Live data from Hacker News

I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

nymag.com

71–80 of 180 posts

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#71
post #19
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.

Nearly everything is art... that's the thing... art is a category. Something doesn't have to be good to be art. Something doesn't even have to have a message to be art. A big black rectangle painted on a canvas, while not considered very good by most, is still art.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#73
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…

> But at the end of the day, it's still graffiti, still vandalism It's not vandalism if the owners of the buildings are happy to have the piece. If I scrub a brick wall clean, is it vandalism? No. If I glue a solid pound of gold to a brick wall and the building owner takes it, is it vandalism? No. If I have a work painted on my property that draws crowds and will probably have a "market value" of a lot of money, and…

> If I scrub a brick wall clean, is it vandalism? No.

> If I'd be happy or even would actively desire to have a Banksy piece painted on my property, is it vandalism when it does happen? No.

Haha, reminds me of when Banksy would turn up in a van and overalls in the middle of the day, whitewash a wall and then stick up a 'Designated Graffiti Area' sign.. The wall would be covered a few days later... :-)

http://www.artofthestate.co.uk/photos/banksy_designated.jpg

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#74

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…

This is the entire underlying message of Banksy's film, Exit Through the Gift Shop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_Through_the_Gift_Shop

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#75
The whole "high-art = big money" mindset is what ruins everything. Just let it be. It's an image that people enjoy looking at, and it's right there for everyone to see - touchable, fragile, transient. Giving it a monetary value defeats the whole purpose of it. It's not meant to be preserved, it's just a curio that livens up the outdoor scene.

Stop valuing it so much - it's meant to be weathered and destroyed. Enjoy the art for what it is and let urban nature take its course.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#76
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are right, my mistake.

Although it seems hard to press charges without the property owner's cooperation.

Can express permission to paint a graffiti given afterward?

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#77
If the mayor was serious about catching Banksy then he would go to the phone companies and get all of the phones that were within a 200 metre radius on the night that the artwork went up for each and every piece. Then he could put them in a database, get his 'SQL for Dummies' book out and select just the phone records that are common to all incidents.

He can then go back to the phone companies and get the billing details for Banksy and his entourage. He could also ask them to let him know exactly where they are, follow them and catch them red handed doing their next piece.

Personally I see Banksy as a cartoonist rather than as a graffiti artist. He does not have a formal arrangement with the papers to syndicate his work, he does not even have to churn something out every day. Instead he gets his work prominently shown in all of the British papers, reaching an audience that no other cartoonist can. He has Robin Hood grade street cred. due to this audience reach.

Whereas other cartoonists use pen and paper, Banksy uses the side of some house or another wall as the medium. It is an intermediate form much like the conventional cartoonist's paper is. Although of value to the crazies that go mad for such things it is of no value to Banksy if his aim is to get his work into the paper, to reach a mass audience.

As for the people who have inherited the work, they could just let the boring 'tag' graffiti artists vandalise the Banksy masterpiece as quickly as possible, whilst there is still the media interest. It will then be known that it has been destroyed and the troublesome visitors will cease to turn up. They can then paint it over, to restore their property back to normal and get on with life.

Getting back to the mayor, if the trick works for catching Banksy then it will probably work for all of the inane tagging losers out there. So long as citizens report new tag-vandalisms in a timely fashion then the police should be able to get a reasonable sized list of phone numbers to work with.

I have known and known of 'tag' graffiti artists in my time. I still don't see why they are so determined to do what they do and for so late into adult life. I feel sorry for them not having any meaning to their 'art'. The strangest thing to me are the 'tags' put up in some foreign town. Imagine going to another country, a place you do not live, just to paint your tag up on some walls that you are not going to see again.

With a Banksy it cannot be said to truly exist until the papers report the new birth. With small time tedious tagging types they get Facebook instead of the media to show off their efforts. Invariably those that tag post their tags online somewhere. The phones can lead the authorities to where this is and get the evidence needed for prosecution.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#78
post #20
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…

Well, most art critics don't take Banksy seriously, so I wouldn't count on him having a place in the history books any more than a novelty musician like Weird Al, for example. In fact that comparison makes Banksy sound more important than he is. David Blaine, maybe? http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/20...

It looks like art criticism is pretty much dead so I wouldn't look to them for an opinion. "There Are Fewer Than 10 Full-Time Art Critics in the U.S." http://galleristny.com/2013/05/there-are-now-less-than-10-fu...

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Part of the skill in getting up, is getting up without getting caught. If you support full pieces, you shouldn't complain too much about people practicing with tags (although most people do complain).

The solution is of course to have legal walls. But that would be far too progressive for most councils.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#80
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 artis…

Okay, fair point. I'll revise: the job of an artist is to break the rules intelligently.

Also, I think you're conflating legality and morality. I can think of situations for all 8 cases of (legal|illegal)(moral|immoral)(agree|disagree). However, you're probably right that agreement/disagreement influences morality judgments.

Post reply on HN