Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by Deleted on Aug 3, 2014 14:20:43 GMT 1, Hoardings going up again, to protect the Spies while the men are protecting it with perspex, to protect it.
#protection
#toounreal
Hoardings going up again, to protect the Spies while the men are protecting it with perspex, to protect it.
#protection
#toounreal
|
|
|
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by curiousgeorge on Aug 3, 2014 17:09:50 GMT 1, Did someone spike my oats with lsd? Am I trapped inside an episode of x files/twin peaks?
The column inches created would cost a fortune if you had to pay for advertising.I hope the artist and crew are laughing like drains. 
This story goes from one level of y'all ain't gonna believe this chit….to a whole different level
Props to clean up crew.Obviously locals who are quite taken with the piece.They deserve a cool ginger beer on ice now
Did someone spike my oats with lsd? Am I trapped inside an episode of x files/twin peaks? The column inches created would cost a fortune if you had to pay for advertising.I hope the artist and crew are laughing like drains. This story goes from one level of y'all ain't gonna believe this chit….to a whole different level Props to clean up crew.Obviously locals who are quite taken with the piece.They deserve a cool ginger beer on ice now |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by Deleted on Aug 3, 2014 17:38:39 GMT 1, Did someone spike my oats with lsd? Am I trapped inside an episode of x files/twin peaks? The column inches created would cost a fortune if you had to for advertising.I hope the artist and crew are laughing like drains. This story goes from one level of y'all ain't gonna believe this chit….to a whole different level Props to clean up crew.Obviously locals who are quite taken with the piece.They deserve a cool ginger beer on ice now
Family guy not simspons
Did someone spike my oats with lsd? Am I trapped inside an episode of x files/twin peaks? The column inches created would cost a fortune if you had to for advertising.I hope the artist and crew are laughing like drains. This story goes from one level of y'all ain't gonna believe this chit….to a whole different level Props to clean up crew.Obviously locals who are quite taken with the piece.They deserve a cool ginger beer on ice now Its like the Simpsons episode I saw the other night, Homer rockets an Amish barn to the ground then the Amish rebuild it really quick every time, time after time!. Family guy not simspons |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by Deleted on Aug 3, 2014 18:42:51 GMT 1, WORKMEN have once again covered up the Cheltenham Banksy to prevent it from being the target of vandalism.
The house on the corner of Hewlett Road and Fairview Road was the scene of activity today, as men were seen erecting hoarding at the base of scaffolding on the side of the house.
One, who would not be named, confirmed they were from London-based Q Scaffolding, the firm owned by Banksy collector Sky Grimes.
WORKMEN have once again covered up the Cheltenham Banksy to prevent it from being the target of vandalism. The house on the corner of Hewlett Road and Fairview Road was the scene of activity today, as men were seen erecting hoarding at the base of scaffolding on the side of the house. One, who would not be named, confirmed they were from London-based Q Scaffolding, the firm owned by Banksy collector Sky Grimes. |
|
Dr Plip
Junior Member
🗨️ 7,043
👍🏻 8,981
August 2011
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by Dr Plip on Aug 3, 2014 18:58:53 GMT 1, Oh FFS, don't tell me he's still making money out of this car crash? Were there no local scaffolding firms that could be used?
Oh FFS, don't tell me he's still making money out of this car crash? Were there no local scaffolding firms that could be used? |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by Deleted on Aug 3, 2014 19:02:18 GMT 1, Is it still keeping on giving?.
Dennis!!!
Is it still keeping on giving?.
Dennis!!!
|
|
|
|
Dr Plip
Junior Member
🗨️ 7,043
👍🏻 8,981
August 2011
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by Dr Plip on Aug 3, 2014 19:06:57 GMT 1, (If I don't get free scaffolding for giving them that plug....)
(If I don't get free scaffolding for giving them that plug....)
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by Deleted on Aug 4, 2014 12:28:25 GMT 1, I can see this wall art being a target for vandalism now and will probably have a cctv camera surveilling it from inside the house cum spy mauseleum or museum. Where were you then Ploppi?  It wasn't me, I'm in South of France.
Just a feeling I had like the feeling that this graffiti could have been done by one of the major players in this recent Cheltenham saga.
A common or garden vandal would have damaged it a lot more whereas someone who pulled up in a white van and covered the art in tarpaulin then sprayed some very careful writing on the figures only not outer wall looks like someone who has a habit of using a white van and tarpaulin to spray on walls.
Using anti graf paint to make the stencil is definately forward thinking on the part of Banksy
I like the statement from the police woman.
Banksy artwork has been vandalised not some graffiti on a wall has been graffitied over so we as police aren't interested in finding someone who painted graffiti on graffiti.
It's become we are treating this seriously because of market forces at work here so fuck all you other graffiti artists.
and we'll be having serious words down the lodge at how best we can exploit the name Banksy for our local business people.
I can see this wall art being a target for vandalism now and will probably have a cctv camera surveilling it from inside the house cum spy mauseleum or museum. Where were you then Ploppi? It wasn't me, I'm in South of France.
Just a feeling I had like the feeling that this graffiti could have been done by one of the major players in this recent Cheltenham saga.
A common or garden vandal would have damaged it a lot more whereas someone who pulled up in a white van and covered the art in tarpaulin then sprayed some very careful writing on the figures only not outer wall looks like someone who has a habit of using a white van and tarpaulin to spray on walls.
Using anti graf paint to make the stencil is definately forward thinking on the part of Banksy
I like the statement from the police woman.
Banksy artwork has been vandalised not some graffiti on a wall has been graffitied over so we as police aren't interested in finding someone who painted graffiti on graffiti.
It's become we are treating this seriously because of market forces at work here so fuck all you other graffiti artists.
and we'll be having serious words down the lodge at how best we can exploit the name Banksy for our local business people.
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by Deleted on Aug 5, 2014 13:48:14 GMT 1, Today in the village post office I heard a couple of old Ladies talking about the Cheltenham Spies, its a bit....
"THEY’RE SELLING HIPPY WIGS IN WOOLWORTHS MAN. THE GREATEST DECADE IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND IS OVER. AND AS PRESUMING ED HERE HAS SO CONSISTENTLY POINTED OUT, WE HAVE FAILED TO PAINT IT BLACK"
...so I clubbed them to death with a bag of onions, organic.
Today in the village post office I heard a couple of old Ladies talking about the Cheltenham Spies, its a bit....
"THEY’RE SELLING HIPPY WIGS IN WOOLWORTHS MAN. THE GREATEST DECADE IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND IS OVER. AND AS PRESUMING ED HERE HAS SO CONSISTENTLY POINTED OUT, WE HAVE FAILED TO PAINT IT BLACK"
...so I clubbed them to death with a bag of onions, organic.
|
|
met
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,797
👍🏻 6,771
June 2009
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by met on Aug 6, 2014 20:37:58 GMT 1, lets pull the UN out of the middle east and get them to guard this stunning work of art 24/7. what f**king hypocrites. tag this to death and f**k up their profiteering
When you say "hypocrites" and "their profiteering", are you referring to specific people (like that businessman, Hekmat Kaveh) or to the whole town of Cheltenham?
lets pull the UN out of the middle east and get them to guard this stunning work of art 24/7. what f**king hypocrites. tag this to death and f**k up their profiteering When you say "hypocrites" and "their profiteering", are you referring to specific people (like that businessman, Hekmat Kaveh) or to the whole town of Cheltenham? |
|
met
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,797
👍🏻 6,771
June 2009
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by met on Aug 6, 2014 20:44:05 GMT 1, lets pull the UN out of the middle east and get them to guard this stunning work of art 24/7. what f**king hypocrites. tag this to death and f**k up their profiteering Its more apt that its tagged now, the piece has done its job, been seen by many, its a street piece, not meant to last forever.
This is a subject I feel very ambivalent about.
Was your comment off-the-cuff, or is it a considered position that you still maintain?
lets pull the UN out of the middle east and get them to guard this stunning work of art 24/7. what f**king hypocrites. tag this to death and f**k up their profiteering Its more apt that its tagged now, the piece has done its job, been seen by many, its a street piece, not meant to last forever. This is a subject I feel very ambivalent about. Was your comment off-the-cuff, or is it a considered position that you still maintain? |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 21:58:30 GMT 1, Its more apt that its tagged now, the piece has done its job, been seen by many, its a street piece, not meant to last forever. This is a subject I feel very ambivalent about. Was your comment off-the-cuff, or is it a considered position that you still maintain?
Its more apt that its tagged now, the piece has done its job, been seen by many, its a street piece, not meant to last forever. This is a subject I feel very ambivalent about. Was your comment off-the-cuff, or is it a considered position that you still maintain? Im really not sure what you mean met? Im ok with it being tagged as its a street piece which was view and enjoyed by many and well documented. Its served its purpose. What did you think i meant? |
|
met
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,797
👍🏻 6,771
June 2009
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by met on Aug 6, 2014 23:34:08 GMT 1, This is a subject I feel very ambivalent about. Was your comment off-the-cuff, or is it a considered position that you still maintain? Im really not sure what you mean met? Im ok with it being tagged as its a street piece which was view and enjoyed by many and well documented. Its served its purpose. What did you think i meant?
As referred to above, when it comes to street pieces and what becomes of them, my own views are very mixed. They vary according to the situation. I do find this inconsistency — the absence of a fundamentalist approach — uncomfortable at times, but there isn't much I can do about it.
The comment you wrote was interesting to me because, unlike my own position, your position is fairly categoric: "Its more apt that its tagged now, the piece has done its job, been seen by many, its a street piece, not meant to last forever."
I was curious about whether that comment (especially the reference to it being "more apt" that the Banksy was tagged) was made a bit flippantly, or if you still stood by it without qualification.
If you'll excuse the caricature (intended for effect, not to dishonestly distort your position), the reasoning seems to be broadly as follows:
1. It is acceptable for a solitary prat to impose his will upon everyone else by destroying a street piece (out of envy, rivalry, or whatever other reason the likes of Omar come up with to rationalise their actions). Because, hey, that is the law of the street.
2. As far as the wider local community is concerned — i.e. Cheltenham residents who are largely proud of and wish to continue enjoying the work, and to whom that work was arguably gifted by the artist — it is less acceptable for them to try to protect or preserve the piece for their town. Because, hey, that is not the law of the street. And rules are rules. Only one set of rules exists, and it must be followed.
This is a subject I feel very ambivalent about. Was your comment off-the-cuff, or is it a considered position that you still maintain? Im really not sure what you mean met? Im ok with it being tagged as its a street piece which was view and enjoyed by many and well documented. Its served its purpose. What did you think i meant? As referred to above, when it comes to street pieces and what becomes of them, my own views are very mixed. They vary according to the situation. I do find this inconsistency — the absence of a fundamentalist approach — uncomfortable at times, but there isn't much I can do about it. The comment you wrote was interesting to me because, unlike my own position, your position is fairly categoric: "Its more apt that its tagged now, the piece has done its job, been seen by many, its a street piece, not meant to last forever."I was curious about whether that comment (especially the reference to it being "more apt" that the Banksy was tagged) was made a bit flippantly, or if you still stood by it without qualification. If you'll excuse the caricature (intended for effect, not to dishonestly distort your position), the reasoning seems to be broadly as follows: 1. It is acceptable for a solitary prat to impose his will upon everyone else by destroying a street piece (out of envy, rivalry, or whatever other reason the likes of Omar come up with to rationalise their actions). Because, hey, that is the law of the street. 2. As far as the wider local community is concerned — i.e. Cheltenham residents who are largely proud of and wish to continue enjoying the work, and to whom that work was arguably gifted by the artist — it is less acceptable for them to try to protect or preserve the piece for their town. Because, hey, that is not the law of the street. And rules are rules. Only one set of rules exists, and it must be followed. |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by Deleted on Aug 7, 2014 0:21:10 GMT 1, Im really not sure what you mean met? Im ok with it being tagged as its a street piece which was view and enjoyed by many and well documented. Its served its purpose. What did you think i meant? As referred to above, when it comes to street pieces and what becomes of them, my own views are very mixed. They vary according to the situation. I do find this inconsistency — the absence of a fundamentalist approach — uncomfortable at times, but there isn't much I can do about it. The comment you wrote was interesting to me because, unlike my own position, your position is fairly categoric: "Its more apt that its tagged now, the piece has done its job, been seen by many, its a street piece, not meant to last forever."I was curious about whether that comment (especially the reference to it being "more apt" that the Banksy was tagged) was made a bit flippantly, or if you still stood by it without qualification. If you'll excuse the caricature (intended for effect, not to dishonestly distort your position), the reasoning seems to be broadly as follows: 1. It is acceptable for a solitary prat to impose his will upon everyone else by destroying a street piece (out of envy, rivalry, or whatever other reason the likes of Omar come up with to rationalise their actions). Because, hey, that is the law of the street. 2. As far as the wider local community is concerned — i.e. Cheltenham residents who are largely proud of and wish to continue enjoying the work, and to whom that work was arguably gifted by the artist — it is less acceptable for them to try to protect or preserve the piece for their town. Because, hey, that is not the law of the street. And rules are rules. Only one set of rules exists, and it must be followed.
Im really not sure what you mean met? Im ok with it being tagged as its a street piece which was view and enjoyed by many and well documented. Its served its purpose. What did you think i meant? As referred to above, when it comes to street pieces and what becomes of them, my own views are very mixed. They vary according to the situation. I do find this inconsistency — the absence of a fundamentalist approach — uncomfortable at times, but there isn't much I can do about it. The comment you wrote was interesting to me because, unlike my own position, your position is fairly categoric: "Its more apt that its tagged now, the piece has done its job, been seen by many, its a street piece, not meant to last forever."I was curious about whether that comment (especially the reference to it being "more apt" that the Banksy was tagged) was made a bit flippantly, or if you still stood by it without qualification. If you'll excuse the caricature (intended for effect, not to dishonestly distort your position), the reasoning seems to be broadly as follows: 1. It is acceptable for a solitary prat to impose his will upon everyone else by destroying a street piece (out of envy, rivalry, or whatever other reason the likes of Omar come up with to rationalise their actions). Because, hey, that is the law of the street. 2. As far as the wider local community is concerned — i.e. Cheltenham residents who are largely proud of and wish to continue enjoying the work, and to whom that work was arguably gifted by the artist — it is less acceptable for them to try to protect or preserve the piece for their town. Because, hey, that is not the law of the street. And rules are rules. Only one set of rules exists, and it must be followed. Firstly i doubt the reason it was done was a gift to the people of cheltenham, no offense intended, secondly that "solitary prat" is likely how banksy was regarded not long ago, its a street piece, placed in the most suiting place, its there to be seen and to get the artists message across, that happened and in a way most artists can only dŕeam about, now the tills are ringing, not for the people of cheltenham , for a select few, street pieces are just that, works executed on the street, open to elements, not expected to last forever, but its banksy so its worth(£££££££) keeping. It was'nt a flippant remark, i have beliefs as do you which i respect, my views dont need qualication, street works are just that..... |
|
|
|
met
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,797
👍🏻 6,771
June 2009
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by met on Aug 7, 2014 1:30:49 GMT 1, As referred to above, when it comes to street pieces and what becomes of them, my own views are very mixed. They vary according to the situation. I do find this inconsistency — the absence of a fundamentalist approach — uncomfortable at times, but there isn't much I can do about it. The comment you wrote was interesting to me because, unlike my own position, your position is fairly categoric: "Its more apt that its tagged now, the piece has done its job, been seen by many, its a street piece, not meant to last forever."I was curious about whether that comment (especially the reference to it being "more apt" that the Banksy was tagged) was made a bit flippantly, or if you still stood by it without qualification. If you'll excuse the caricature (intended for effect, not to dishonestly distort your position), the reasoning seems to be broadly as follows: 1. It is acceptable for a solitary prat to impose his will upon everyone else by destroying a street piece (out of envy, rivalry, or whatever other reason the likes of Omar come up with to rationalise their actions). Because, hey, that is the law of the street. 2. As far as the wider local community is concerned — i.e. Cheltenham residents who are largely proud of and wish to continue enjoying the work, and to whom that work was arguably gifted by the artist — it is less acceptable for them to try to protect or preserve the piece for their town. Because, hey, that is not the law of the street. And rules are rules. Only one set of rules exists, and it must be followed. Firstly i doubt the reason it was done was a gift to the people of cheltenham, no offense intended, secondly that "solitary prat" is likely how banksy was regarded not long ago, its a street piece, placed in the most suiting place, its there to be seen and to get the artists message across, that happened and in a way most artists can only dŕeam about, now the tills are ringing, not for the people of cheltenham , for a select few, street pieces are just that, works executed on the street, open to elements, not expected to last forever, but its banksy so its worth(£££££££) keeping. It was'nt a flippant remark, i have beliefs as do you which i respect, my views dont need qualication, street works are just that.....
Fair comment about how Banksy was likely to have been regarded not long ago, and also about my gift point, which I concede is debatable.
And certainly no offence taken. I am interested in the exchange, in hearing opinions different to mine — much more so than opinions simply reinforcing my existing beliefs.
You mentioned that a street piece is "not meant to last forever". Well, nothing lasts forever. But what if the majority of the population of Cheltenham truly appreciates that Banksy painting and would like to retain it, to continue to enjoy it, at least for as long as possible? This seems to be the case, which is why the intervention of that businessman, Hekmat Kaveh, had been fêted.
Now, if given the choice between two extremes — (i) the Banksy being destroyed, or (ii) the Banksy being preserved for the local community and for others like myself who've not yet had the opportunity to experience it in person — my understanding is that your preference is the first option. Would that be correct?
Edited to add: I should also clarify that my initial reference to "solitary prat" related to someone who dogs and attempts to destroy (often much-loved) street pieces, as opposed to an artist who creates such pieces.
As referred to above, when it comes to street pieces and what becomes of them, my own views are very mixed. They vary according to the situation. I do find this inconsistency — the absence of a fundamentalist approach — uncomfortable at times, but there isn't much I can do about it. The comment you wrote was interesting to me because, unlike my own position, your position is fairly categoric: "Its more apt that its tagged now, the piece has done its job, been seen by many, its a street piece, not meant to last forever."I was curious about whether that comment (especially the reference to it being "more apt" that the Banksy was tagged) was made a bit flippantly, or if you still stood by it without qualification. If you'll excuse the caricature (intended for effect, not to dishonestly distort your position), the reasoning seems to be broadly as follows: 1. It is acceptable for a solitary prat to impose his will upon everyone else by destroying a street piece (out of envy, rivalry, or whatever other reason the likes of Omar come up with to rationalise their actions). Because, hey, that is the law of the street. 2. As far as the wider local community is concerned — i.e. Cheltenham residents who are largely proud of and wish to continue enjoying the work, and to whom that work was arguably gifted by the artist — it is less acceptable for them to try to protect or preserve the piece for their town. Because, hey, that is not the law of the street. And rules are rules. Only one set of rules exists, and it must be followed. Firstly i doubt the reason it was done was a gift to the people of cheltenham, no offense intended, secondly that "solitary prat" is likely how banksy was regarded not long ago, its a street piece, placed in the most suiting place, its there to be seen and to get the artists message across, that happened and in a way most artists can only dŕeam about, now the tills are ringing, not for the people of cheltenham , for a select few, street pieces are just that, works executed on the street, open to elements, not expected to last forever, but its banksy so its worth(£££££££) keeping. It was'nt a flippant remark, i have beliefs as do you which i respect, my views dont need qualication, street works are just that..... Fair comment about how Banksy was likely to have been regarded not long ago, and also about my gift point, which I concede is debatable. And certainly no offence taken. I am interested in the exchange, in hearing opinions different to mine — much more so than opinions simply reinforcing my existing beliefs. You mentioned that a street piece is "not meant to last forever". Well, nothing lasts forever. But what if the majority of the population of Cheltenham truly appreciates that Banksy painting and would like to retain it, to continue to enjoy it, at least for as long as possible? This seems to be the case, which is why the intervention of that businessman, Hekmat Kaveh, had been fêted. Now, if given the choice between two extremes — (i) the Banksy being destroyed, or (ii) the Banksy being preserved for the local community and for others like myself who've not yet had the opportunity to experience it in person — my understanding is that your preference is the first option. Would that be correct? Edited to add: I should also clarify that my initial reference to "solitary prat" related to someone who dogs and attempts to destroy (often much-loved) street pieces, as opposed to an artist who creates such pieces. |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by Deleted on Aug 7, 2014 7:13:07 GMT 1, Firstly i doubt the reason it was done was a gift to the people of cheltenham, no offense intended, secondly that "solitary prat" is likely how banksy was regarded not long ago, its a street piece, placed in the most suiting place, its there to be seen and to get the artists message across, that happened and in a way most artists can only dŕeam about, now the tills are ringing, not for the people of cheltenham , for a select few, street pieces are just that, works executed on the street, open to elements, not expected to last forever, but its banksy so its worth(£££££££) keeping. It was'nt a flippant remark, i have beliefs as do you which i respect, my views dont need qualication, street works are just that..... Fair comment about how Banksy was likely to have been regarded not long ago, and also about my gift point, which I concede is debatable. And certainly no offence taken. I am interested in the exchange, in hearing opinions different to mine — much more so than opinions simply reinforcing my existing beliefs. You mentioned that a street piece is "not meant to last forever". Well, nothing lasts forever. But what if the majority of the population of Cheltenham truly appreciates that Banksy painting and would like to retain it, to continue to enjoy it, at least for as long as possible? This seems to be the case, which is why the intervention of that businessman, Hekmat Kaveh, had been fêted. Now, if given the choice between two extremes — (i) the Banksy being destroyed, or (ii) the Banksy being preserved for the local community and for others like myself who've not yet had the opportunity to experience it in person — my understanding is that your preference is the first option. Would that be correct? Edited to add: I should also clarify that my initial reference to "solitary prat" related to someone who dogs and attempts to destroy (often much-loved) street pieces, as opposed to an artist who creates such pieces.
Firstly i doubt the reason it was done was a gift to the people of cheltenham, no offense intended, secondly that "solitary prat" is likely how banksy was regarded not long ago, its a street piece, placed in the most suiting place, its there to be seen and to get the artists message across, that happened and in a way most artists can only dŕeam about, now the tills are ringing, not for the people of cheltenham , for a select few, street pieces are just that, works executed on the street, open to elements, not expected to last forever, but its banksy so its worth(£££££££) keeping. It was'nt a flippant remark, i have beliefs as do you which i respect, my views dont need qualication, street works are just that..... Fair comment about how Banksy was likely to have been regarded not long ago, and also about my gift point, which I concede is debatable. And certainly no offence taken. I am interested in the exchange, in hearing opinions different to mine — much more so than opinions simply reinforcing my existing beliefs. You mentioned that a street piece is "not meant to last forever". Well, nothing lasts forever. But what if the majority of the population of Cheltenham truly appreciates that Banksy painting and would like to retain it, to continue to enjoy it, at least for as long as possible? This seems to be the case, which is why the intervention of that businessman, Hekmat Kaveh, had been fêted. Now, if given the choice between two extremes — (i) the Banksy being destroyed, or (ii) the Banksy being preserved for the local community and for others like myself who've not yet had the opportunity to experience it in person — my understanding is that your preference is the first option. Would that be correct? Edited to add: I should also clarify that my initial reference to "solitary prat" related to someone who dogs and attempts to destroy (often much-loved) street pieces, as opposed to an artist who creates such pieces. If the work was being preserved so the people of cheltenham and beyond could enjoy it that would be mosts preference but i dont think thats the reasoning for those involved, unfortunately. |
|
Dungle
Junior Member
🗨️ 4,008
👍🏻 5,174
June 2011
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by Dungle on Aug 7, 2014 7:26:47 GMT 1, It's a piece for the street. It should decay, be vandalised, survive whatever, but it should not be continually cleaned up IMO.
It's a piece for the street. It should decay, be vandalised, survive whatever, but it should not be continually cleaned up IMO.
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
|
|
Dr Plip
Junior Member
🗨️ 7,043
👍🏻 8,981
August 2011
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by Dr Plip on Aug 7, 2014 10:10:46 GMT 1, Whaaaat! Good lord, could there be anymore twists and turns in this saga?
I still feel they should change the name from the FairView to the BanksyView. Get some of that street art drinking money in.
Whaaaat! Good lord, could there be anymore twists and turns in this saga?
I still feel they should change the name from the FairView to the BanksyView. Get some of that street art drinking money in.
|
|
Dr Plip
Junior Member
🗨️ 7,043
👍🏻 8,981
August 2011
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by Dr Plip on Aug 7, 2014 10:13:55 GMT 1, With all the recent flipping, I'm surprised that "Hewlett Road" sign hasn't appeared on eBay.
With all the recent flipping, I'm surprised that "Hewlett Road" sign hasn't appeared on eBay.
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by Deleted on Aug 7, 2014 10:14:33 GMT 1, Its like a film, one about Cheltenham, and a pub.
Probably re re decorating.
Its like a film, one about Cheltenham, and a pub.
Probably re re decorating.
|
|
|
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by Someones Brain on Aug 7, 2014 11:10:25 GMT 1, I still feel they should change the name from the FairView to the BanksyView. Get some of that street art drinking money in.
I still feel they should change the name from the FairView to the BanksyView. Get some of that street art drinking money in. To get this going they could ask RYCA (aka Ryan Callanan) do to the new shop/pub sign. I see some old fashioned golden letters on a black background ... |
|
|
|
met
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,797
👍🏻 6,771
June 2009
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by met on Aug 7, 2014 15:30:46 GMT 1, Fair comment about how Banksy was likely to have been regarded not long ago, and also about my gift point, which I concede is debatable. And certainly no offence taken. I am interested in the exchange, in hearing opinions different to mine — much more so than opinions simply reinforcing my existing beliefs. You mentioned that a street piece is "not meant to last forever". Well, nothing lasts forever. But what if the majority of the population of Cheltenham truly appreciates that Banksy painting and would like to retain it, to continue to enjoy it, at least for as long as possible? This seems to be the case, which is why the intervention of that businessman, Hekmat Kaveh, had been fêted. Now, if given the choice between two extremes — (i) the Banksy being destroyed, or (ii) the Banksy being preserved for the local community and for others like myself who've not yet had the opportunity to experience it in person — my understanding is that your preference is the first option. Would that be correct? Edited to add: I should also clarify that my initial reference to "solitary prat" related to someone who dogs and attempts to destroy (often much-loved) street pieces, as opposed to an artist who creates such pieces. If the work was being preserved so the people of cheltenham and beyond could enjoy it that would be mosts preference but i dont think thats the reasoning for those involved, unfortunately.
Thanks for this.
With respect to Kaveh, the millionaire businessman who had stepped in supposedly with a view to preserving the Banksy piece for Cheltenham, is there any evidence to suggest that people should be distrustful of him?
I myself know nothing about the man apart from his name, his apparent wealth, and the fact he's a local. Has he previously been found to lie or been involved in general dodginess?
Unless Kaveh has a history of dishonest behaviour, or unless it can be verified that his stated goal to the media was misleading or false, why not give him the benefit of the doubt? Why not just see if he can do for Cheltenham what he said he wishes to do? For most locals and art enthusiasts, wouldn't that be better (at least for now) than destroying the Banksy?
Taking a general stance of wariness and caution when it comes to anything Banksy-related is completely understandable. There's no naivety on my part.
However, I also think it's dangerous to make sweeping negative assumptions about people's characters. And about their intentions, regardless of any statements they make suggesting the contrary.
The rationale seems to be that because it's a Banksy piece, because it has value (and financial value in particular), then anyone claiming to preserve it for the community must be up to no good.
I would argue such reasoning is flawed, unfair, and speculative at best.
Fair comment about how Banksy was likely to have been regarded not long ago, and also about my gift point, which I concede is debatable. And certainly no offence taken. I am interested in the exchange, in hearing opinions different to mine — much more so than opinions simply reinforcing my existing beliefs. You mentioned that a street piece is "not meant to last forever". Well, nothing lasts forever. But what if the majority of the population of Cheltenham truly appreciates that Banksy painting and would like to retain it, to continue to enjoy it, at least for as long as possible? This seems to be the case, which is why the intervention of that businessman, Hekmat Kaveh, had been fêted. Now, if given the choice between two extremes — (i) the Banksy being destroyed, or (ii) the Banksy being preserved for the local community and for others like myself who've not yet had the opportunity to experience it in person — my understanding is that your preference is the first option. Would that be correct? Edited to add: I should also clarify that my initial reference to "solitary prat" related to someone who dogs and attempts to destroy (often much-loved) street pieces, as opposed to an artist who creates such pieces. If the work was being preserved so the people of cheltenham and beyond could enjoy it that would be mosts preference but i dont think thats the reasoning for those involved, unfortunately. Thanks for this. With respect to Kaveh, the millionaire businessman who had stepped in supposedly with a view to preserving the Banksy piece for Cheltenham, is there any evidence to suggest that people should be distrustful of him? I myself know nothing about the man apart from his name, his apparent wealth, and the fact he's a local. Has he previously been found to lie or been involved in general dodginess? Unless Kaveh has a history of dishonest behaviour, or unless it can be verified that his stated goal to the media was misleading or false, why not give him the benefit of the doubt? Why not just see if he can do for Cheltenham what he said he wishes to do? For most locals and art enthusiasts, wouldn't that be better (at least for now) than destroying the Banksy? Taking a general stance of wariness and caution when it comes to anything Banksy-related is completely understandable. There's no naivety on my part. However, I also think it's dangerous to make sweeping negative assumptions about people's characters. And about their intentions, regardless of any statements they make suggesting the contrary. The rationale seems to be that because it's a Banksy piece, because it has value (and financial value in particular), then anyone claiming to preserve it for the community must be up to no good. I would argue such reasoning is flawed, unfair, and speculative at best. |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by Deleted on Aug 7, 2014 15:46:59 GMT 1, If the work was being preserved so the people of cheltenham and beyond could enjoy it that would be mosts preference but i dont think thats the reasoning for those involved, unfortunately. Thanks for this. With respect to Kaveh, the millionaire businessman who had stepped in supposedly with a view to preserving the Banksy piece for Cheltenham, is there any evidence to suggest that people should be distrustful of him? I myself know nothing about the man apart from his name, his apparent wealth, and the fact he's a local. Has he previously been found to lie or been involved in general dodginess? Unless Kaveh has a history of dishonest behaviour, or unless it can be verified that his stated goal to the media was misleading or false, why not give him the benefit of the doubt? Why not just see if he can do for Cheltenham what he said he wishes to do? For most locals and art enthusiasts, wouldn't that be better (at least for now) than destroying the Banksy? Taking a general stance of wariness and caution when it comes to anything Banksy-related is completely understandable. There's no naivety on my part. However, I also think it's dangerous to make sweeping negative assumptions about people's characters. And about their intentions, regardless of any statements they make suggesting the contrary. The rationale seems to be that because it's a Banksy piece, because it has value (and financial value in particular), then anyone claiming to preserve it for the community must be up to no good. I would argue such reasoning is flawed, unfair, and speculative at best.
If the work was being preserved so the people of cheltenham and beyond could enjoy it that would be mosts preference but i dont think thats the reasoning for those involved, unfortunately. Thanks for this. With respect to Kaveh, the millionaire businessman who had stepped in supposedly with a view to preserving the Banksy piece for Cheltenham, is there any evidence to suggest that people should be distrustful of him? I myself know nothing about the man apart from his name, his apparent wealth, and the fact he's a local. Has he previously been found to lie or been involved in general dodginess? Unless Kaveh has a history of dishonest behaviour, or unless it can be verified that his stated goal to the media was misleading or false, why not give him the benefit of the doubt? Why not just see if he can do for Cheltenham what he said he wishes to do? For most locals and art enthusiasts, wouldn't that be better (at least for now) than destroying the Banksy? Taking a general stance of wariness and caution when it comes to anything Banksy-related is completely understandable. There's no naivety on my part. However, I also think it's dangerous to make sweeping negative assumptions about people's characters. And about their intentions, regardless of any statements they make suggesting the contrary. The rationale seems to be that because it's a Banksy piece, because it has value (and financial value in particular), then anyone claiming to preserve it for the community must be up to no good. I would argue such reasoning is flawed, unfair, and speculative at best. Its good you believe in the good in people, pretty much every Banksy street piece that has been bought or claimed previously has been used for personal gain, who knows theres always a first, I don't know the man at all so its not a personal attack but sure lets see |
|
tas
New Member
🗨️ 597
👍🏻 627
June 2013
|
|
|
met
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,797
👍🏻 6,771
June 2009
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by met on Aug 7, 2014 17:17:23 GMT 1, Thanks for this. With respect to Kaveh, the millionaire businessman who had stepped in supposedly with a view to preserving the Banksy piece for Cheltenham, is there any evidence to suggest that people should be distrustful of him? I myself know nothing about the man apart from his name, his apparent wealth, and the fact he's a local. Has he previously been found to lie or been involved in general dodginess? Unless Kaveh has a history of dishonest behaviour, or unless it can be verified that his stated goal to the media was misleading or false, why not give him the benefit of the doubt? Why not just see if he can do for Cheltenham what he said he wishes to do? For most locals and art enthusiasts, wouldn't that be better (at least for now) than destroying the Banksy? Taking a general stance of wariness and caution when it comes to anything Banksy-related is completely understandable. There's no naivety on my part. However, I also think it's dangerous to make sweeping negative assumptions about people's characters. And about their intentions, regardless of any statements they make suggesting the contrary. The rationale seems to be that because it's a Banksy piece, because it has value (and financial value in particular), then anyone claiming to preserve it for the community must be up to no good. I would argue such reasoning is flawed, unfair, and speculative at best. Its good you believe in the good in people, pretty much every Banksy street piece that has been bought or claimed previously has been used for personal gain, who knows theres always a first, I don't know the man at all so its not a personal attack but sure lets see
That is fair enough.
I should however mention one point I find misleading in your response. There are plenty of Banksy street pieces on private property where the "personal gain" aspect, if it does indeed exist, is indirect.
My own opinion is that such considerations — personal gain, underlying intent, etc. — are unnecessarily distracting. More often than not, I consider them red herrings, especially when the relevant street piece stays in place.
The motivation (or, more likely, the multiple motivations) of the wall owners on which there are Banksy pieces doesn't really concern me. The Mayfair wall on which the so-called Shop Till You Drop is painted has been cleaned a few times of other graffiti at ground level. The Mild Mild West... and other street pieces in Bristol have regularly been cleaned, restored and repainted. In that Downtown Los Angeles parking lot, the Girl on Swing painting has been restored after being attacked.
Perhaps there is indeed zero altruistic intent in the hearts of the property owners. Perhaps they are purely cynical, scheming bastards who only look after those walls because Banksy's name draws in traffic and increases the local footfall, which directly favours their businesses. Perhaps they are constantly rubbing their hands in glee at their good fortune, with big pound or dollar signs lighting up in their eyes.
My question to you is this — Even we assumed all the above was true, would it really matter?
For me, the priority is that Banksy enthusiasts, art fans generally, and the yet-to-be-initiated continue to be able to view and enjoy street pieces by the artist. What's important is for those pieces to remain in situ and accessible to the public.
The actual identity of the legal owners of the walls, the inner workings of their minds (whether evil or otherwise), and how they directly or indirectly benefit from the street pieces will be of very secondary concern, if not irrelevant, to most viewers.
Thanks for this. With respect to Kaveh, the millionaire businessman who had stepped in supposedly with a view to preserving the Banksy piece for Cheltenham, is there any evidence to suggest that people should be distrustful of him? I myself know nothing about the man apart from his name, his apparent wealth, and the fact he's a local. Has he previously been found to lie or been involved in general dodginess? Unless Kaveh has a history of dishonest behaviour, or unless it can be verified that his stated goal to the media was misleading or false, why not give him the benefit of the doubt? Why not just see if he can do for Cheltenham what he said he wishes to do? For most locals and art enthusiasts, wouldn't that be better (at least for now) than destroying the Banksy? Taking a general stance of wariness and caution when it comes to anything Banksy-related is completely understandable. There's no naivety on my part. However, I also think it's dangerous to make sweeping negative assumptions about people's characters. And about their intentions, regardless of any statements they make suggesting the contrary. The rationale seems to be that because it's a Banksy piece, because it has value (and financial value in particular), then anyone claiming to preserve it for the community must be up to no good. I would argue such reasoning is flawed, unfair, and speculative at best. Its good you believe in the good in people, pretty much every Banksy street piece that has been bought or claimed previously has been used for personal gain, who knows theres always a first, I don't know the man at all so its not a personal attack but sure lets see That is fair enough. I should however mention one point I find misleading in your response. There are plenty of Banksy street pieces on private property where the "personal gain" aspect, if it does indeed exist, is indirect. My own opinion is that such considerations — personal gain, underlying intent, etc. — are unnecessarily distracting. More often than not, I consider them red herrings, especially when the relevant street piece stays in place. The motivation (or, more likely, the multiple motivations) of the wall owners on which there are Banksy pieces doesn't really concern me. The Mayfair wall on which the so-called Shop Till You Drop is painted has been cleaned a few times of other graffiti at ground level. The Mild Mild West... and other street pieces in Bristol have regularly been cleaned, restored and repainted. In that Downtown Los Angeles parking lot, the Girl on Swing painting has been restored after being attacked. Perhaps there is indeed zero altruistic intent in the hearts of the property owners. Perhaps they are purely cynical, scheming bastards who only look after those walls because Banksy's name draws in traffic and increases the local footfall, which directly favours their businesses. Perhaps they are constantly rubbing their hands in glee at their good fortune, with big pound or dollar signs lighting up in their eyes. My question to you is this — Even we assumed all the above was true, would it really matter?For me, the priority is that Banksy enthusiasts, art fans generally, and the yet-to-be-initiated continue to be able to view and enjoy street pieces by the artist. What's important is for those pieces to remain in situ and accessible to the public. The actual identity of the legal owners of the walls, the inner workings of their minds (whether evil or otherwise), and how they directly or indirectly benefit from the street pieces will be of very secondary concern, if not irrelevant, to most viewers. |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by Deleted on Aug 7, 2014 17:59:11 GMT 1, Met i'm startin to think youre kaveh To be honest i dont really give a donkeys doodah what happens to the banksy, its not going to effect me that much either way, its an amazing street piece and ive great admiration for him as an artist, lots of people got to enjoy it and if its destroyed its destroyed, if he wanted it to be permanent he would have done an installation of it in the cheltenham museum or wherever, im more worried about getting gravy with my dinner or if my wife stirred my tea after hers(you see she likes sugar and i dont so i can taste it if its done that way round and i have to make a new cup)
I hope for you though that its looked after.
Met i'm startin to think youre kaveh To be honest i dont really give a donkeys doodah what happens to the banksy, its not going to effect me that much either way, its an amazing street piece and ive great admiration for him as an artist, lots of people got to enjoy it and if its destroyed its destroyed, if he wanted it to be permanent he would have done an installation of it in the cheltenham museum or wherever, im more worried about getting gravy with my dinner or if my wife stirred my tea after hers(you see she likes sugar and i dont so i can taste it if its done that way round and i have to make a new cup) I hope for you though that its looked after. |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by Deleted on Aug 7, 2014 21:49:45 GMT 1, Its good you believe in the good in people, pretty much every Banksy street piece that has been bought or claimed previously has been used for personal gain, who knows theres always a first, I don't know the man at all so its not a personal attack but sure lets see That is fair enough. I should however mention one point I find misleading in your response. There are plenty of Banksy street pieces on private property where the "personal gain" aspect, if it does indeed exist, is indirect. My own opinion is that such considerations — personal gain, underlying intent, etc. — are unnecessarily distracting. More often than not, I consider them red herrings, especially when the relevant street piece stays in place. The motivation (or, more likely, the multiple motivations) of the wall owners on which there are Banksy pieces doesn't really concern me. The Mayfair wall on which the so-called Shop Till You Drop is painted has been cleaned a few times of other graffiti at ground level. The Mild Mild West... and other street pieces in Bristol have regularly been cleaned, restored and repainted. In that Downtown Los Angeles parking lot, the Girl on Swing painting has been restored after being attacked. Perhaps there is indeed zero altruistic intent in the hearts of the property owners. Perhaps they are purely cynical, scheming bastards who only look after those walls because Banksy's name draws in traffic and increases the local footfall, which directly favours their businesses. Perhaps they are constantly rubbing their hands in glee at their good fortune, with big pound or dollar signs lighting up in their eyes. My question to you is this — Even we assumed all the above was true, would it really matter?For me, the priority is that Banksy enthusiasts, art fans generally, and the yet-to-be-initiated continue to be able to view and enjoy street pieces by the artist. What's important is for those pieces to remain in situ and accessible to the public. The actual identity of the legal owners of the walls, the inner workings of their minds (whether evil or otherwise), and how they directly or indirectly benefit from the street pieces will be of very secondary concern, if not irrelevant, to most viewers. What exactly is the "yet to be initiated"?
The only thing that keeps people in the mainstream interested in the current Banksy art on walls saga is the high value and sale prices of his ltd editions and paintings with stencils etc on canvas and the odd car door etc.
If it wasn't for the fact that people with a lot of money are paying a lot of money for some very basic art then no one would care less what happenes to any Banksy on a wall apart from a local person or two who would be ignored by everyone including the mainstream rag tops.
I know this is the Banksy Forum and it is an urban art forum with the name Banksy to bring traffic to this forum.
I agree Banksy is a niche name and brings traffic to people who are interested in Banksy.
I don't care what happens to the art whether it is preserved on the wall for ever and protected with surveillance cameras and armed guards and perspex or whether it's left to fade or if it gets vandalised.
It makes no difference because the banksy visual one liner only works on first impressions.
Apart from that why would GCHQ bug a public phone box, not a private phone or cell phone.
It's not "The Wire"
To followers of art and art values and sales and lets face it we have Sotheby's and other art sales and prices regularly posted on this forum as if the selling price makes any difference to the actual art itself.
I think it's good to talk about property owners selling the wall for easy money.
After all it's not their fault that Banksy stuck a stencil on their wall behind their back so how can anyone criticise them for accepting a lot of money from some so called art dealer middle man etc?
Banksy painted the mural on the wall but the wall doesn't belong to Banksy.
Thats what graffiti artists do and luckily for a property owner the value of the Banksy compensates them for that graffiti.
Unlike the graffiti sprayed on trains etc which cost hundreds of thousands to buy with taxpayers money and graffiti sprayed on private property which is actually just tagging and vandalism as the amount of decent graffiti writing on walls etc is very low.
The girl on a swing was painted on a commercial property so probably left on the wall because it's all good advertising for the owner anyway and the owner can always sell the girl on a swing at any time they choose too.
Why would any property owner be so naive as to not profit from this or any other stencil.
It's the real world and gallery owners and auction houses profit from Banksy stenicls on canvas and prints made from photos of Kate Moss etc.
It's a case of anyone can profit from Banksy art as long as they are on the Inside of a certain clique of dealers and auction houses.
Yes tell us whats really gone on with this Banksy GCHQ mural.
Anyone from a gallery to a local business man can get publicity by telling the press they are in negotiations to buy the piece, save it for posterity blah blah blah but that doesn't mean they had any intention of parting with money.
All it looks like to me is that this GCHQ piece has done has brought a lot of publicity seekers out of the woodwork.
Its good you believe in the good in people, pretty much every Banksy street piece that has been bought or claimed previously has been used for personal gain, who knows theres always a first, I don't know the man at all so its not a personal attack but sure lets see That is fair enough. I should however mention one point I find misleading in your response. There are plenty of Banksy street pieces on private property where the "personal gain" aspect, if it does indeed exist, is indirect. My own opinion is that such considerations — personal gain, underlying intent, etc. — are unnecessarily distracting. More often than not, I consider them red herrings, especially when the relevant street piece stays in place. The motivation (or, more likely, the multiple motivations) of the wall owners on which there are Banksy pieces doesn't really concern me. The Mayfair wall on which the so-called Shop Till You Drop is painted has been cleaned a few times of other graffiti at ground level. The Mild Mild West... and other street pieces in Bristol have regularly been cleaned, restored and repainted. In that Downtown Los Angeles parking lot, the Girl on Swing painting has been restored after being attacked. Perhaps there is indeed zero altruistic intent in the hearts of the property owners. Perhaps they are purely cynical, scheming bastards who only look after those walls because Banksy's name draws in traffic and increases the local footfall, which directly favours their businesses. Perhaps they are constantly rubbing their hands in glee at their good fortune, with big pound or dollar signs lighting up in their eyes. My question to you is this — Even we assumed all the above was true, would it really matter?For me, the priority is that Banksy enthusiasts, art fans generally, and the yet-to-be-initiated continue to be able to view and enjoy street pieces by the artist. What's important is for those pieces to remain in situ and accessible to the public. The actual identity of the legal owners of the walls, the inner workings of their minds (whether evil or otherwise), and how they directly or indirectly benefit from the street pieces will be of very secondary concern, if not irrelevant, to most viewers. What exactly is the "yet to be initiated"?
The only thing that keeps people in the mainstream interested in the current Banksy art on walls saga is the high value and sale prices of his ltd editions and paintings with stencils etc on canvas and the odd car door etc.
If it wasn't for the fact that people with a lot of money are paying a lot of money for some very basic art then no one would care less what happenes to any Banksy on a wall apart from a local person or two who would be ignored by everyone including the mainstream rag tops.
I know this is the Banksy Forum and it is an urban art forum with the name Banksy to bring traffic to this forum.
I agree Banksy is a niche name and brings traffic to people who are interested in Banksy.
I don't care what happens to the art whether it is preserved on the wall for ever and protected with surveillance cameras and armed guards and perspex or whether it's left to fade or if it gets vandalised.
It makes no difference because the banksy visual one liner only works on first impressions.
Apart from that why would GCHQ bug a public phone box, not a private phone or cell phone.
It's not "The Wire"
To followers of art and art values and sales and lets face it we have Sotheby's and other art sales and prices regularly posted on this forum as if the selling price makes any difference to the actual art itself.
I think it's good to talk about property owners selling the wall for easy money.
After all it's not their fault that Banksy stuck a stencil on their wall behind their back so how can anyone criticise them for accepting a lot of money from some so called art dealer middle man etc?
Banksy painted the mural on the wall but the wall doesn't belong to Banksy.
Thats what graffiti artists do and luckily for a property owner the value of the Banksy compensates them for that graffiti.
Unlike the graffiti sprayed on trains etc which cost hundreds of thousands to buy with taxpayers money and graffiti sprayed on private property which is actually just tagging and vandalism as the amount of decent graffiti writing on walls etc is very low.
The girl on a swing was painted on a commercial property so probably left on the wall because it's all good advertising for the owner anyway and the owner can always sell the girl on a swing at any time they choose too.
Why would any property owner be so naive as to not profit from this or any other stencil.
It's the real world and gallery owners and auction houses profit from Banksy stenicls on canvas and prints made from photos of Kate Moss etc.
It's a case of anyone can profit from Banksy art as long as they are on the Inside of a certain clique of dealers and auction houses.
Yes tell us whats really gone on with this Banksy GCHQ mural.
Anyone from a gallery to a local business man can get publicity by telling the press they are in negotiations to buy the piece, save it for posterity blah blah blah but that doesn't mean they had any intention of parting with money.
All it looks like to me is that this GCHQ piece has done has brought a lot of publicity seekers out of the woodwork.
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by Deleted on Aug 7, 2014 21:51:35 GMT 1, Looks good though.
Looks good though.
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy’s GCHQ spy mural to be sold???, by Deleted on Aug 9, 2014 12:43:51 GMT 1, I thought some investment group of business types was involved behind the scènes with Banksy or maybe the guy from Pest Patrol is part of the investment group?
The article in the Gardenin is interestin and some comments suggestin Banksy did the fake easily removable graffiti damage his self.
A real vandal would have used a chisel.
www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/aug/01/banksy-spies-mural-gchq-vandalised-spray-paint-cheltenham?commentpage=1
""Banksy spies mural near GCHQ vandalised with spray paint
Cheltenham locals saw group of men packing away large tarpaulin on Fairview Road, before driving off in a van""
I thought some investment group of business types was involved behind the scènes with Banksy or maybe the guy from Pest Patrol is part of the investment group? The article in the Gardenin is interestin and some comments suggestin Banksy did the fake easily removable graffiti damage his self. A real vandal would have used a chisel. www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/aug/01/banksy-spies-mural-gchq-vandalised-spray-paint-cheltenham?commentpage=1""Banksy spies mural near GCHQ vandalised with spray paint Cheltenham locals saw group of men packing away large tarpaulin on Fairview Road, before driving off in a van"" |
|
