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

151–160 of 180 posts

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#151

Post by Tichy »

arrrg wrote: post #140
Tichy wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

presumably if you want to make a law about it, you have to define it somehow. What solution do you propose?

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#152

Post by 001sky »

epo wrote: post #146
mcantelon wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

/Ironic/ use of the streisand effect == the Banksy effect

There ya go...

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#153

Post by dsuth »

epo wrote: post #146
mcantelon wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Streisand effect in this case would be Mayor Bloomberg's reaction, threatening to destroy any of Banksy's artwork found and arrest him if possible.

Honestly, he couldn't pay for that kind of publicity, and unless the good Mayor is actually in on it, Banksy must be grinning from ear to ear at the irony.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#154

Post by [deleted] »

epo wrote: post #146
mcantelon wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#155

Post by twoodfin »

joe_the_user wrote: post #114
Amadou wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Unlikely. His shopworn "social commentary" is typically a dead giveaway. ("I remember when all this was trees.")

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#156

Post by dsuth »

lmm wrote: post #136
arrrg wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

Original artworks have greater value due to scarcity. It's pretty simple supply/demand - if everyone wants artwork from a certain artist, those pieces become more valuable. The same reason the value of artwork tends to spike after an artists death - no more artworks will be produced, so there is a definite cap on the amount of art.

Mayor Bloomberg's statement that he intends to target Banksy's artworks to destroy them will make them very valuable indeed, in a "last chance to see" way.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#157

Post by lmm »

dsuth wrote: post #156
lmm wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 f…

Original artworks have greater value due to scarcity. It's pretty simple supply/demand - if everyone wants artwork from a certain artist, those pieces become more valuable. The same reason the value of artwork tends to spike after an artists death - no more artworks will be produced, so there is a definite cap on the amount of art. Mayor Bloomberg's statement that he intends to target Banksy's artworks to destroy the…

Just making something scarce doesn't inherently make it valuable; there needs to be some reason it's "better" than non-scarce equivalents.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#158

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#159

Post by rejoinder »

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?

One hopes you'll use the bit bucket.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#160

Post by Tichy »

James_Duval wrote: post #139
Tichy wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, it would be for the sake of art. You'd be surprised by the kind of things people do for art.
Post reply on HN