21–30 of 37 posts
I have a suspicion Banksy is the one behind the vandalism too. The vandalism has been so consistent, and it would be in line with his MO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can tell easily that none of this was done by "local street artists." It's an example of the difference between vandalism and art.
'Local street artists' are still vandals, as is Bansky. The difference is if you like the vandalism or not.
I have a suspicion Banksy is the one behind the vandalism too. The vandalism has been so consistent, and it would be in line with his MO.
[0] http://whatyouwrite.com/2013/10/11/east-new-york-residents-c...
Interesting that this is called "vandalism" and not "art".
It's about the intention. Banksy's intention was to create art. The other guy's intention was to destroy. You can see art in destruction if you want, but the guy's intention clearly was to vandalize. Same reason why Jackson Pollock's pieces sell for millions and I couldn't sell the stain in my garage for a dollar. Even though one could see art in that stain (just like one can see art in nature) having a car with a le…
These throw ups are making a real statement and it is this:
Banksy is no longer a street artist. He's chosen to give that up by selling out and his work is worth less than a shitty throw up to those in the scene.
I have a suspicion Banksy is the one behind the vandalism too. The vandalism has been so consistent, and it would be in line with his MO.
Interesting thought. I'd disagree only because I saw a video[0] where NY residents are not only threatening to destroy these art installs but charging people that want to experience it. [0] http://whatyouwrite.com/2013/10/11/east-new-york-residents-c...
And now that Banksy has "blessed" it with one of his pieces, suddenly people who scoffed at the idea of ever stepping foot in ENY are arriving in droves.
Think about that for a second: people who look down on you, who do everything they can to "contain" the effects of your neighborhood, are now tourists. Not only are they tourists, they are tourists visiting in worship of a figure who has appropriated one of the primary cultural elements of poor urban areas and made it aesthetically and thematically palatable to the wealthy.
I'd be pissed too.
the vandals who spray directly over it because it is a banksy are just butt hurt idiots, but it is interesting to see the cacophony of graffitti that springs up around his work, almost as if taggers think, "oh we can paint here". no imaination in tagging, never has been never will be. its the equivalent of a dog pissing on a lamppost.
or a fire hydrant: http://instagram.com/p/fAawhRK-xY/ :)
This happens in London too, although usually it takes a little longer. Banky's "residence" in New York is clearly not being as appreciated by the local street artists as he was intending.
You can tell easily that none of this was done by "local street artists." It's an example of the difference between vandalism and art.
"§ 10-117. Defacement of property, possession, sale and display of aerosol spray paint cans, [and] broad tipped markers and etching acid prohibited in certain instances."
Graffiti is a Sand Mandala[2], it is art and it is beautiful because of it's guaranteed impermanence. If Banksy's vandalism wasn't vandalized or taken down or painted over it wouldn't be as powerful as it is. It is a symbiotic relationship like a flower and a bee.
To learn about NYC graffiti history watch Style Wars[3] a 1982 documentary on the NYC scene.
[1]http://www.nyc.gov/html/nograffiti/html/legislation.html [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_mandala [3]http://vimeo.com/14911708