71–80 of 87 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to be clear, you're asking the Ministry of Justice, the department responsible for maintaining the court system, to break the law? I can't think how that could have horrendous long-term consequences...
There are tons of laws they simply don't enforce. This would be one more.
> The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) says it has spent £50,000 trying to remove paint from the wall of the Grade II-listed building in Carey Street. How in the world do you spend £50k to remove a graffiti?
https://www.nrk.no/norge/miljoaktivister-domt-til-a-betale-1...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> trite brand of sub-tour-poster stencil work, most of which would be too on-the-nose for a Rage Against The Machine reissue cover. Art makes questions: It's both stencil-like and precisely, powerfully executed; it's both obviously 'on-the-nose' as you say, and penetrating. How is that all true simultaneously? (I don't know; it's what I've wondered and you helped clarify the question.)
It has no subtext, poses no real questions (Reddit nailed this: "war is bad, innit?"), and pursues only "coolness". It is thus fashion more than it is art, and it's not daring fashion. Its closest analog is Shephard Fairey, of the Obama "HOPE" mural, who now spends his days "engineering meaningful brand experiences with authority & authenticity". There's nothing wrong with that; I respect graphic design and branding…
I can't read your mind but that sounds like the usual response to artwork that someone doesn't want to understand: the subjective judgment made truth, the absolutism (no curiosity, not even a possibility of anything else), the aggressive dismissal.
Sarcastic comments on Reddit are, IME, truly pursuing only 'coolness' and make no attempt at insight. Pursuing insight requires embracing ignorance and questions, thus surrendering the smarter-than-thou attitude.
You're missing out, IMHO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has no subtext, poses no real questions (Reddit nailed this: "war is bad, innit?"), and pursues only "coolness". It is thus fashion more than it is art, and it's not daring fashion. Its closest analog is Shephard Fairey, of the Obama "HOPE" mural, who now spends his days "engineering meaningful brand experiences with authority & authenticity". There's nothing wrong with that; I respect graphic design and branding…
> It has no subtext, poses no real questions (Reddit nailed this: "war is bad, innit?"), and pursues only "coolness". I can't read your mind but that sounds like the usual response to artwork that someone doesn't want to understand: the subjective judgment made truth, the absolutism (no curiosity, not even a possibility of anything else), the aggressive dismissal. Sarcastic comments on Reddit are, IME, truly pursuing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It has no subtext, poses no real questions (Reddit nailed this: "war is bad, innit?"), and pursues only "coolness". I can't read your mind but that sounds like the usual response to artwork that someone doesn't want to understand: the subjective judgment made truth, the absolutism (no curiosity, not even a possibility of anything else), the aggressive dismissal. Sarcastic comments on Reddit are, IME, truly pursuing…
You'd I think be the first person to argue that Banksy's art is too subtle for some people to get.
Original art by Banksy is reportedly valued at millions of £ or $ [0] The BBC says "Banksy works cost public almost £150k" because "The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) says it has spent £50,000 trying to remove paint from the wall of the Grade II-listed building in Carey Street." Therefore, the title is incorrect. The cost to the public is much more than £150k. The Ministry's damage to this freely-contributed artwork has p…
Have you considered that the public may be gaining something from the conversations and awareness that arise from the performance of this art? I invite you to move away from evaluating a piece of art simply in terms of the monetary cost to the tax payer.
I didn't mention it only because it's difficult to attribute a monetary value to "conversations and awareness that arise from the performance of this art", while it's easy to cite the sale value of previous works.
Original art by Banksy is reportedly valued at millions of £ or $ [0] The BBC says "Banksy works cost public almost £150k" because "The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) says it has spent £50,000 trying to remove paint from the wall of the Grade II-listed building in Carey Street." Therefore, the title is incorrect. The cost to the public is much more than £150k. The Ministry's damage to this freely-contributed artwork has p…
The government has appropriated Banksy's artworks (e.g. the police sentry box), and could sell them. If the sale of those artworks exceeds the cost of cleaning others, then the government has netted a profit, which takes the monetary argument off the table.
In case it's not clear from the story: a big part of the expense here is that the mural was painted onto the Royal Courts of Justice building, which is a Grade I preserved building, putting it in the same tier of building preservation as the Tower of London and the Palace of Westminster. Some of the things you'd do to get graffiti off a subway tunnel wall or a brutalist municipal building in the US (like using a high…
The section in question is not a Grade I preserved building, it's Grade II, which is a significantly less stringent standard. That building is in fact a quasi-brutalist tower built in 1968[0], adjacent to a much older building.
The site of the mural is visible here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Queen%27...
Ironically, in that picture you can see that the wall just above the mural was already badly defaced by the installation and removal of security cameras during several decades.
The scars and drilled holes from old, removed cameras and wiring are still plainly visible. Contrary to its rapid reaction to the mural, the government has made no attempt to repair this self-inflicted damage, which calls into question the whole argument about protecting the building
(You can verify that the damage has been there for decades, by looking at older Google Streetview pictures back to 2008).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Courts_of_Justice_(Banks...
For the comments questioning why the MoJ are doing this, and the reason for the costs, the information can be found in the article: > A HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) spokesperson said: "The Royal Courts of Justice is a listed building and HMCTS are obliged to maintain its original character." This is the why . HMCTS don't have the option to "just leave it" because they're obligated by legislation to remove…
No, it's not - it's very relevant. Laws are not set in stone, and the first step towards changing them is having the discussion.
> The law requires the listed building to be maintained in its original state, so the government department follows the law.
This is true, but is orthogonal to the point above.
why don't they just sell the works to recoup the costs? how much does graffiti cost the public in general?
They can't; they're obligated by law to preserve the original structure the graffiti is painted on.
> As a final option, the affected stonework may have to be removed and replaced.
So it's definitely an option.
