I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

Post by yetanotherphd » Mon, Oct 21, 2013, 12:27 AM UTC

alwaysinshade wrote: post #14

yetanotherphd wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just going to quote from the comments section of [1]: theoddfather: Already dissed? Jesus, why are people so ghetto? bronxflash: how is that 'ghetto?' theoddfather: Tagging is ghetto bullshit with no redeeming social or artistic value. It's garbage and obviously in this case was meant to simply deface something that clearly has a great deal of value to many people. bronxflash: while i appreciate the fact that you…

"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…

Post by robabbott » Mon, Oct 21, 2013, 12:29 AM UTC

Post by Volpe » Mon, Oct 21, 2013, 12:29 AM UTC

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.

Post by nikatwork » Mon, Oct 21, 2013, 12:32 AM UTC

dbond wrote: post #13

yetanotherphd wrote: post #3

It took ten minutes of reading articles and comments to convince myself this was real and not a joke. You can't make this stuff up: "A scuffle broke out at the scene of Banksy's latest piece in Williamsburg as a building manager and bystanders manhandled a vandal who tagged over the piece [of graffiti]." "The building manager grabbed him and threw him down and was calling the cops, but the guy bolted"

Banksy most likely doesn't care about them being vandalised, he still gets to make his point and picks up the publicity beforehand. The interesting part is that by tagging over them others could actually be hurting new york, Banksy pieces have been known to attract visitors (as with the one in east new york) and may even increase property values (though never proven). On the other hand, the residents may just appreci…

Post by nikatwork » Mon, Oct 21, 2013, 12:35 AM UTC

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.