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

51–60 of 180 posts

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#51

Post by yetanotherphd »

anabis wrote: post #40
ianstormtaylor wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, they aren't mutually exclusive.

Yeah, I agree. It is art, but if the owners sue, its vandalism. Private property is one of the foundations of market economy, and I can't think of any necessity of art that calls for suspension of it. On the same vein, the Mayor can't sue on behalf of private owners. If the owners like it, then its OK.

This is a criminal matter, not a civil matter. It's just like if a guy punches me on the street, but I decide it was cool and edgy and added to the gritty vibe of the neighborhood. The prosecutor can still bring charges.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#52

Post by voltagex_ »

GhotiFish wrote: post #41
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 th…

I think they make the city more interesting, and hopefully they inspire some taggers to transition from a name-writer to an artist.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#53

Post by md224 »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #42
Millennium wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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 artist's statement.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#54

Post by justinpombrio »

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.

Asking for a transition point makes the assumption that they are mutually exclusive. But Banksy is by any reasonable definitions both a vandal and an artist. Hence Bloomberg is simultaneously cleaning up vandalism and destroying art. Whether you think this is a good thing depends on how you weigh these two aspects. Personally, I think it just makes his work more precious. It is the nature of the medium that his work is temporary.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#55

Post by alwaysinshade »

yetanotherphd wrote: post #31
alwaysinshade wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

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…

"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"

I'd argue that Banksy achieves both - his work is treated as acceptable because it carries a reason for saying "fuck you" as opposed to an indecipherable personal logo. And that's the line for what is considered destruction vs expression - value to others and not just yourself. Essentially your "fuck you" needs to carry a raison d'être.

The same could apply to saying "fuck you" to someone - if you can at least explain why you're saying "fuck you" then you might not get punched in the face.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#56

Post by [deleted] »

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 :)

[deleted]

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#57

Post by mcantelon »

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.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#58

Post by cowsandmilk »

brunoqc wrote: post #12

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

everything in the article suggests they are looking to preserve this piece, not take it away from the city, I'm not sure where you believe your disagreement comes from, considering the inherently ambiguous definition of "ours". Thus far, the owner is out of pocket for security guards to protect the piece after someone vandalized it. In fact, most of Banksy's pieces have been vandalized, so sadly, it seems security is needed.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#60

Post by michaelwww »

mcantelon wrote: post #48
michaelwww wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks for the recommendation. I will watch that. My bottom line is have I learned anything from Banksy? No I haven't. I'll watch it and report back.
Post reply on HN