing the symptoms cure the disease ? I doubt it, and I guess you do too. We know this all too well for a long time but still don't act on it as a group. These are only reminders, or first symptoms, of what is to come if we continue to indebt ourselves to other human beings. They'll reclaim.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#150

Post by WA »

ojbyrne wrote: post #63
harryh wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mayor Bloomberg's reaction is obvious. 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.

I found this interesting to compare/contrast: "For $41 million — what Citibank paid to sponsor the program for five years — our city bikes became Citi Bikes. To make certain you don’t forget this fact, a Citi Bike sign hangs in front of the handlebars, Citi Bike is printed twice on the frame, and a Citi Bike billboard drapes the rear wheel on both sides. The font is the familiar Citibank font and the Citibank signatu…

Haha funny, I was in NYC recently as a tourist and my brother and I, we rented the bikes for a couple days to drive around. I know Citibank, but I didn't pay the slightest attention that the Citibike has anything to do with the bank.

There is no way to see a Citi Bike without thinking Citibank

If I consider my own experience, I'd say it's pretty easy to miss on that.

Post reply on HN