Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy mural vanishes from London, appears at US a, by Deleted on Feb 25, 2013 0:40:55 GMT 1, Strange. I watched the auction live until I realised the last lot had been removed.
On your link it lists 117 lots but the last lot is number 116.
Strange. I watched the auction live until I realised the last lot had been removed.
On your link it lists 117 lots but the last lot is number 116.
|
|
pelle
New Member
🗨️ 626
👍🏻 56
May 2007
|
Banksy mural vanishes from London, appears at US a, by pelle on Feb 25, 2013 8:14:00 GMT 1, Yes, it is quite strange. I also noticed that 117 was missing, but before the piece disappeared from the site I saw it listed there as Lot 7.
Whatever the lot number, I would love to know what happened to the piece (and why it was removed entirely from the site. That didn't happen to the Jubilee piece even if it was withdrawn).
Yes, it is quite strange. I also noticed that 117 was missing, but before the piece disappeared from the site I saw it listed there as Lot 7.
Whatever the lot number, I would love to know what happened to the piece (and why it was removed entirely from the site. That didn't happen to the Jubilee piece even if it was withdrawn).
|
|
|
|
Banksy mural vanishes from London, appears at US a, by Agent Provocateur on Feb 25, 2013 11:58:33 GMT 1, This was the article in the Standard last Friday... poor journalism but a couple of interesting points.
The thing I can't believe is they thought that 'Why?' rat was done by Banksy! Firstly, is Banksy really going to go back to the wall someone just cut out one of his stencils to sell in the US for loads of money and do another one for someone to steal? Secondly, it's not exactly up to his standard!
The interesting point is when they talk about the owners of the wall, Wood Green Investments I think (owners of Poundland?), the two company directors haven't commented yet. But the article says they're in-between a rock and a hard place, if they admit they were something to do with the removal (and subsequent sale) they'll get a lot of flack from all angles. If they say they were nothing to do with the removal then, as legal owners, it'll come down to theft and the police will have to be involved.
This was the article in the Standard last Friday... poor journalism but a couple of interesting points. The thing I can't believe is they thought that 'Why?' rat was done by Banksy! Firstly, is Banksy really going to go back to the wall someone just cut out one of his stencils to sell in the US for loads of money and do another one for someone to steal? Secondly, it's not exactly up to his standard! The interesting point is when they talk about the owners of the wall, Wood Green Investments I think (owners of Poundland?), the two company directors haven't commented yet. But the article says they're in-between a rock and a hard place, if they admit they were something to do with the removal (and subsequent sale) they'll get a lot of flack from all angles. If they say they were nothing to do with the removal then, as legal owners, it'll come down to theft and the police will have to be involved. |
|
Dr Plip
Junior Member
🗨️ 7,043
👍🏻 8,981
August 2011
|
Banksy mural vanishes from London, appears at US a, by Dr Plip on Feb 25, 2013 13:42:27 GMT 1, This was the article in the Standard last Friday... poor journalism but a couple of interesting points. The thing I can't believe is they thought that 'Why?' rat was done by Banksy! Firstly, is Banksy really going to go back to the wall someone just cut out one of his stencils to sell in the US for loads of money and do another one for someone to steal? Secondly, it's not exactly up to his standard! The interesting point is when they talk about the owners of the wall, Wood Green Investments I think (owners of Poundland?), the two company directors haven't commented yet. But the article says they're in-between a rock and a hard place, if they admit they were something to do with the removal (and subsequent sale) they'll get a lot of flack from all angles. If they say they were nothing to do with the removal then, as legal owners, it'll come down to theft and the police will have to be involved.
I actually thought that was quite strange that the solicitor of the building's owner saw fit to comment, even though it wasn't exactly a statement from them. Quite a cowardly stance too. If they sold their chunk of wall, then just say. It appears they're entitled to. It'd stop all of the council hand-wringers lamenting the "theft" of their "gift" from Banksy.
If there are no legal implications, then so what if they get some negative press? Poundland are unlikely to stop renting the building from them, and I hardly see any blowback from the council over this.
This while debacle is just getting silly now. I'd rather it had stayed where it was, but the FBI and Police having to get involved, when all of this is just hype, rumour and hearsay? Seriously. One statement from the landlords would clear this all up. Then maybe the Police and F.B.I. can go back to tracking down terrorists and illegal music downloaders.
I like the line in the article that says " (the piece is...)... thought to be a critique of sweatshops that produce cheap decorations."
Yes. It's very specifically aimed at those bar-stewards that make cheap decorations......
This was the article in the Standard last Friday... poor journalism but a couple of interesting points. The thing I can't believe is they thought that 'Why?' rat was done by Banksy! Firstly, is Banksy really going to go back to the wall someone just cut out one of his stencils to sell in the US for loads of money and do another one for someone to steal? Secondly, it's not exactly up to his standard! The interesting point is when they talk about the owners of the wall, Wood Green Investments I think (owners of Poundland?), the two company directors haven't commented yet. But the article says they're in-between a rock and a hard place, if they admit they were something to do with the removal (and subsequent sale) they'll get a lot of flack from all angles. If they say they were nothing to do with the removal then, as legal owners, it'll come down to theft and the police will have to be involved. I actually thought that was quite strange that the solicitor of the building's owner saw fit to comment, even though it wasn't exactly a statement from them. Quite a cowardly stance too. If they sold their chunk of wall, then just say. It appears they're entitled to. It'd stop all of the council hand-wringers lamenting the "theft" of their "gift" from Banksy. If there are no legal implications, then so what if they get some negative press? Poundland are unlikely to stop renting the building from them, and I hardly see any blowback from the council over this. This while debacle is just getting silly now. I'd rather it had stayed where it was, but the FBI and Police having to get involved, when all of this is just hype, rumour and hearsay? Seriously. One statement from the landlords would clear this all up. Then maybe the Police and F.B.I. can go back to tracking down terrorists and illegal music downloaders. I like the line in the article that says " (the piece is...)... thought to be a critique of sweatshops that produce cheap decorations." Yes. It's very specifically aimed at those bar-stewards that make cheap decorations...... |
|
maxf
New Member
🗨️ 470
👍🏻 331
October 2012
|
Banksy mural vanishes from London, appears at US a, by maxf on Feb 25, 2013 15:24:36 GMT 1, I would imagine the issue is that, while Poundland have the lease on the property, the buildings owners do not have the automatic right to remove part of it and sell it off - nor would Poundland! That's without reading the lease, obviously.
It's all bullshit anyway; councils commenting on graffiti which should be left for the people, when a couple of years ago they'd just have whitewashed it - but could I say I wouldn't sell a banksy for six-figures if one appeared on my wall... nope.
I would imagine the issue is that, while Poundland have the lease on the property, the buildings owners do not have the automatic right to remove part of it and sell it off - nor would Poundland! That's without reading the lease, obviously.
It's all bullshit anyway; councils commenting on graffiti which should be left for the people, when a couple of years ago they'd just have whitewashed it - but could I say I wouldn't sell a banksy for six-figures if one appeared on my wall... nope.
|
|
Dr Plip
Junior Member
🗨️ 7,043
👍🏻 8,981
August 2011
|
Banksy mural vanishes from London, appears at US a, by Dr Plip on Feb 25, 2013 16:59:13 GMT 1, Gotta love this quote from one of the owners of the freehold for the Poundland store:
Mr Davies told the Evening Standard: “I cannot believe it’s over graffiti on a wall that has caused this. We had a case with one of our buildings where we had graffiti and the council told us they would fine us over £1000 if we didn’t remove it."
Now that Banksy can do no wrong, it makes you wonder what would happen if his next work was on the wall of the Haringey Council offices. Perhaps something like a giant phallus, with the message "Haringey Council are a bunch of child chasers. This is NOT a Banksy! Signed Banksy."
Followed by the usual uploaded image to his website. The council would implode.
Gotta love this quote from one of the owners of the freehold for the Poundland store:
Mr Davies told the Evening Standard: “I cannot believe it’s over graffiti on a wall that has caused this. We had a case with one of our buildings where we had graffiti and the council told us they would fine us over £1000 if we didn’t remove it."
Now that Banksy can do no wrong, it makes you wonder what would happen if his next work was on the wall of the Haringey Council offices. Perhaps something like a giant phallus, with the message "Haringey Council are a bunch of child chasers. This is NOT a Banksy! Signed Banksy."
Followed by the usual uploaded image to his website. The council would implode.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banksy mural vanishes from London, appears at US a, by Goooogle Male on Feb 25, 2013 17:26:38 GMT 1, yeah...a banksy-fied version of this on their wall would be hilarious
yeah...a banksy-fied version of this on their wall would be hilarious |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy mural vanishes from London, appears at US a, by Deleted on Feb 25, 2013 19:34:13 GMT 1, Graf's graf. Haringey Council need to make their mind up as to whether they want it on the wall or they don't. The artist has no relevance.
Poundland (probably) have an obligation to paint over it within the terms of their lease. I doubt that the freeholder has the right to remove it.
John Brandler would pitch up to the opening of an envelope.
Graf's graf. Haringey Council need to make their mind up as to whether they want it on the wall or they don't. The artist has no relevance.
Poundland (probably) have an obligation to paint over it within the terms of their lease. I doubt that the freeholder has the right to remove it.
John Brandler would pitch up to the opening of an envelope.
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy mural vanishes from London, appears at US a, by Deleted on May 11, 2013 13:08:17 GMT 1, From the BBC website: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22492378 And just been on Radio 4 news.
A Banksy artwork which had been withdrawn from an auction in the US has been put up for sale again.
The mural, called Slave Labour, disappeared from a wall in Wood Green, north London, in February and appeared in a Miami sale.
But it was removed from the lot after protests by Haringey Council.
It is now up for auction next month in central London's Covent Garden by the Sincura Group. Haringey Trades Union Congress has criticised the new sale.
The mural, which depicts a boy hunched over a sewing machine making Union Jack bunting, appeared on the side of a Poundland store last May, just before the Diamond Jubilee celebrations.
'Cloak of secrecy'
A spokesman for the auctioneers Sincura said the mural "has been sensitively restored under a cloak of secrecy", and will go on show alongside pieces by Damien Hirst, Andy Warhol, Mario Testino and Russell Young.
But Keith Flett, secretary of the Haringey Trades Union Congress, said: "The Slave Labour Banksy belongs to the people of Haringey not to a wealthy private client.
"We want the sale stopped and the Banksy back where it belongs in London N22."
When the mural was up for auction in Miami, it was expected to fetch up to £450,000.
There was suspicion the mural had been stolen when it disappeared but the Metropolitan Police said there were "no reports of any theft".
Slave Labour will go on sale at the London Film Museum on 2 June.
From the BBC website: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22492378 And just been on Radio 4 news. A Banksy artwork which had been withdrawn from an auction in the US has been put up for sale again. The mural, called Slave Labour, disappeared from a wall in Wood Green, north London, in February and appeared in a Miami sale. But it was removed from the lot after protests by Haringey Council. It is now up for auction next month in central London's Covent Garden by the Sincura Group. Haringey Trades Union Congress has criticised the new sale. The mural, which depicts a boy hunched over a sewing machine making Union Jack bunting, appeared on the side of a Poundland store last May, just before the Diamond Jubilee celebrations. 'Cloak of secrecy' A spokesman for the auctioneers Sincura said the mural "has been sensitively restored under a cloak of secrecy", and will go on show alongside pieces by Damien Hirst, Andy Warhol, Mario Testino and Russell Young. But Keith Flett, secretary of the Haringey Trades Union Congress, said: "The Slave Labour Banksy belongs to the people of Haringey not to a wealthy private client. "We want the sale stopped and the Banksy back where it belongs in London N22." When the mural was up for auction in Miami, it was expected to fetch up to £450,000. There was suspicion the mural had been stolen when it disappeared but the Metropolitan Police said there were "no reports of any theft". Slave Labour will go on sale at the London Film Museum on 2 June. |
|
