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

41–50 of 180 posts

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#41

Post by GhotiFish »

pantalaimon wrote: post #2

That's terribly comical, considering it's just a graffiti piece. Banksy will find the fuzz it creates hilarious, I'm certain. Actually, the reactions it creates could be seen as the much grander art performance, compared to his previous 'art sale' [1] [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX54DIpacNE

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 their value is in manipulating others. That is a form of utility, I admit.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#42

Post by foobarbazqux »

Millennium wrote: post #17
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…

> I'm curious to know when a person transitions from vandal to artist. When they start asking for permission before painting other people's stuff.

The job of an artist is to break the rules.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#43

Post by harryh »

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…

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.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#44

Post by fotbr »

NamTaf wrote: post #34
brunoqc wrote: post #12

"No. 17 will forever be ours" imho art like this belongs to the city.

They were, confusingly, referring to 'No[v]. 17'. The prior sentence refers to a new day coming, which is 'No[v]. 18'. I have no idea why they didn't go with the accepted abbreviation of November as 'Nov'. They weren't referring to building number 17. Just clarifying, not disagreeing with your statement :)

>I have no idea why they didn't go with the accepted abbreviation of November as 'Nov'.

Perhaps because they're talking about October?

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#45

Post by e28eta »

NamTaf wrote: post #34
brunoqc wrote: post #12

"No. 17 will forever be ours" imho art like this belongs to the city.

They were, confusingly, referring to 'No[v]. 17'. The prior sentence refers to a new day coming, which is 'No[v]. 18'. I have no idea why they didn't go with the accepted abbreviation of November as 'Nov'. They weren't referring to building number 17. Just clarifying, not disagreeing with your statement :)

It means the #17, as in the 17th painting by Banksy, as the article says early on.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#46

Post by michaelwww »

mcantelon wrote: post #16
drcode wrote: post #10

HN, please don't feed the trolls, even if they're PR-hungry artists.

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.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#47

Post by dbond »

nikatwork wrote: post #37
dbond wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Traditional writers dislike Bansky because he is seen as a hipster cashing in on hiphop culture without living a hiphop lifestyle [1]. They also dislike stencil art in general, as it takes far less technical skill and practice to execute. Again, this is seen as yuppie kids ripping off authentic street culture. The most offensive way to express dislike is to cross out or tag over someone's piece. [1] http://www.urband…

I'm no expert in this, I just have a mild interest and it's really the boundary between the subcultures.

I don't understand how banksy would be cashing in on hiphop culture? I just see him as an artist using a wall as his canvas, I wasn't aware that was reserved for those with a hiphop lifestyle. Was it maybe the "this is my new york accent" piece that draws the association?

Also how do they know he hasn't lives a hiphop lifestyle? I think the same thing exists in London, I have a few co-workers there who seem at least partially attached to it.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#48

Post by mcantelon »

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.

I assert A, B, and C, yes. Banksy managed to simultaneously profit from, and socially comment globally using, a street medium. Paris Hilton was born with the looks and means needed to make connections and she worked from that, gaining notoriety through her lack of inhibition. I can see the comparison in that their trajectories were both unconventional to some degree, but beyond that, not much simularity.

If you haven't, I'd recommend watching the humorous Banksy-related documentary "Exit Through the Gift Shop". It's quite interesting and entertaining and not what you'd expect.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#49

Post by harlanlewis »

nikatwork wrote: post #39
pippy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You realize most writers start as taggers? It's part of the learning process. Everyone's a toy when they start out.

Not all graffiti artists practice on buildings. Plywood is cheap.

Of course, tagging in public, perhaps in a hard to reach place, is a separate skill requiring its own practice... I'd just prefer they did it after having practiced the tag in their backyard first. Like Banksy.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#50

Post by klenwell »

Volpe wrote: post #35
pippy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By that definition, tagging an (original) poem is art?

For one influential academic answer to this question, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anxiety_of_Influence
Post reply on HN