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

81–90 of 180 posts

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#81

Post by toyg »

andrewb wrote: post #25
theoh wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I made a recent trip to NYC and visited several museums and Five Points. I was more impressed by the artwork by the graffiti artists than the majority of items at say MoMA PS1. Unfortunately, I think graffiti art will be accepted one funeral at a time.

It's really weird how this could still perceived as an "ongoing debate", in NYC of all places. Keith Haring died 23 years ago! Hip-Hop culture is 40 years old! Pretty much everyone under 50 thinks meaningful graffiti (i.e. not meaningless tags) are art.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#82

Post by arrrg »

jevinskie wrote: post #68
radley wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only vandalism to those who want to control the city yet not participate.

Maybe the opinion of the property owner(s) is the most important when you determine whether it is vandalism or not.

That entirely depends on your definition of “vandalism” and that is an extremely boring discussion to have. It’s quite pointless, actually. Who cares about the definition of what is and what isn’t vandalism?

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#83

Post by [deleted] »

justinpombrio wrote: post #54
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 make…

[deleted]

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#84

Post by nikatwork »

dbond wrote: post #47
nikatwork wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hi…

Banksy has taken the cultural cachet of underground graffiti and monetized it. Think Malcolm McLaren. His biggest "sin" is that he stencils, and is perceived as not learning the artform properly.

I personally couldn't care less, I find Banksy's pieces aesthetically pleasing and I like how he messes with authority. But I know a lot of writers and they mostly detest Bansky. You don't even want to get them started about yarn bombers.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#85

Post by dionidium »

lifeformed wrote: post #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 t…

This is one of those things, like complaining that the developer of a webapp you like "sold out" to a large company, that sounds nice unless it's your app with an offer or your building that just got tagged by Banksy. The owners of this building didn't assign the value; they inherited it. In any case it would be plain dumb to ignore it and I have no idea why anybody would upvote a comment suggesting that they do so.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#86

Post by nikatwork »

JamesArgo wrote: post #36
theoh wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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’s funny he contrasted Banksy with Pollack. I’ve always thought of Pollack (and many other modern artists) as a sort of charming guy who figured out that the art industry is a weird product of status games and so decided to create positional goods with the least amount of effort possible.

I find Pollock's works legitimately amazing, and I don't really like much modern art.

Modern art is usually full of clever subtexts and messages that aren't apparent to outsiders. Like a really complicated and abstract piece of jazz music.

Ask a knowledgeable modern art fan to decrypt some paintings for you sometime, it's quite interesting.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#87

Post by sharkweek »

I think my favorite one so far was his "art stand" where he was selling his original Banksy stencils for $60 -- I'm assuming these will likely start popping up in auction for quite a bit more.

I would have likely walked by a stand like that and assumed it was a scam. But if you had told me it was real and I could have bought one for $60 bucks, I would have tried to immediately buy them all.

http://instagram.com/p/fa_ndFq-3W/

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#88

Post by skue »

lifeformed wrote: post #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 t…

> Giving it a monetary value defeats the whole purpose of it.

And what if the purpose is the absurdity of its monetary value?

I don't believe that Banksy's goal is to have his work be seen as curios. It's getting us to have these conversations.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#89

Post by Amadou »

dionidium wrote: post #85
lifeformed wrote: post #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 t…

This is one of those things, like complaining that the developer of a webapp you like "sold out" to a large company, that sounds nice unless it's your app with an offer or your building that just got tagged by Banksy. The owners of this building didn't assign the value; they inherited it. In any case it would be plain dumb to ignore it and I have no idea why anybody would upvote a comment suggesting that they do so.

it would be plain dumb to ignore it and I have no idea why anybody would upvote a comment suggesting that they do so.

I upvoted it because I was going to write essentially the same thing.

I've been thinking about it since Colbert publicly non-invited Banksy to paint the wall outside his studio. I don't believe that dollars are an appropriate unit of measurement for life experiences. I do believe that graffiti and others forms of street art are intentionally impermanent and functions of their location.

I would support trying to sell it if the building owners were living hand to mouth, but that's obviously not the case. The author's already monetized the "inheritance" by selling a literary "piece" to NY Magazine. She doesn't need to sell it so leaving it as part of the gestalt the artist created is the greater good. If it gets defaced by some other graffiti artist or the police/Bloomberg (who are only feeding the frenzy with their attitude) then so be it, the limited lifespan of graffiti is an inherent part of the art. Like making sandcastles.

I would probably set up a hidden video cam in case someone else came along and tried to steal it. Not that the stealing is necessarily a problem for street-art, but taking it would involve damage to the building itself and that would be unacceptably outside the scope of screet-art.

Re: I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy

#90

Post by brenschluss »

JamesArgo wrote: post #36
theoh wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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’s funny he contrasted Banksy with Pollack. I’ve always thought of Pollack (and many other modern artists) as a sort of charming guy who figured out that the art industry is a weird product of status games and so decided to create positional goods with the least amount of effort possible.

Seriously? This is like saying "poets are just lazy writers who decided to create work with the least amount of effort possible."
Post reply on HN