|
Successful Cover Songs, by Peter Bengtsen on Jan 5, 2021 0:07:24 GMT 1,
And the original:
|
|
|
Successful Cover Songs, by Peter Bengtsen on Jan 5, 2021 0:00:46 GMT 1,
And the original:
|
|
|
What Music are you listening to at the moment ?, by Peter Bengtsen on Jan 4, 2021 23:56:49 GMT 1,
|
|
|
You can listen to the whole recording here: Trump is absolutely delusional.
Nope. Criminal is the right term (not delusional). One doesn't rule out the other.
|
|
|
You can listen to the whole recording here:
Trump is absolutely delusional.
|
|
|
Star Wars , by Peter Bengtsen on Dec 22, 2020 15:51:51 GMT 1,
|
|
|
|
Mrs Banksy, by Peter Bengtsen on Dec 11, 2020 21:02:24 GMT 1, Garbage from a hack. Stop promoting and buying this shit👎🏼 99% sure that image in that frame is a Mrs Banksy image and not a banksy image. So therefore its not a hack, it is original artwork.
The 2010 piece with the text "No Future" was by B anksy (image below was taken from B anksy's website).
Garbage from a hack. Stop promoting and buying this shit👎🏼 99% sure that image in that frame is a Mrs Banksy image and not a banksy image. So therefore its not a hack, it is original artwork. The 2010 piece with the text "No Future" was by B anksy (image below was taken from B anksy's website).
|
|
|
Mrs Banksy, by Peter Bengtsen on Dec 7, 2020 14:56:43 GMT 1, Not sure if anyone was interested but I was just about to say Mrs B has more stuff up for sale on her site but on re-checking it, it's all gone again. I actually thought the mad rush to buy would be slowing down by now but clearly not. Ah well. 😊 Actually, whist I'm yapping on about this subject, I've just framed my 'Our Future' print. I really like this piece because it was cheap to buy and easy to display (no fear of being robbed for it etc). I did however notice something missing. Anyone notice or care what it is? 😉
A modicum of originality?
Not sure if anyone was interested but I was just about to say Mrs B has more stuff up for sale on her site but on re-checking it, it's all gone again. I actually thought the mad rush to buy would be slowing down by now but clearly not. Ah well. 😊 Actually, whist I'm yapping on about this subject, I've just framed my 'Our Future' print. I really like this piece because it was cheap to buy and easy to display (no fear of being robbed for it etc). I did however notice something missing. Anyone notice or care what it is? 😉 A modicum of originality?
|
|
|
Slave Labour For Sale, by Peter Bengtsen on Dec 5, 2020 10:10:44 GMT 1,
|
|
|
Slave Labour For Sale, by Peter Bengtsen on Dec 5, 2020 10:09:50 GMT 1,
|
|
|
Star Wars , by Peter Bengtsen on Nov 29, 2020 21:17:18 GMT 1,
|
|
|
Successful Cover Songs, by Peter Bengtsen on Nov 23, 2020 19:37:30 GMT 1,
|
|
|
Slave Labour For Sale, by Peter Bengtsen on Nov 22, 2020 12:19:43 GMT 1, I did read the thread from the start before making my previous posts.
It seems to me the comments you refer to were not related to Keeble as an artist. Rather, they were directed at the OP and the particular piece offered for sale.
Given that some people seem to have presumed the piece was made by the OP as an attempt at scamming potential buyers who might mistake it for a Banksy, I am not surprised by the comparison to the work of Mrs. Banksy and similar opportunistic chancers.
Further, even knowing that this piece was created by Keeble, I think the critical comments about the piece are to some extent warranted.
To be clear, I found Keeble's intervention as a whole quite clever and well executed. However, for me, once removed from their original context, the individual paintings do not necessarily hold up as works of art. The timing and placement of the intervention are what made it - and its different components - work.
Lacking this specific context, the individual paintings come across as little more than mementos of the intervention (if the viewer is familiar with it) or attempts at copying Banksy's original street painting (if the viewer is not familiar with Keeble's work). [Of course, a third alternative exists: that people may actually believe these paintings are by Banksy, which is what a scammer would hope for].
Simply taking the position that the piece for sale here does not by itself hold up as a work of art does not diminish Keeble's original intervention. It rather highlights its site-specific nature.
I think if you read the original post again, you will see that it refers to it as one of 6 that were placed 36 hours before the auction was due for the removed original piece, therefore it is not trying to be passed off as the original, I suppose that the point of my comment is it is all to easy to take a lazy swipe at things without trying to understand the history of the piece, this is a very sharp piece of art, directed at Poundland’s profiteering, a statement that could quite easily have been made by banksy himself, I do agree though that buying one component of the whole installation means the work loses its teeth, it’s not for me, however, that’s for an individual to decide, I would illustrate this by saying if this was a Bonafide banksy piece, the bidding would be in the 100s of 1000”s, & your point about the context is correct, but again, if you know the history of the piece, it alters the perception, if somebody offered banksys Guantanamo bay prisoner for sale would your points still hold water?
Disagree, he's used reference of the BBC and the Sun as being 'reportedly' made by Banksy instead of mentioning Laura Keeble. Also mentions trying to get a pest control certificate. Original post should say it's by Laura Keeble.
Fair enough, maybe he believed that, does the sun article infer that it might have been banksy?
I agree with Winter's reading above of the OP's post. I don't think the post suggests that this is the original stencil painting that was cut out of the wall, but rather one of a number of subsequent replica paintings ostensibly by B anksy. Whether the suggestion that B anksy made these is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts or the result of a lack of knowledge is unclear. I agree with you that the tendency to immediately pass judgement on works one is not familiar with (whether by dismissing them as inauthentic or endorsing them as authentic) is unfortunate. Dialogue on the forum about posted works certainly has the potential to be helpful, but less so when opinions are presented as facts. As for the question about the potential value and status as art of objects extracted from larger installations or interventions, I agree that this is a matter of perspective. For me, a key point is whether or not the artist (or the artist's representative) recognises the extracted object as an artwork in its own right in its current form. This is also why I stated in relation to Keeble's work that "the individual paintings do not necessarily hold up as works of art". I wrote "necessarily" because there could be circumstances under which the paintings do hold up as works of art. For example, if the removal and subsequent attempted sale of the paintings were intended by Keeble, the individual paintings would conceptually still be part of an ongoing artistic intervention. It is not clear that this is Keeble's position, though.
I did read the thread from the start before making my previous posts.
It seems to me the comments you refer to were not related to Keeble as an artist. Rather, they were directed at the OP and the particular piece offered for sale.
Given that some people seem to have presumed the piece was made by the OP as an attempt at scamming potential buyers who might mistake it for a Banksy, I am not surprised by the comparison to the work of Mrs. Banksy and similar opportunistic chancers.
Further, even knowing that this piece was created by Keeble, I think the critical comments about the piece are to some extent warranted.
To be clear, I found Keeble's intervention as a whole quite clever and well executed. However, for me, once removed from their original context, the individual paintings do not necessarily hold up as works of art. The timing and placement of the intervention are what made it - and its different components - work.
Lacking this specific context, the individual paintings come across as little more than mementos of the intervention (if the viewer is familiar with it) or attempts at copying Banksy's original street painting (if the viewer is not familiar with Keeble's work). [Of course, a third alternative exists: that people may actually believe these paintings are by Banksy, which is what a scammer would hope for].
Simply taking the position that the piece for sale here does not by itself hold up as a work of art does not diminish Keeble's original intervention. It rather highlights its site-specific nature.
I think if you read the original post again, you will see that it refers to it as one of 6 that were placed 36 hours before the auction was due for the removed original piece, therefore it is not trying to be passed off as the original, I suppose that the point of my comment is it is all to easy to take a lazy swipe at things without trying to understand the history of the piece, this is a very sharp piece of art, directed at Poundland’s profiteering, a statement that could quite easily have been made by banksy himself, I do agree though that buying one component of the whole installation means the work loses its teeth, it’s not for me, however, that’s for an individual to decide, I would illustrate this by saying if this was a Bonafide banksy piece, the bidding would be in the 100s of 1000”s, & your point about the context is correct, but again, if you know the history of the piece, it alters the perception, if somebody offered banksys Guantanamo bay prisoner for sale would your points still hold water? Disagree, he's used reference of the BBC and the Sun as being 'reportedly' made by Banksy instead of mentioning Laura Keeble. Also mentions trying to get a pest control certificate. Original post should say it's by Laura Keeble. Fair enough, maybe he believed that, does the sun article infer that it might have been banksy? I agree with Winter's reading above of the OP's post. I don't think the post suggests that this is the original stencil painting that was cut out of the wall, but rather one of a number of subsequent replica paintings ostensibly by B anksy. Whether the suggestion that B anksy made these is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts or the result of a lack of knowledge is unclear. I agree with you that the tendency to immediately pass judgement on works one is not familiar with (whether by dismissing them as inauthentic or endorsing them as authentic) is unfortunate. Dialogue on the forum about posted works certainly has the potential to be helpful, but less so when opinions are presented as facts. As for the question about the potential value and status as art of objects extracted from larger installations or interventions, I agree that this is a matter of perspective. For me, a key point is whether or not the artist (or the artist's representative) recognises the extracted object as an artwork in its own right in its current form. This is also why I stated in relation to Keeble's work that "the individual paintings do not necessarily hold up as works of art". I wrote "necessarily" because there could be circumstances under which the paintings do hold up as works of art. For example, if the removal and subsequent attempted sale of the paintings were intended by Keeble, the individual paintings would conceptually still be part of an ongoing artistic intervention. It is not clear that this is Keeble's position, though.
|
|
|
Slave Labour For Sale, by Peter Bengtsen on Nov 20, 2020 18:38:41 GMT 1, Where in this thread has anyone "written her off as a plagiarist opportunist"?
Read the thread from the start, comparing to mrs banksy etc
I did read the thread from the start before making my previous posts.
It seems to me the comments you refer to were not related to Keeble as an artist. Rather, they were directed at the OP and the particular piece offered for sale.
Given that some people seem to have presumed the piece was made by the OP as an attempt at scamming potential buyers who might mistake it for a Banksy, I am not surprised by the comparison to the work of Mrs. Banksy and similar opportunistic chancers.
Further, even knowing that this piece was created by Keeble, I think the critical comments about the piece are to some extent warranted.
To be clear, I found Keeble's intervention as a whole quite clever and well executed. However, for me, once removed from their original context, the individual paintings do not necessarily hold up as works of art. The timing and placement of the intervention are what made it - and its different components - work.
Lacking this specific context, the individual paintings come across as little more than mementos of the intervention (if the viewer is familiar with it) or attempts at copying Banksy's original street painting (if the viewer is not familiar with Keeble's work). [Of course, a third alternative exists: that people may actually believe these paintings are by Banksy, which is what a scammer would hope for].
Simply taking the position that the piece for sale here does not by itself hold up as a work of art does not diminish Keeble's original intervention. It rather highlights its site-specific nature.
Where in this thread has anyone "written her off as a plagiarist opportunist"?
Read the thread from the start, comparing to mrs banksy etc I did read the thread from the start before making my previous posts.
It seems to me the comments you refer to were not related to Keeble as an artist. Rather, they were directed at the OP and the particular piece offered for sale.
Given that some people seem to have presumed the piece was made by the OP as an attempt at scamming potential buyers who might mistake it for a Banksy, I am not surprised by the comparison to the work of Mrs. Banksy and similar opportunistic chancers.
Further, even knowing that this piece was created by Keeble, I think the critical comments about the piece are to some extent warranted.
To be clear, I found Keeble's intervention as a whole quite clever and well executed. However, for me, once removed from their original context, the individual paintings do not necessarily hold up as works of art. The timing and placement of the intervention are what made it - and its different components - work.
Lacking this specific context, the individual paintings come across as little more than mementos of the intervention (if the viewer is familiar with it) or attempts at copying Banksy's original street painting (if the viewer is not familiar with Keeble's work). [Of course, a third alternative exists: that people may actually believe these paintings are by Banksy, which is what a scammer would hope for].
Simply taking the position that the piece for sale here does not by itself hold up as a work of art does not diminish Keeble's original intervention. It rather highlights its site-specific nature.
|
|
|
|
Slave Labour For Sale, by Peter Bengtsen on Nov 19, 2020 23:51:55 GMT 1, Laura keeble did an excellent piece years ago When Damien hurst did an exhibition in Covent Garden showing his diamond & platinum skull, the show ended & Laura did a mock up of the skull being thrown out with bin bags & exhibition props, it was brilliant, so brilliant that hirst reputedly bought it off of her. So she’s done it again, a very concise statement against Poundlands actions delivered via art, & because it involves replicating a piece of banksys work you guys have written her off as a plagiarist opportunist , Very poor
Where in this thread has anyone "written her off as a plagiarist opportunist"?
Laura keeble did an excellent piece years ago When Damien hurst did an exhibition in Covent Garden showing his diamond & platinum skull, the show ended & Laura did a mock up of the skull being thrown out with bin bags & exhibition props, it was brilliant, so brilliant that hirst reputedly bought it off of her. So she’s done it again, a very concise statement against Poundlands actions delivered via art, & because it involves replicating a piece of banksys work you guys have written her off as a plagiarist opportunist , Very poor Where in this thread has anyone "written her off as a plagiarist opportunist"?
|
|
|
Slave Labour For Sale, by Peter Bengtsen on Nov 19, 2020 21:55:30 GMT 1, Does this scene look familiar, lj ?:
Does this scene look familiar, lj ?:
|
|
|
Slave Labour For Sale, by Peter Bengtsen on Nov 19, 2020 21:43:23 GMT 1, I have the Banksy Slave labour piece that was placed outside Poundland, Wood Green in London c.36 hours before the original was due to be sold at Auction in June 2013. This piece was widely reported by both the BBC and Sun Newspaper and is reportedly one of 6 pieces made by Banksy to affect the sale of the original that he did not approve of being removed and sold. It is a 1:1 size. Pest Control have replied saying it is neither street art or a studio piece so cannot provide a certificate of authentication. The Dropbox link contains the press articles and pictures: www.dropbox.com/sh/79xhomqj6yjjeun/AAAWikUfehu_LwVSUoXDKvYya?dl=0
I have the Banksy Slave labour piece that was placed outside Poundland, Wood Green in London c.36 hours before the original was due to be sold at Auction in June 2013. This piece was widely reported by both the BBC and Sun Newspaper and is reportedly one of 6 pieces made by Banksy to affect the sale of the original that he did not approve of being removed and sold. It is a 1:1 size. Pest Control have replied saying it is neither street art or a studio piece so cannot provide a certificate of authentication. The Dropbox link contains the press articles and pictures: www.dropbox.com/sh/79xhomqj6yjjeun/AAAWikUfehu_LwVSUoXDKvYya?dl=0
|
|
|
BANKSY GRAFFITI, HOSTILITY & THE JUBILEE 2002, by Peter Bengtsen on Nov 8, 2020 10:42:51 GMT 1, With prices continuing to rise would anyone know an approximate value of this OG flyer from Banksy’s GRAFFITI, HOSTILITY & THE JUBILEE show from way back in 2002. I’ve seen the prices of stickers & posters rise significantly lately & I was hoping to get some opinions as to how people would value this in the current market? Any help greatly appreciated. Thanks
Just to be clear, are you looking for help with an evaulation of an original flyer or a "high resolution upscale print" of a flyer? Back in May 2019 you claimed to have sold the depicted flyer for £620.
**SERIOUSLY LOOKING TO CONSIDER OFFERS ON THIS ITEM** FOR SALE HERE IS MY BANKSY STREET SHOW GRAFFITI, HOSTILITY & THE JUBILEE FLYER COMPLETELY OG FROM 2002 ALTHOUGH THIS ITEM MAY HAVE TAKEN A BIT OF A BEATING OVER THE YEARS I’M SURE AFTER ALL THE MESSAGES I GOT OFF THE BACK OF MY PREVIOUS THREAD A MARKET FOR THIS ITEM HAS BEEN GENERATED.. I FEEL IT WOULD LOOK GREAT FRAMED TO THE RIGHT COLLECTOR & ALTHOUGH NOT AN ACTAlPIECE OF ART THE DEMAND IS SEEMINGLY HIGH AS I DOUBT MANY OF THESE HAVE MADE IT THROUGH THE LAST 17 YEARS UNSCATHED .. IF ANYONE HAS SEEN ONE UP FOR SALE PREVIOUSLY & IN WHAT CONDITION & FOR WHAT PRICE DO HELP OTHER FORUM USERS GAIN THIS UNDERSTANDING & I HOPE TO FIND THIS THE RIGHT HOME AS SOON AS WE CAN BETWEEN US. THANKS FOR THE INTEREST SO FAR I APPRECIATE IT IMMENSELY. BUMP.
I have had some high resolution upscale prints made due the high interest & offer count on this piece but have decided I may keep the original now please see listings below: [links removed]If you are not allowed to refer eBay listings on this page someone please let me know.
So you offer copies of a flyer? Same like you sell on the bay, right? WTF? WTF .... I am not selling copies at all I am selling an image that is not readily available & one I had an awful lot of interest in with offers ranging anywhere between £200 - £800.00 for the original A6 flyer but a lot of people advised the image was highly sought after & I should offer it out to collectors.
selling the original A6 flyer for £620.00 & then producing a few high resolution prints to sell on to others seems like a decent margin on an easily available image. thanks for posting as I now can get a clearer one made should I wish to do so but might I add it’s not the original image people are looking for it’s an original flyer of which I sold .... silly you for trying to act smart & thanks for wasting your time uploading a clean image that even I can create.
Coz yours being all tatty from being in your back pocket for 17 years and probably that have farted on quite a few times, is worth £15? I rather have a fart and crease free one for nothing - thanks Dogstar don’t get twisted pal my original was a piece of street art history, whereas your cleverly discovered original image that is readily available is lame & easily obtainable.... my one is only worth as much as somebody wanted to pay like anything really & as I mentioned I decided to sell the original 2002 show flyer for a decent amount, then kept a high resolution image of the weathered flyer which I believe tells a story & makes it more desirable as many other forum users have also thought. I was handed this flyer back in London in 2002 potentially by BANKSY himself & people made offers on the piece off of the back of that provenance of which may well be true. please feel free to own your own copy of my once owned original as I stated above don’t get twisted pal we can’t all have what we want .... If I still had the original I’d ask you to join the queue of bids I received but for now I can only offer you a high resolution copy I had made to offer the rest of the unsuccessful bidders an image of the exact flyer they wanted to own in an upscale version & for a fraction of the price. have a lovely evening farting & creasing your own basic image to create something a touch more desirable & I’m sorry your pockets weren’t deep enough to own the original. 💭 For context, the full thread is available here: urbanartassociation.com/thread/157041/sale-banksy-graffiti-hostility-jubilee.
With prices continuing to rise would anyone know an approximate value of this OG flyer from Banksy’s GRAFFITI, HOSTILITY & THE JUBILEE show from way back in 2002. I’ve seen the prices of stickers & posters rise significantly lately & I was hoping to get some opinions as to how people would value this in the current market? Any help greatly appreciated. Thanks Just to be clear, are you looking for help with an evaulation of an original flyer or a "high resolution upscale print" of a flyer? Back in May 2019 you claimed to have sold the depicted flyer for £620. **SERIOUSLY LOOKING TO CONSIDER OFFERS ON THIS ITEM** FOR SALE HERE IS MY BANKSY STREET SHOW GRAFFITI, HOSTILITY & THE JUBILEE FLYER COMPLETELY OG FROM 2002 ALTHOUGH THIS ITEM MAY HAVE TAKEN A BIT OF A BEATING OVER THE YEARS I’M SURE AFTER ALL THE MESSAGES I GOT OFF THE BACK OF MY PREVIOUS THREAD A MARKET FOR THIS ITEM HAS BEEN GENERATED.. I FEEL IT WOULD LOOK GREAT FRAMED TO THE RIGHT COLLECTOR & ALTHOUGH NOT AN ACTAlPIECE OF ART THE DEMAND IS SEEMINGLY HIGH AS I DOUBT MANY OF THESE HAVE MADE IT THROUGH THE LAST 17 YEARS UNSCATHED .. IF ANYONE HAS SEEN ONE UP FOR SALE PREVIOUSLY & IN WHAT CONDITION & FOR WHAT PRICE DO HELP OTHER FORUM USERS GAIN THIS UNDERSTANDING & I HOPE TO FIND THIS THE RIGHT HOME AS SOON AS WE CAN BETWEEN US. THANKS FOR THE INTEREST SO FAR I APPRECIATE IT IMMENSELY. BUMP. I have had some high resolution upscale prints made due the high interest & offer count on this piece but have decided I may keep the original now please see listings below: [links removed]If you are not allowed to refer eBay listings on this page someone please let me know. So you offer copies of a flyer? Same like you sell on the bay, right? WTF? WTF .... I am not selling copies at all I am selling an image that is not readily available & one I had an awful lot of interest in with offers ranging anywhere between £200 - £800.00 for the original A6 flyer but a lot of people advised the image was highly sought after & I should offer it out to collectors. selling the original A6 flyer for £620.00 & then producing a few high resolution prints to sell on to others seems like a decent margin on an easily available image. thanks for posting as I now can get a clearer one made should I wish to do so but might I add it’s not the original image people are looking for it’s an original flyer of which I sold .... silly you for trying to act smart & thanks for wasting your time uploading a clean image that even I can create. Coz yours being all tatty from being in your back pocket for 17 years and probably that have farted on quite a few times, is worth £15? I rather have a fart and crease free one for nothing - thanks Dogstar don’t get twisted pal my original was a piece of street art history, whereas your cleverly discovered original image that is readily available is lame & easily obtainable.... my one is only worth as much as somebody wanted to pay like anything really & as I mentioned I decided to sell the original 2002 show flyer for a decent amount, then kept a high resolution image of the weathered flyer which I believe tells a story & makes it more desirable as many other forum users have also thought. I was handed this flyer back in London in 2002 potentially by BANKSY himself & people made offers on the piece off of the back of that provenance of which may well be true. please feel free to own your own copy of my once owned original as I stated above don’t get twisted pal we can’t all have what we want .... If I still had the original I’d ask you to join the queue of bids I received but for now I can only offer you a high resolution copy I had made to offer the rest of the unsuccessful bidders an image of the exact flyer they wanted to own in an upscale version & for a fraction of the price. have a lovely evening farting & creasing your own basic image to create something a touch more desirable & I’m sorry your pockets weren’t deep enough to own the original. 💭 For context, the full thread is available here: urbanartassociation.com/thread/157041/sale-banksy-graffiti-hostility-jubilee.
|
|
|
Donald Trump, by Peter Bengtsen on Oct 30, 2020 22:45:02 GMT 1,
|
|
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Peter Bengtsen on Oct 18, 2020 9:42:38 GMT 1, Regarding removed street artworks being perceived as "stolen", I thought it might be worth posting this short excerpt from a 2016 book chapter on street art removals with a view to collect or sell: "It should be noted that irrespective of whether the art is considered stolen property in a formal sense, many street artists, as well as street art enthusiasts and urban art collectors, on principle fìnd it inappropriate to remove and trade in art from the street (Bengtsen, 2014). There is a strong notion that stre et art is ephemeral and should remain on the street until it disappears "naturally" (e.g. being whitewashed, destroyed by elements, or gone over with other art). Removal with a view to collect or sell is not considered natural or acceptable, and even legally-removed street art is often described as having been stolen from the public for which it was intended and to which it - in a moral sense - rightly belongs. This is a quite pervasive discourse in the worlds of stree t art and urb an art, and one that is also hinted at in the title of the Stealing Banksy? exhibition." Thank you Peter.
You're very welcome. In case it wasn't clear, the bold text in my previous post is a link to the full book chapter (free to access): www.academia.edu/20899358/
Regarding removed street artworks being perceived as "stolen", I thought it might be worth posting this short excerpt from a 2016 book chapter on street art removals with a view to collect or sell: "It should be noted that irrespective of whether the art is considered stolen property in a formal sense, many street artists, as well as street art enthusiasts and urban art collectors, on principle fìnd it inappropriate to remove and trade in art from the street (Bengtsen, 2014). There is a strong notion that stre et art is ephemeral and should remain on the street until it disappears "naturally" (e.g. being whitewashed, destroyed by elements, or gone over with other art). Removal with a view to collect or sell is not considered natural or acceptable, and even legally-removed street art is often described as having been stolen from the public for which it was intended and to which it - in a moral sense - rightly belongs. This is a quite pervasive discourse in the worlds of stree t art and urb an art, and one that is also hinted at in the title of the Stealing Banksy? exhibition." Thank you Peter. You're very welcome. In case it wasn't clear, the bold text in my previous post is a link to the full book chapter (free to access): www.academia.edu/20899358/
|
|
|
NO LONGER AVAILABLE. , by Peter Bengtsen on Oct 18, 2020 1:35:11 GMT 1, Regarding removed street artworks being perceived as "stolen", I thought it might be worth posting this short excerpt from a 2016 book chapter on street art removals with a view to collect or sell: "It should be noted that irrespective of whether the art is considered stolen property in a formal sense, many street artists, as well as street art enthusiasts and urban art collectors, on principle fìnd it inappropriate to remove and trade in art from the street (Bengtsen, 2014). There is a strong notion that stre et art is ephemeral and should remain on the street until it disappears "naturally" (e.g. being whitewashed, destroyed by elements, or gone over with other art). Removal with a view to collect or sell is not considered natural or acceptable, and even legally-removed street art is often described as having been stolen from the public for which it was intended and to which it - in a moral sense - rightly belongs. This is a quite pervasive discourse in the worlds of stree t art and urb an art, and one that is also hinted at in the title of the Stealing Banksy? exhibition."
Regarding removed street artworks being perceived as "stolen", I thought it might be worth posting this short excerpt from a 2016 book chapter on street art removals with a view to collect or sell: "It should be noted that irrespective of whether the art is considered stolen property in a formal sense, many street artists, as well as street art enthusiasts and urban art collectors, on principle fìnd it inappropriate to remove and trade in art from the street (Bengtsen, 2014). There is a strong notion that stre et art is ephemeral and should remain on the street until it disappears "naturally" (e.g. being whitewashed, destroyed by elements, or gone over with other art). Removal with a view to collect or sell is not considered natural or acceptable, and even legally-removed street art is often described as having been stolen from the public for which it was intended and to which it - in a moral sense - rightly belongs. This is a quite pervasive discourse in the worlds of stree t art and urb an art, and one that is also hinted at in the title of the Stealing Banksy? exhibition."
|
|
|
Banksy 'Donkey Documents', by Peter Bengtsen on Jul 10, 2020 10:28:53 GMT 1,
|
|
|
|
Banksy GDP staff gift prints, by Peter Bengtsen on Dec 28, 2019 12:50:02 GMT 1,
Scoff if you want, but on an average stencil he cuts out more pieces than Banksy.
Scoff if you want, but on an average stencil he cuts out more pieces than Banksy.
|
|
|
BANKSY Gross Domestic Product™, by Peter Bengtsen on Oct 13, 2019 17:52:15 GMT 1, I searched a bit of info on Escif, and I found a piece he did at Dismaland:
I searched a bit of info on Escif, and I found a piece he did at Dismaland:
|
|
|
BANKSY Gross Domestic Product™, by Peter Bengtsen on Oct 3, 2019 8:32:06 GMT 1, How much do you think productivity on average has gone down for Banksy fans in the last 2 days?
In other words, how will Gross Domestic Product™ affect the Gross Domestic Product?
How much do you think productivity on average has gone down for Banksy fans in the last 2 days? In other words, how will Gross Domestic Product™ affect the Gross Domestic Product?
|
|
|
|
|
Tracing KEGR, by Peter Bengtsen on Sept 12, 2019 21:29:46 GMT 1,
|
|
|
Tracing KEGR, by Peter Bengtsen on Sept 12, 2019 10:18:41 GMT 1,
|
|
|
Tracing KEGR, by Peter Bengtsen on Sept 10, 2019 17:47:14 GMT 1,
|
|