Urban Art Association

I don't see what difference it makes if someone ilegally paints on someone elses property and the owner of the property gets an offer from an art dealer to buy the ilegal art.

By painting on peoples property without permission and then moaning that the art should stay there is acting like a prima donna with sociopathic ego tendencies.

If Banksy said, I don't give a f**kwhere my non authorised stencil graffiti ends up or what happens to it he would have some credibility instead of trying to play the game both ways.

The average home owner has little or no appreciation of art so when the likes of keszler come dangling bags of cash its inevitable it will be gone.......but why should an artist authenticate anything that was placed on the street. The property owner rightly or wrongly cashed in so they've had their reward, authenticating the piece will only serve to further line the pockets of the profiteer

No different to the low-lifes that go around taking any street-art they can find regardless of who might now be the 'owner' believing its all there for their own financial gain, seemingly proud at what they do yet are nothing more than an opportunistic thief.

Street-art is site specific, maybe it can be maintained, maybe it can be preserved or even restored but it shouldn't be removed. If the wall is being demolished, covered, painted, blown-up or whatever, that is it, the piece is dead. Whilst the guy's intentions might have been in the right place for the Haight st. rat he just gave the profiteers extra leverage, if he was granted any form of COA would probably have opened Pest Control up to some legal precedent.

And plop - you have completely mis-represented that quote as a justification to remove street art. Are you suggesting you would help yourself to street art? ....and no, I'm now not going to debate with you whether its all just advertising anyway.

It doesn't help that Banksy has put the circular saw blade the wrong way round. It couldn't cut in that direction when facing that way
Nothing to do with any of the post, but it just annoys me

I suppose so.
Never thought about it being operated from below.
Maybe I'm a bit thick but in never got what this was about

 Gordon bennett, are you actually being serious.

"the average home owner has no appreciation of art", how condescending. 

 Basically if they don't appreciate banksy and the Brandelism agenda they must be thick.



  My view is if someone decides to make some art or graffiti on someone elses property without permission, they are vandalising that property no matter how good their art might be and no matter how run down the property might be. Not forgetting the massive amount of free publicity that is generated for an artist when people find out it's another piece by Banksy for example and the buzz goues out on blogs and forums etc including some say a forum set up purely to promote Banksy and to generate discussion and to perpetaute the enigma of Banksy.


I have not misinterpreted the quote.

Urban art today is advertising. Unless you are saying that people should have no choice as to what they see on walls because it's "art" it's having a go at the syatem whilst adverts are not art its just promoting a brand.

 Banksy or anyone elses art on walls outside like Invader, Fairey etc etc is just advertising. It's advertising them and their shows and their prints and the brand name. It's no different.

How have I misrepresented the quote from Banksy. It's his quote and it's there for all to see.

  If it's one rule for him and one rule for other brands then its hypocrisy.

 Plus I enjoy some adverts and the art involved in some. I don't have to add my name to mainstream ads in the street Kaws style etc as some form of Brandelism which is really just promoting ones self on the back of expensive well know Brands.

Banksy is a big brand and people have as much right to Brandelise Banksy's Brandelism as he does to other brands.

  There is some psychology used to perpetuate the something special about some basic stencil art on outside walls.

   If an artist does not aske permission to slap their stuff one some rabdon strangers property then why should someone ask the artist permission before doing what they want with it.

    I agree it's better to leave the art in place and leave it to the elements. However if an artist who made illegal art decides to turn their talent into a very lucrative busiess and pushes up the value of their art via shows and prints etc they know that their art they give for free to the world has the same financial value and there will always be someone who sees it in monetary value not artistic value.  They know this and when it's removed and sold for big money it adds to the value of their art anyway so in the long term they benefit.

   I noticed people moaning about the likes of Kesler etc making money from this removal and also the property owner making money from it and how bad it is.

The same people who bullied people out of the way a few years ago buying up Banksy prints who queud up and who use bots to buy prints that they want to re sell for the biggest profit.

  If one day the law is changed so that all graffiti is not illegal and covered by some form of artists right. Then that's another story.

    Vandalism has a high monetary value it seems and should not be removed only because it has a high monetary value. That says everything about how we judge art today.

    Personally I don't care if the Banksy stencils are left in place , tagged, buffed , removed cut out, sold in some swanky gallery in New York etc.

Thats the real world and lifes a lottery.

  

      Banksy knows about Brandalism and what he does.

I'm sure most home owners outside the urban art hipster bubble do not.

 Banksy said adverts are fair game and anyoen who paints on a wall otside forcing people to se ewhat they painted on the wall cannot complain if people also have the right to change or buff what they see.

Advertising is advertising whether it's advertising a product or an artist.

  Banksy street art is advertising.

 If Banksy doesn't want rich art dealers to offer property owners big money for his stencileld art, the solution is easy. Make the art ilegally on the street then don't tell the world you did it by putting a photo of it on your website (referring to Banksy).

 That way he has the knowledge he made illegal art on someones property and the knowledge that there would be no proof it's by Banksy.
 

     Once he has made his illegal art on someone else property. It's not his anymore, it belongs to the property owner. He's smart he knows this. He also knows by putting a photo of it on his website he is authenicating it and giving it financial value.

 He owner can do what he want's with it and if an art dealer offers the market value to the property owner. That is between the property owner and the dealer.

    I doubt there is anyone who if Banksy tagge dtheir property and someone offred them 200K would turn round and say, they would rather not have the money. They prefer a simple stencilled image on their wall.

  If the property owner wa spoor and in debt and they had an offer which helped them change their life no one would begrudge them.

  I don't see any people who say it's wrong, having a problem re selling their Banksy prints they paid low prices for in the past for thousands today. Banksy sold them for 450 and it's wrong for people to resell them today for 45000. Banksy wouldn't like that now would he ?

 
 No bitterness coach, just replying to what I see is a certain amount of hypocrisy about having ones cake and eating it.

  Banksy could easily stop the likes of kezler etc removing his "illegal" protected by perspex graffiti (in the UK) simply by doing the illegal graffiti and then not telling the world he did it by advertising it on his website.

I always get attacked when I point out the obvious or point out when wool is being pulled over peoples eyes.

 Are you saying that criticism is not allowed for certaing big money making artists yet it's OK to slag of the likes of Bambi and others?

 There was a post on this forum about an artist who died of old age and who was also remembered as an art critic.

 or are you saying artists are not allowed to criticise other artists motives?

Thanks for your insults coach. It's a tactic used by people who cannot debate. Often used by those on the left too.

 The OP posted about the morals and rights and wrongs about removing a "Banksy" from it's location in the street. To save it from destruction as in the big rat.

Plus about the morals of a property owner when offered a lot of money for the "Banksy" by an "art" dealer who in turn re sells it for a big profit.

I know the rhetoric on here is that it should not be allowed to happen and people should boycott these dealers and not buy the art. Thats OK in cuckoo land but this is the real world.

 The whole poing of the thread was as to whether people think it's right or wwrong to sell the art on a wall done by "Banksy" for profit.

  I know that Banksy has publicly said he is against it.

 To me, being honest. If "Banksy" decides to target someones wall with his stencil art without permission. He has no right to dictate as to what anyone does with the art he made illegaly.

  He doesn't care about the property owner, only about himself and generating publicity with these stunts and as I said he is the person that makes this illegal art valuable by posting a photo on his website and telling the world he made it.  He knows that he can still make this illegal art on peoples walls and other property and carry on being the anarcho graffiti vandal and prevent the art being removed and sold simply by not putting it on his website after he (or assistants) have done it. By not authenticating it by posting it on his site as by him. The art will be left alone and be viewed as graffiti not as an investment.

  There again we all know he won't do that as that we he doesn't get the free publicity.

 As for bile coach, you are the one full of bile with your snidey remarks targetting me and if you don't like people having an opinion which is different to yours, then maybe a forum is not for you.

  ta ta

Creator of 'art' that milks Banksy imagery, talk of hypocrisy.... in a thread they've hijacked (again) to beat the same old drum is hilarious. If anything I admire the complete lack of self awareness.

Carry on, we'll just feel embarrassed for you.