hesta
New Member
🗨️ 4
👍🏻 3
March 2014
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by hesta on May 16, 2014 10:52:27 GMT 1, As I understand it all those holding Banksy pieces that were never produced for commercial reasons have been stymied by Pest Control regarding attribution: the line given by them being to the effect that Banksy never acknowledges the pieces because, in the cases of street art/graffiti, he would be admitting potentially illegal activities.
Except now he has.
I'm wondering if his admission now lays the foundations for those with millions invested to argue that the blanket refusal to provide honest authentication no longer has a consistent basis and is purely down to his whim.
The Uk Trading Standards and EC Directorate for Competition may now take the view that the artist (and his company) have been merely using a convenient legalistic argument in order to maintain illegal restrictive trading practices and in time bring a flurry of civil claims (and in the case of the US anti-trust prosecutions) against the artist and his company.
I'd be interested to hear any thoughts.
As I understand it all those holding Banksy pieces that were never produced for commercial reasons have been stymied by Pest Control regarding attribution: the line given by them being to the effect that Banksy never acknowledges the pieces because, in the cases of street art/graffiti, he would be admitting potentially illegal activities.
Except now he has.
I'm wondering if his admission now lays the foundations for those with millions invested to argue that the blanket refusal to provide honest authentication no longer has a consistent basis and is purely down to his whim.
The Uk Trading Standards and EC Directorate for Competition may now take the view that the artist (and his company) have been merely using a convenient legalistic argument in order to maintain illegal restrictive trading practices and in time bring a flurry of civil claims (and in the case of the US anti-trust prosecutions) against the artist and his company.
I'd be interested to hear any thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by Goooogle Male on May 16, 2014 11:03:16 GMT 1, this is nonsense. He's never sold any of these pieces to any of the buyers, therefore 'trading standards' or EC Directorate Commission (btw - WTF?!) have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Anyone with 'millions' invested in Sincura junk is an idiot.
this is nonsense. He's never sold any of these pieces to any of the buyers, therefore 'trading standards' or EC Directorate Commission (btw - WTF?!) have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Anyone with 'millions' invested in Sincura junk is an idiot.
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by Deleted on May 16, 2014 11:15:01 GMT 1, Are you by any chance Tom Baxter?, or one of the other galleries holding street works?.
What has Banksy actually admitted?,
'Investors' who are left with street works and no pestcontrol coa should all get together and form their own head in the sand club.
It aint gonna happen
Are you by any chance Tom Baxter?, or one of the other galleries holding street works?.
What has Banksy actually admitted?,
'Investors' who are left with street works and no pestcontrol coa should all get together and form their own head in the sand club.
It aint gonna happen
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by Deleted on May 16, 2014 11:17:29 GMT 1, As I understand it all those holding Banksy pieces that were never produced for commercial reasons have been stymied by Pest Control regarding attribution: the line given by them being to the effect that Banksy never acknowledges the pieces because, in the cases of street art/graffiti, he would be admitting potentially illegal activities. Except now he has. I'm wondering if his admission now lays the foundations for those with millions invested to argue that the blanket refusal to provide honest authentication no longer has a consistent basis and is purely down to his whim. The Uk Trading Standards and EC Directorate for Competition may now take the view that the artist (and his company) have been merely using a convenient legalistic argument in order to maintain illegal restrictive trading practices and in time bring a flurry of civil claims (and in the case of the US anti-trust prosecutions) against the artist and his company. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts.
Mobile lovers was painted on a removable piece of wood, which makes it different from those painted on a permanent wall. If you want to get all legal and technical about it then 'that's the difference your honour'. Case dismissed!
As I understand it all those holding Banksy pieces that were never produced for commercial reasons have been stymied by Pest Control regarding attribution: the line given by them being to the effect that Banksy never acknowledges the pieces because, in the cases of street art/graffiti, he would be admitting potentially illegal activities. Except now he has. I'm wondering if his admission now lays the foundations for those with millions invested to argue that the blanket refusal to provide honest authentication no longer has a consistent basis and is purely down to his whim. The Uk Trading Standards and EC Directorate for Competition may now take the view that the artist (and his company) have been merely using a convenient legalistic argument in order to maintain illegal restrictive trading practices and in time bring a flurry of civil claims (and in the case of the US anti-trust prosecutions) against the artist and his company. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts. My thoughts are similar to those of gooooglemale, with the added phrase ' are you a law student writing a thesis?' Mobile lovers was painted on a removable piece of wood, which makes it different from those painted on a permanent wall. If you want to get all legal and technical about it then 'that's the difference your honour'. Case dismissed! |
|
|
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by Happy Shopper on May 16, 2014 11:25:53 GMT 1, Also, Banksy neither confirms nor denies... so what exactly would you be suing for? Not admitting he did it!? Maybe he didn't do it!! 
Also, Banksy neither confirms nor denies... so what exactly would you be suing for? Not admitting he did it!? Maybe he didn't do it!! |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by Deleted on May 16, 2014 11:32:49 GMT 1, Thoughts:-That was a bit much, I need a coffee! Welcome by the way 
Thoughts:-That was a bit much, I need a coffee! Welcome by the way |
|
|
|
johnnyh
Junior Member
🗨️ 4,492
👍🏻 2,102
March 2011
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by johnnyh on May 16, 2014 12:02:46 GMT 1, He can say he did or did not do what he liked....it would be very hard to prove otherwise
There was a picture of the piece on his website.....so what there are lots of pictures on say Butterfly's page does not mean she did them
Competition laws and anti trust regardless are not used at this level. Banksy is worth bugger all in the real world of companies and corporations. He is also not that big of an artist to be fair and that's not meant in any detrimental way just on market valuation.
There have been some oddities where he has given a COA but that has had no effect
He can say he did or did not do what he liked....it would be very hard to prove otherwise
There was a picture of the piece on his website.....so what there are lots of pictures on say Butterfly's page does not mean she did them
Competition laws and anti trust regardless are not used at this level. Banksy is worth bugger all in the real world of companies and corporations. He is also not that big of an artist to be fair and that's not meant in any detrimental way just on market valuation.
There have been some oddities where he has given a COA but that has had no effect
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by Deleted on May 16, 2014 12:15:49 GMT 1, I believe that Hesta is not just talking about idiots with walls....
He basically said Banksy has publicly contradicted his usual practice.
Those people holding gift originals and prints (these days worth hefty sums) that could not get COA's based on the sole argument that they were not meant to be sold when created or gifted, now have a widely publicized precedent to refer to argue a case for COA's for their genuine artworks.
Not necessarily in court, but in theory it brings to light a pretty silly ongoing argument by PC not to give COA's artwork that they admit is Banksy's.
I believe that Hesta is not just talking about idiots with walls....
He basically said Banksy has publicly contradicted his usual practice.
Those people holding gift originals and prints (these days worth hefty sums) that could not get COA's based on the sole argument that they were not meant to be sold when created or gifted, now have a widely publicized precedent to refer to argue a case for COA's for their genuine artworks.
Not necessarily in court, but in theory it brings to light a pretty silly ongoing argument by PC not to give COA's artwork that they admit is Banksy's.
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by Deleted on May 16, 2014 12:46:28 GMT 1, See what you mean Streetfart, (though I still think original poster was talking more of street works re his / her 'Millions invested' comment), so, if the gifts were given as gifts then its just hard luck as no COA, it was a gift so thats that, not made for resale, if a person buys one then they should know that and decide accordingly.
PC cannot cave in on this no matter how much pressure idiot Gallerists put on them to COA unoffical works whether it be on forums like this or via the media ie writing letters to newspapers in the third person.
IMO anyhow matey..
Worms safely in can.
See what you mean Streetfart, (though I still think original poster was talking more of street works re his / her 'Millions invested' comment), so, if the gifts were given as gifts then its just hard luck as no COA, it was a gift so thats that, not made for resale, if a person buys one then they should know that and decide accordingly.
PC cannot cave in on this no matter how much pressure idiot Gallerists put on them to COA unoffical works whether it be on forums like this or via the media ie writing letters to newspapers in the third person.
IMO anyhow matey..
Worms safely in can.
|
|
|
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by searchandrescue on May 16, 2014 13:06:29 GMT 1, I believe that Hesta is not just talking about idiots with walls.... He basically said Banksy has publicly contradicted his usual practice. Those people holding gift originals and prints (these days worth hefty sums) that could not get COA's based on the sole argument that they were not meant to be sold when created or gifted, now have a widely publicized precedent to refer to argue a case for COA's for their genuine artworks. Not necessarily in court, but in theory it brings to light a pretty silly ongoing argument by PC not to give COA's artwork that they admit is Banksy's.
I believe that Hesta is not just talking about idiots with walls.... He basically said Banksy has publicly contradicted his usual practice. Those people holding gift originals and prints (these days worth hefty sums) that could not get COA's based on the sole argument that they were not meant to be sold when created or gifted, now have a widely publicized precedent to refer to argue a case for COA's for their genuine artworks. Not necessarily in court, but in theory it brings to light a pretty silly ongoing argument by PC not to give COA's artwork that they admit is Banksy's. ...exactly, so why the change? |
|
hesta
New Member
🗨️ 4
👍🏻 3
March 2014
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by hesta on May 16, 2014 13:45:10 GMT 1, I believe that Hesta is not just talking about idiots with walls.... He basically said Banksy has publicly contradicted his usual practice. Those people holding gift originals and prints (these days worth hefty sums) that could not get COA's based on the sole argument that they were not meant to be sold when created or gifted, now have a widely publicized precedent to refer to argue a case for COA's for their genuine artworks. Not necessarily in court, but in theory it brings to light a pretty silly ongoing argument by PC not to give COA's artwork that they admit is Banksy's.
Small and medium sized business (ie. Banksy and Pest Control) are precisely the kinds of businesses that the EC Directorate usually DO take to task as they usually have no compliance officer to understand or impliment the legislation.
No artist, or any other kind of manufacturer, has, or should have, the power and or resources to control the output of their product once it is in the public arena. That is unfair competition, is creating a cartel within the business and is illegal.
The same sort of argument was used in the anti-trust litigation used against Andy Warhol's Estate authentication body: they lost millions and no longer authenticate at all.
My point, which has been neatly picked up by the above poster, is that whereas in the past Banksy had a kind of convenient defence (ie. didn't want to get into trouble with the authorities) he's broken that argument and created a new precedent.
I believe that Hesta is not just talking about idiots with walls.... He basically said Banksy has publicly contradicted his usual practice. Those people holding gift originals and prints (these days worth hefty sums) that could not get COA's based on the sole argument that they were not meant to be sold when created or gifted, now have a widely publicized precedent to refer to argue a case for COA's for their genuine artworks. Not necessarily in court, but in theory it brings to light a pretty silly ongoing argument by PC not to give COA's artwork that they admit is Banksy's. Yes, that is my point. Small and medium sized business (ie. Banksy and Pest Control) are precisely the kinds of businesses that the EC Directorate usually DO take to task as they usually have no compliance officer to understand or impliment the legislation. No artist, or any other kind of manufacturer, has, or should have, the power and or resources to control the output of their product once it is in the public arena. That is unfair competition, is creating a cartel within the business and is illegal. The same sort of argument was used in the anti-trust litigation used against Andy Warhol's Estate authentication body: they lost millions and no longer authenticate at all. My point, which has been neatly picked up by the above poster, is that whereas in the past Banksy had a kind of convenient defence (ie. didn't want to get into trouble with the authorities) he's broken that argument and created a new precedent. |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by Deleted on May 16, 2014 13:55:41 GMT 1, As I understand it all those holding Banksy pieces that were never produced for commercial reasons have been stymied by Pest Control regarding attribution: the line given by them being to the effect that Banksy never acknowledges the pieces because, in the cases of street art/graffiti, he would be admitting potentially illegal activities. Except now he has. I'm wondering if his admission now lays the foundations for those with millions invested to argue that the blanket refusal to provide honest authentication no longer has a consistent basis and is purely down to his whim. The Uk Trading Standards and EC Directorate for Competition may now take the view that the artist (and his company) have been merely using a convenient legalistic argument in order to maintain illegal restrictive trading practices and in time bring a flurry of civil claims (and in the case of the US anti-trust prosecutions) against the artist and his company. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts. f**k the EC directive for competition, considering the EU's antics.
More fool the people who invested millions.
I don't see Banksy or Pest Control doing anything wrong.
No one has asked or demanded that people remove art painted on a wall and try to sell it for a huge amount of money. I haven't seen anything anywhere, where Banksy etc have said that a piece of art on a wall is for sale at a certain price. So refusing to say he did a piece of art or saying he did a piece of art like Mobile Lovers is his choice and has nothing to do with controlling or being anti competition.
The people who should be investigated are the big dealers etc who get their hands on art and then between themselves hype up in the media via advertorials etc and collude with some people in auction houses to falsely bid up the prices and in some cases bid up the prices to non existing bidders.
The irony is that the police or whoever removed that bit of plywood off the door could be accused of stealing the plywood if the owner of the plywood said he wants it back as the stuff painted on the plywood makes no difference.
Usually ltd editions are signed by the artist which is a legal way of verifying the edition is ltd.
Free prints and proofs etc and prints given as gifts which are not meant for sale or re sale can be refused a certificate.
Ltd editions sold by a gallery etc should have a certificate when sold which should stay with the print.
Given a certificate every time a print changes onwership looks like overkill to me.
As I understand it all those holding Banksy pieces that were never produced for commercial reasons have been stymied by Pest Control regarding attribution: the line given by them being to the effect that Banksy never acknowledges the pieces because, in the cases of street art/graffiti, he would be admitting potentially illegal activities. Except now he has. I'm wondering if his admission now lays the foundations for those with millions invested to argue that the blanket refusal to provide honest authentication no longer has a consistent basis and is purely down to his whim. The Uk Trading Standards and EC Directorate for Competition may now take the view that the artist (and his company) have been merely using a convenient legalistic argument in order to maintain illegal restrictive trading practices and in time bring a flurry of civil claims (and in the case of the US anti-trust prosecutions) against the artist and his company. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts. f**k the EC directive for competition, considering the EU's antics.
More fool the people who invested millions.
I don't see Banksy or Pest Control doing anything wrong.
No one has asked or demanded that people remove art painted on a wall and try to sell it for a huge amount of money. I haven't seen anything anywhere, where Banksy etc have said that a piece of art on a wall is for sale at a certain price. So refusing to say he did a piece of art or saying he did a piece of art like Mobile Lovers is his choice and has nothing to do with controlling or being anti competition.
The people who should be investigated are the big dealers etc who get their hands on art and then between themselves hype up in the media via advertorials etc and collude with some people in auction houses to falsely bid up the prices and in some cases bid up the prices to non existing bidders.
The irony is that the police or whoever removed that bit of plywood off the door could be accused of stealing the plywood if the owner of the plywood said he wants it back as the stuff painted on the plywood makes no difference.
Usually ltd editions are signed by the artist which is a legal way of verifying the edition is ltd.
Free prints and proofs etc and prints given as gifts which are not meant for sale or re sale can be refused a certificate.
Ltd editions sold by a gallery etc should have a certificate when sold which should stay with the print.
Given a certificate every time a print changes onwership looks like overkill to me.
|
|
johnnyh
Junior Member
🗨️ 4,492
👍🏻 2,102
March 2011
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by johnnyh on May 16, 2014 15:39:11 GMT 1, I believe that Hesta is not just talking about idiots with walls.... He basically said Banksy has publicly contradicted his usual practice. Those people holding gift originals and prints (these days worth hefty sums) that could not get COA's based on the sole argument that they were not meant to be sold when created or gifted, now have a widely publicized precedent to refer to argue a case for COA's for their genuine artworks. Not necessarily in court, but in theory it brings to light a pretty silly ongoing argument by PC not to give COA's artwork that they admit is Banksy's.
this is their right under just about any law. So he has never said gifts are not original. Now it's similar to buying from an outlet where you are not offered a warranty slightly different in law but similar as this is the agreed terms when you accept the gift. It's not a purchase.
they have issued/ will issue a cert of authenticity but will not issue further ones.
I believe that Hesta is not just talking about idiots with walls.... He basically said Banksy has publicly contradicted his usual practice. Those people holding gift originals and prints (these days worth hefty sums) that could not get COA's based on the sole argument that they were not meant to be sold when created or gifted, now have a widely publicized precedent to refer to argue a case for COA's for their genuine artworks. Not necessarily in court, but in theory it brings to light a pretty silly ongoing argument by PC not to give COA's artwork that they admit is Banksy's. But your missing the point gift prints and originals he does give a COA with. He/they just do not issue more. this is their right under just about any law. So he has never said gifts are not original. Now it's similar to buying from an outlet where you are not offered a warranty slightly different in law but similar as this is the agreed terms when you accept the gift. It's not a purchase. they have issued/ will issue a cert of authenticity but will not issue further ones. |
|
Manty
New Member
🗨️ 971
👍🏻 610
May 2013
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by Manty on May 16, 2014 18:06:09 GMT 1, can't he just deny they are his, as in "not mine, fuck you"
or will the EU sue his arse off if he does?
Not mine, but I did hear through a forum that Outis could have done them
Oops now he is a super grass
Supergrass did them !
Sorted
can't he just deny they are his, as in "not mine, fuck you"
or will the EU sue his arse off if he does?
Not mine, but I did hear through a forum that Outis could have done them
Oops now he is a super grass
Supergrass did them !
Sorted
|
|
|
|
mojo
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,191
👍🏻 3,724
May 2014
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by mojo on May 16, 2014 18:48:22 GMT 1, As I understand it a well loved artist from Bristol chose to save a community based youth project from closure by way of donating an artwork authenticated by a note to a volunteer called Denis that has dedicated 36 years.....yes 36 years of his life to running a very successful club for local youth.
I personally don't think trading standards & or EU Directorate Commissions .....blah blah blah are anything to do with it and neither should they be ...... there is no can of worms and Banksy certainly hasn't opened one...... you did.
Have a heart - it was a super cool gesture and doesn't need any legal jargon to discredit it.
Hello forum
As I understand it a well loved artist from Bristol chose to save a community based youth project from closure by way of donating an artwork authenticated by a note to a volunteer called Denis that has dedicated 36 years.....yes 36 years of his life to running a very successful club for local youth.
I personally don't think trading standards & or EU Directorate Commissions .....blah blah blah are anything to do with it and neither should they be ...... there is no can of worms and Banksy certainly hasn't opened one...... you did.
Have a heart - it was a super cool gesture and doesn't need any legal jargon to discredit it.
Hello forum
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by Deleted on May 16, 2014 21:10:36 GMT 1, can't he just deny they are his, as in "not mine, f**k you" or will the EU sue his arse off if he does? Not mine, but I did hear through a forum that Outis could have done them Oops now he is a super grass Supergrass did them ! Sorted
can't he just deny they are his, as in "not mine, f**k you" or will the EU sue his arse off if he does? Not mine, but I did hear through a forum that Outis could have done them Oops now he is a super grass Supergrass did them ! Sorted lol. They kept their tooth nice and clean though. |
|
hesta
New Member
🗨️ 4
👍🏻 3
March 2014
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by hesta on May 17, 2014 11:30:34 GMT 1, As I understand it a well loved artist from Bristol chose to save a community based youth project from closure by way of donating an artwork authenticated by a note to a volunteer called Denis that has dedicated 36 years.....yes 36 years of his life to running a very successful club for local youth. I personally don't think trading standards & or EU Directorate Commissions .....blah blah blah are anything to do with it and neither should they be ...... there is no can of worms and Banksy certainly hasn't opened one...... you did. Have a heart - it was a super cool gesture and doesn't need any legal jargon to discredit it. Hello forum
The point I'm trying to make, perhaps badly, is that there is a tranche of his work already in public ownership that is practically worthless because he refuses to acknowledge it is by him. In strictly business terms it would be in his interest to refuse to authenticate anything beyond his control because it would dilute the value of stock that he presently controls and will create in the future. In the past he has been able to justify this refusal by claiming it would leave him open to prosecution.
The can he's opened is that he can't use that pretext any longer.
As I understand it a well loved artist from Bristol chose to save a community based youth project from closure by way of donating an artwork authenticated by a note to a volunteer called Denis that has dedicated 36 years.....yes 36 years of his life to running a very successful club for local youth. I personally don't think trading standards & or EU Directorate Commissions .....blah blah blah are anything to do with it and neither should they be ...... there is no can of worms and Banksy certainly hasn't opened one...... you did. Have a heart - it was a super cool gesture and doesn't need any legal jargon to discredit it. Hello forum I don't doubt Banksy's philanthropic intentions, but besides being a "well loved artist" he also runs a highly successful company. The point I'm trying to make, perhaps badly, is that there is a tranche of his work already in public ownership that is practically worthless because he refuses to acknowledge it is by him. In strictly business terms it would be in his interest to refuse to authenticate anything beyond his control because it would dilute the value of stock that he presently controls and will create in the future. In the past he has been able to justify this refusal by claiming it would leave him open to prosecution. The can he's opened is that he can't use that pretext any longer. |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by Deleted on May 17, 2014 11:51:05 GMT 1, I don't doubt Banksy's philanthropic intentions, but besides being a "well loved artist" he also runs a highly successful company. The point I'm trying to make, perhaps badly, is that there is a tranche of his work already in public ownership that is practically worthless because he refuses to acknowledge it is by him. In strictly business terms it would be in his interest to refuse to authenticate anything beyond his control because it would dilute the value of stock that he presently controls and will create in the future. In the past he has been able to justify this refusal by claiming it would leave him open to prosecution. The can he's opened is that he can't use that pretext any longer.
Perhaps he couldn't give a f*** about 'the value of stock'?
I don't doubt Banksy's philanthropic intentions, but besides being a "well loved artist" he also runs a highly successful company. The point I'm trying to make, perhaps badly, is that there is a tranche of his work already in public ownership that is practically worthless because he refuses to acknowledge it is by him. In strictly business terms it would be in his interest to refuse to authenticate anything beyond his control because it would dilute the value of stock that he presently controls and will create in the future. In the past he has been able to justify this refusal by claiming it would leave him open to prosecution. The can he's opened is that he can't use that pretext any longer. 'In strictly business terms?' Perhaps you might find the answer you're looking for on a financial forum? Has it occurred to you that not everything in life revolves around money? Too much of what happens around us is given a 'monetary value' by people, as if this is the be-all and end-all. It's not; and if you start from that premise you might get to understand things. Perhaps he couldn't give a f*** about 'the value of stock'? |
|
|
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by Happy Shopper on May 17, 2014 11:54:51 GMT 1, In more basic terms, good luck trying to prove he painted a picture he says he didn't ! 
In more basic terms, good luck trying to prove he painted a picture he says he didn't ! |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by Deleted on May 17, 2014 12:10:27 GMT 1, I don't doubt Banksy's philanthropic intentions, but besides being a "well loved artist" he also runs a highly successful company. The point I'm trying to make, perhaps badly, is that there is a tranche of his work already in public ownership that is practically worthless because he refuses to acknowledge it is by him. In strictly business terms it would be in his interest to refuse to authenticate anything beyond his control because it would dilute the value of stock that he presently controls and will create in the future. In the past he has been able to justify this refusal by claiming it would leave him open to prosecution. The can he's opened is that he can't use that pretext any longer.
He couldnt give a fk what so called 'investors' who have non proven street pieces in their so called 'collection, whatever auction house / Gallery / individual they acquired it from, their bone of contention should be with the idiots that sold it to them and advised them wrongly that it was a good 'investment', those pieces will never carry any authentication by him, deal with it.
Remember Bankrobber / Vermin / Lyon and Turnbull etc.?, thats as good as its ever going to get for those 'investors'.
IMO.
I don't doubt Banksy's philanthropic intentions, but besides being a "well loved artist" he also runs a highly successful company. The point I'm trying to make, perhaps badly, is that there is a tranche of his work already in public ownership that is practically worthless because he refuses to acknowledge it is by him. In strictly business terms it would be in his interest to refuse to authenticate anything beyond his control because it would dilute the value of stock that he presently controls and will create in the future. In the past he has been able to justify this refusal by claiming it would leave him open to prosecution. The can he's opened is that he can't use that pretext any longer. He has not opened any can, media did that and no matter how you guys are trying to perpetuate this ^ it aint gonna happen He couldnt give a fk what so called 'investors' who have non proven street pieces in their so called 'collection, whatever auction house / Gallery / individual they acquired it from, their bone of contention should be with the idiots that sold it to them and advised them wrongly that it was a good 'investment', those pieces will never carry any authentication by him, deal with it. Remember Bankrobber / Vermin / Lyon and Turnbull etc.?, thats as good as its ever going to get for those 'investors'. IMO. |
|
|
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by graffuturism on May 17, 2014 12:47:54 GMT 1, I have never fully grasped the need for a COA in a case where everyone knows that the work was painted by so called artist. Provenance is usually good enough for auction houses and COA's seem like extra which is good in the event of prints which could be counterfeited, but the fringe work of street artists that has been taken, stolen, how ever it made its way to someone if proper documentation was established why would this need a COA. If its public knowledge something was painted insitu and all chanels have made this public consensus what would be the need for a COA, wouldnt provenance be established already. What other artist gives COA's for his work even originals.
I have never fully grasped the need for a COA in a case where everyone knows that the work was painted by so called artist. Provenance is usually good enough for auction houses and COA's seem like extra which is good in the event of prints which could be counterfeited, but the fringe work of street artists that has been taken, stolen, how ever it made its way to someone if proper documentation was established why would this need a COA. If its public knowledge something was painted insitu and all chanels have made this public consensus what would be the need for a COA, wouldnt provenance be established already. What other artist gives COA's for his work even originals.
|
|
johnnyh
Junior Member
🗨️ 4,492
👍🏻 2,102
March 2011
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by johnnyh on May 17, 2014 13:15:22 GMT 1, can't he just deny they are his, as in "not mine, f**k you" or will the EU sue his arse off if he does? Not mine, but I did hear through a forum that Outis could have done them Oops now he is a super grass Supergrass did them ! Sorted
he is not responsible for what I told or agreed with you when I sold it to you etcetc. That is a seep rate contract. His original contract with the gifted print is that he will offer 1 COA. He does not have to offer COA's that is his choice.
It's a bit like bought as seen....that's the contract of gift or sale. So trading standards etc will not get involved in the secondary trade of a good or product. There jurisdiction is if he traded correctly in the first place. Eg if he did not give me a COA because.....whatever the reason for anormal print when I bought it etc etc.
so for example they do let the big auction houses know that a print or canvas is real prior to sale by email without issuing a COA. So if an auction house contacted them with a gift print one assumes they would say we would not issue a COA for this piece. That does not deny or confirm if it is real or not. So no laws broken there.
thats all they are saying...we would not issue a COA for this piece. Now if you send them a fake print they I am sure will tell you it's fake.
So not sure what the complaint to trading standards etc would be
can't he just deny they are his, as in "not mine, f**k you" or will the EU sue his arse off if he does? Not mine, but I did hear through a forum that Outis could have done them Oops now he is a super grass Supergrass did them ! Sorted But he is not denying they are his he is just not offering a COA. Which he does not have to. he is not responsible for what I told or agreed with you when I sold it to you etcetc. That is a seep rate contract. His original contract with the gifted print is that he will offer 1 COA. He does not have to offer COA's that is his choice. It's a bit like bought as seen....that's the contract of gift or sale. So trading standards etc will not get involved in the secondary trade of a good or product. There jurisdiction is if he traded correctly in the first place. Eg if he did not give me a COA because.....whatever the reason for anormal print when I bought it etc etc. so for example they do let the big auction houses know that a print or canvas is real prior to sale by email without issuing a COA. So if an auction house contacted them with a gift print one assumes they would say we would not issue a COA for this piece. That does not deny or confirm if it is real or not. So no laws broken there. thats all they are saying...we would not issue a COA for this piece. Now if you send them a fake print they I am sure will tell you it's fake. So not sure what the complaint to trading standards etc would be |
|
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by Deleted on May 17, 2014 13:31:18 GMT 1, Correct.
Anyhow I just rang him on his mobile and he couldnt care less about COAs etc today as hes busy on with moving the garden shed to a sunnier spot then fixing the car boot so busy. Like he just said, hes not Banksy all the fkin time, even he needs some time off for doing stuff..
Correct.
Anyhow I just rang him on his mobile and he couldnt care less about COAs etc today as hes busy on with moving the garden shed to a sunnier spot then fixing the car boot so busy. Like he just said, hes not Banksy all the fkin time, even he needs some time off for doing stuff..
|
|
johnnyh
Junior Member
🗨️ 4,492
👍🏻 2,102
March 2011
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by johnnyh on May 17, 2014 13:37:30 GMT 1, Tell you what that would be a pricey shed with a Banksy in it.....
Tell you what that would be a pricey shed with a Banksy in it.....
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by Deleted on May 17, 2014 13:48:43 GMT 1, Tell you what that would be a pricey shed with a Banksy in it.....
Tell you what that would be a pricey shed with a Banksy in it..... Reminds me of a story a friend of mine told me about when he interviewed Banksy in his early days and was taken to his lock-up where he kept all his work. Might be worth a trip back just to see if he left anything behind. |
|
mojo
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,191
👍🏻 3,724
May 2014
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by mojo on May 18, 2014 0:20:34 GMT 1, You are not making your point badly the point you are making is bad.
I do kind of get what you're saying, & I quote ......
"In strictly business terms it would be in his interest to refuse to authenticate anything beyond his control because it would dilute the value of stock that he presently controls and will create in the future.
It just doesn't sound very rock n roll ......d'ya get me?
"In the past he has been able to justify this refusal by claiming it would leave him open to prosecution."
Now that sounds far better and that my friend is why we love him!
You are not making your point badly the point you are making is bad.
I do kind of get what you're saying, & I quote ......
"In strictly business terms it would be in his interest to refuse to authenticate anything beyond his control because it would dilute the value of stock that he presently controls and will create in the future.
It just doesn't sound very rock n roll ......d'ya get me?
"In the past he has been able to justify this refusal by claiming it would leave him open to prosecution."
Now that sounds far better and that my friend is why we love him!
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by Deleted on May 18, 2014 8:02:28 GMT 1, Love him?, lol.
You got a Banksy tattoo?.
Love him?, lol.
You got a Banksy tattoo?.
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by Deleted on May 18, 2014 10:01:25 GMT 1, I'm going to name my first born 'Banksy', thats soooooo much better than a cheesy tattoo
I'm going to name my first born 'Banksy', thats soooooo much better than a cheesy tattoo
|
|
mojo
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,191
👍🏻 3,724
May 2014
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by mojo on May 18, 2014 11:14:45 GMT 1, tee he! No tattoo's ..... or kids called Banksy!
I could of said respect, admire, appreciate lots of words, forgive me for using such strong language!
Hope you have a lovely day
Lots of love
tee he! No tattoo's ..... or kids called Banksy! I could of said respect, admire, appreciate lots of words, forgive me for using such strong language! Hope you have a lovely day Lots of love |
|
hesta
New Member
🗨️ 4
👍🏻 3
March 2014
|
Mobile Lovers - Has Banksy Opened A Can Of Worms?, by hesta on May 19, 2014 18:39:00 GMT 1, It just doesn't sound very rock n roll ......d'ya get me?
Like most successful rock'n'rollers he has lawyers, business managers and publicists et al.
He's a trading company.
It just doesn't sound very rock n roll ......d'ya get me? Not really. Like most successful rock'n'rollers he has lawyers, business managers and publicists et al. He's a trading company. |
|
