|
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by Rouen Cathedral on Sept 19, 2017 20:39:12 GMT 1, It's one thing to be disappointed and to say any addition takes away from the art. But to act like it should be illegal or restricted is ridiculous.
It's one thing to be disappointed and to say any addition takes away from the art. But to act like it should be illegal or restricted is ridiculous.
|
|
RoboJ
Artist
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,202
👍🏻 1,332
July 2015
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by RoboJ on Sept 19, 2017 21:32:21 GMT 1, It's one thing to be disappointed and to say any addition takes away from the art. But to act like it should be illegal or restricted is ridiculous.
Are you referencing somebody else? If so sorry. If not, I've not said it should be illegal. Just that I don't think vandalising street ART is a good thing and I find it brings areas down. I'm talking about things like drawing on images like the Herakut example or tagging on some bodies window. It serves no purpose other than to spoil something for someone. It's not political, it's not complimentary. It's just for someone's short term self entertainment.
It's one thing to be disappointed and to say any addition takes away from the art. But to act like it should be illegal or restricted is ridiculous. Are you referencing somebody else? If so sorry. If not, I've not said it should be illegal. Just that I don't think vandalising street ART is a good thing and I find it brings areas down. I'm talking about things like drawing on images like the Herakut example or tagging on some bodies window. It serves no purpose other than to spoil something for someone. It's not political, it's not complimentary. It's just for someone's short term self entertainment. |
|
nex
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,573
👍🏻 1,819
February 2009
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by nex on Sept 19, 2017 21:39:22 GMT 1, When vandalising street art becomes an issue you know youve jumped the shark
When vandalising street art becomes an issue you know youve jumped the shark
|
|
slevin
New Member
🗨️ 602
👍🏻 699
December 2015
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by slevin on Sept 19, 2017 21:59:41 GMT 1, Stop vandalising vandalism!
Stop vandalising vandalism!
|
|
|
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by Rouen Cathedral on Sept 19, 2017 22:20:27 GMT 1, It's one thing to be disappointed and to say any addition takes away from the art. But to act like it should be illegal or restricted is ridiculous. Are you referencing somebody else? If so sorry. If not, I've not said it should be illegal. Just that I don't think vandalising street ART is a good thing and I find it brings areas down. I'm talking about things like drawing on images like the Herakut example or tagging on some bodies window. It serves no purpose other than to spoil something for someone. It's not political, it's not complimentary. It's just for someone's short term self entertainment.
Not really referencing anyone specific. More just a general thought. I agree poor vandalism can be quite ugly!
It's one thing to be disappointed and to say any addition takes away from the art. But to act like it should be illegal or restricted is ridiculous. Are you referencing somebody else? If so sorry. If not, I've not said it should be illegal. Just that I don't think vandalising street ART is a good thing and I find it brings areas down. I'm talking about things like drawing on images like the Herakut example or tagging on some bodies window. It serves no purpose other than to spoil something for someone. It's not political, it's not complimentary. It's just for someone's short term self entertainment. Not really referencing anyone specific. More just a general thought. I agree poor vandalism can be quite ugly! |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by Deleted on Sept 20, 2017 7:53:49 GMT 1, He looks like a pro flipper. Look at his past auctions. Supreme this, supreme that. Must of initiated Queue mode as soon as it hit the instagram.
He looks like a pro flipper. Look at his past auctions. Supreme this, supreme that. Must of initiated Queue mode as soon as it hit the instagram.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by Yeah Yeah Yeah Round2 on Sept 20, 2017 9:57:03 GMT 1, He looks like a pro flipper. Look at his past auctions. Supreme this, supreme that. Must of initiated Queue mode as soon as it hit the instagram.
This is just the norm nowadays.
He looks like a pro flipper. Look at his past auctions. Supreme this, supreme that. Must of initiated Queue mode as soon as it hit the instagram. This is just the norm nowadays. |
|
ferg
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,351
👍🏻 1,301
January 2013
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by ferg on Sept 20, 2017 10:00:36 GMT 1, Go to Palestine and buy the genuine Banksy stuff from the walled off hotel this smacks of desperation
Go to Palestine and buy the genuine Banksy stuff from the walled off hotel this smacks of desperation
|
|
met
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,797
👍🏻 6,771
June 2009
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by met on Sept 20, 2017 19:34:33 GMT 1, A street art piece that is being potentially damaged by whatever means by whoever, in my mind, cannot be held with the same opinion as a freshly painted canvas receiving the same treatment. All street art decays, whether anything speeds this process for me is not really that important.
No one would dispute that all street art decays.
If it seemed I was alluding to this wider reality in my initial post, then apologies. I hope the second attempt below is more successful in framing my position.
_____________
For the purpose of this discussion, let's therefore expressly exclude the main reasons for street art's ephemerality:
(i) weathering, ageing, general decay;
(ii) buffing or other removal by a local authority or property owner;
(iii) dogging or destruction by taggers, writers or rival artists;
(iv) various collaborative additions to the work by other street artists;
(v) being gone over by another writer or artist creating a new piece;
(vi) being covered up with advertising posters or hoarding; and/or
(vii) being physically cut out of the wall by speculators.
Take all the above out of the equation.
_____________
My focus is just on you, dan993c2. Or just on me. Or on anyone else here with a passion for street art. Someone who proactively seeks out works in situ. Who discovers, observes, and perhaps documents and discusses.
I'm therefore looking at the situation purely from your perspective. From each of our individual perspectives.
_____________
Imagine standing next to Banksy himself, in front of his newly-created ferris wheel piece. You do not start rubbing a newspaper on the Basquiat crowns to remove a layer of oil pastel. That would be almost inconceivable. But nor do you attempt such a stunt hours later after Banksy has long gone. And so it isn't the certainty of getting caught that discourages you from being a prat in the first scenario. You stop yourself for other reasons.
What I'm referring to are the convictions guiding your behaviour. They're probably similar to mine. For you to consciously damage a painting (in however minor a way, and whether that painting be in a studio or the street) would be incompatible with the respect you hold for artists, their profession, and their work.
Now, that personal code of conduct is logical. It's consistent with being an appreciator of art and culture.
To be clear, you aren't intervening to artificially preserve street art. But nor are you acting in a way that actually damages it. In other words, you don't lessen the viewing experience for others — who might only be able to reach the street piece minutes, hours or days after you.
[Although perhaps not the right analogy, compare it to a national park. There's a duty to leave it in no worse a state than when you arrived. The idea is to allow later visitors the same level of enjoyment you had.]
_____________
So here's the argument:
The sense of responsibility you feel is desirable. Because any act (large or small) making things worse is contrary to the interest of each of your fellow street art enthusiasts.
Sound reasonable?
If yes, it follows that behaving in a conflicting manner is selfish and undesirable. And if it's undesirable, then we should be discouraging such behaviour — at least amongst ourselves.
Separately, with this being a fresh Banksy, the timing issue is also worth considering. For me, there's an aggravating factor to interventions made before most fans (even local ones) have had a fair chance to see the new piece in person.
A street art piece that is being potentially damaged by whatever means by whoever, in my mind, cannot be held with the same opinion as a freshly painted canvas receiving the same treatment. All street art decays, whether anything speeds this process for me is not really that important. No one would dispute that all str eet art decays. If it seemed I was alluding to this wider reality in my initial post, then apologies. I hope the second attempt below is more successful in framing my position. _____________ For the purpose of this discussion, let's therefore expressly exclude the main reasons for str eet art's ephemerality: (i) weathering, ageing, general decay; (ii) buffing or other removal by a local authority or property owner; (iii) dogging or destruction by taggers, writers or rival artists; (iv) various collaborative additions to the work by other str eet artists; (v) being gone over by another writer or artist creating a new piece; (vi) being covered up with advertising posters or hoarding; and/or (vii) being physically cut out of the wall by speculators. Take all the above out of the equation. _____________ My focus is just on you, dan993c2. Or just on me. Or on anyone else here with a passion for str eet art. Someone who proactively seeks out works in situ. Who discovers, observes, and perhaps documents and discusses. I'm therefore looking at the situation purely from your perspective. From each of our individual perspectives. _____________ Imagine standing next to Ban ksy himself, in front of his newly-created ferris wheel piece. You do not start rubbing a newspaper on the Bas quiat crowns to remove a layer of oil pastel. That would be almost inconceivable. But nor do you attempt such a stunt hours later after Ban ksy has long gone. And so it isn't the certainty of getting caught that discourages you from being a prat in the first scenario. You stop yourself for other reasons. What I'm referring to are the convictions guiding your behaviour. They're probably similar to mine. For you to consciously damage a painting (in however minor a way, and whether that painting be in a studio or the street) would be incompatible with the respect you hold for artists, their profession, and their work. Now, that personal code of conduct is logical. It's consistent with being an appreciator of art and culture. To be clear, you aren't intervening to artificially preserve str eet art. But nor are you acting in a way that actually damages it. In other words, you don't lessen the viewing experience for others — who might only be able to reach the street piece minutes, hours or days after you. [Although perhaps not the right analogy, compare it to a national park. There's a duty to leave it in no worse a state than when you arrived. The idea is to allow later visitors the same level of enjoyment you had.]_____________ So here's the argument:The sense of responsibility you feel is desirable. Because any act (large or small) making things worse is contrary to the interest of each of your fellow street art enthusiasts. Sound reasonable? If yes, it follows that behaving in a conflicting manner is selfish and undesirable. And if it's undesirable, then we should be discouraging such behaviour — at least amongst ourselves. Separately, with this being a fresh Ban ksy, the timing issue is also worth considering. For me, there's an aggravating factor to interventions made before most fans (even local ones) have had a fair chance to see the new piece in person. |
|
lorraballs
New Member
🗨️ 215
👍🏻 198
September 2012
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by lorraballs on Sept 20, 2017 21:02:41 GMT 1, A street art piece that is being potentially damaged by whatever means by whoever, in my mind, cannot be held with the same opinion as a freshly painted canvas receiving the same treatment. All street art decays, whether anything speeds this process for me is not really that important. No one would dispute that all str eet art decays. If it seemed I was alluding to this wider reality in my initial post, then apologies. I hope the second attempt below is more successful in framing my position. _____________ For the purpose of this discussion, let's therefore expressly exclude the main reasons for str eet art's ephemerality: (i) weathering, ageing, general decay; (ii) buffing or other removal by a local authority or property owner; (iii) dogging or destruction by taggers, writers or rival artists; (iv) various collaborative additions to the work by other str eet artists; (v) being gone over by another writer or artist creating a new piece; (vi) being covered up with advertising posters or hoarding; and/or (vii) being physically cut out of the wall by speculators. Take all the above out of the equation. _____________ My focus is just on you, dan993c2. Or just on me. Or on anyone else here with a passion for str eet art. Someone who proactively seeks out works in situ. Who discovers, observes, and perhaps documents and discusses. I'm therefore looking at the situation purely from your perspective. From each of our individual perspectives. _____________ Imagine standing next to Ban ksy himself, in front of his newly-created ferris wheel piece. You do not start rubbing a newspaper on the Bas quiat crowns to remove a layer of oil pastel. That would be almost inconceivable. But nor do you attempt such a stunt hours later after Ban ksy has long gone. And so it isn't the certainty of getting caught that discourages you from being a prat in the first scenario. You stop yourself for other reasons. What I'm referring to are the convictions guiding your behaviour. They're probably similar to mine. For you to consciously damage a painting (in however minor a way, and whether that painting be in a studio or the street) would be incompatible with the respect you hold for artists, their profession, and their work. Now, that personal code of conduct is logical. It's consistent with being an appreciator of art and culture. To be clear, you aren't intervening to artificially preserve str eet art. But nor are you acting in a way that actually damages it. In other words, you don't lessen the viewing experience for others — who might only be able to reach the street piece minutes, hours or days after you. [Although perhaps not the right analogy, compare it to a national park. There's a duty to leave it in no worse a state than when you arrived. The idea is to allow later visitors the same level of enjoyment you had.]_____________ So here's the argument:The sense of responsibility you feel is desirable. Because any act (large or small) making things worse is contrary to the interest of each of your fellow street art enthusiasts. Sound reasonable? If yes, it follows that behaving in a conflicting manner is selfish and undesirable. And if it's undesirable, then we should be discouraging such behaviour — at least amongst ourselves. Separately, with this being a fresh Ban ksy, the timing issue is also worth considering. For me, there's an aggravating factor to interventions made before most fans (even local ones) have had a fair chance to see the new piece in person.
Take only photos, leave only footprints.
A street art piece that is being potentially damaged by whatever means by whoever, in my mind, cannot be held with the same opinion as a freshly painted canvas receiving the same treatment. All street art decays, whether anything speeds this process for me is not really that important. No one would dispute that all str eet art decays. If it seemed I was alluding to this wider reality in my initial post, then apologies. I hope the second attempt below is more successful in framing my position. _____________ For the purpose of this discussion, let's therefore expressly exclude the main reasons for str eet art's ephemerality: (i) weathering, ageing, general decay; (ii) buffing or other removal by a local authority or property owner; (iii) dogging or destruction by taggers, writers or rival artists; (iv) various collaborative additions to the work by other str eet artists; (v) being gone over by another writer or artist creating a new piece; (vi) being covered up with advertising posters or hoarding; and/or (vii) being physically cut out of the wall by speculators. Take all the above out of the equation. _____________ My focus is just on you, dan993c2. Or just on me. Or on anyone else here with a passion for str eet art. Someone who proactively seeks out works in situ. Who discovers, observes, and perhaps documents and discusses. I'm therefore looking at the situation purely from your perspective. From each of our individual perspectives. _____________ Imagine standing next to Ban ksy himself, in front of his newly-created ferris wheel piece. You do not start rubbing a newspaper on the Bas quiat crowns to remove a layer of oil pastel. That would be almost inconceivable. But nor do you attempt such a stunt hours later after Ban ksy has long gone. And so it isn't the certainty of getting caught that discourages you from being a prat in the first scenario. You stop yourself for other reasons. What I'm referring to are the convictions guiding your behaviour. They're probably similar to mine. For you to consciously damage a painting (in however minor a way, and whether that painting be in a studio or the street) would be incompatible with the respect you hold for artists, their profession, and their work. Now, that personal code of conduct is logical. It's consistent with being an appreciator of art and culture. To be clear, you aren't intervening to artificially preserve str eet art. But nor are you acting in a way that actually damages it. In other words, you don't lessen the viewing experience for others — who might only be able to reach the street piece minutes, hours or days after you. [Although perhaps not the right analogy, compare it to a national park. There's a duty to leave it in no worse a state than when you arrived. The idea is to allow later visitors the same level of enjoyment you had.]_____________ So here's the argument:The sense of responsibility you feel is desirable. Because any act (large or small) making things worse is contrary to the interest of each of your fellow street art enthusiasts. Sound reasonable? If yes, it follows that behaving in a conflicting manner is selfish and undesirable. And if it's undesirable, then we should be discouraging such behaviour — at least amongst ourselves. Separately, with this being a fresh Ban ksy, the timing issue is also worth considering. For me, there's an aggravating factor to interventions made before most fans (even local ones) have had a fair chance to see the new piece in person. Take only photos, leave only footprints. |
|
|
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by Rouen Cathedral on Sept 20, 2017 21:56:01 GMT 1, A street art piece that is being potentially damaged by whatever means by whoever, in my mind, cannot be held with the same opinion as a freshly painted canvas receiving the same treatment. All street art decays, whether anything speeds this process for me is not really that important. No one would dispute that all str eet art decays. If it seemed I was alluding to this wider reality in my initial post, then apologies. I hope the second attempt below is more successful in framing my position. _____________ For the purpose of this discussion, let's therefore expressly exclude the main reasons for str eet art's ephemerality: (i) weathering, ageing, general decay; (ii) buffing or other removal by a local authority or property owner; (iii) dogging or destruction by taggers, writers or rival artists; (iv) various collaborative additions to the work by other str eet artists; (v) being gone over by another writer or artist creating a new piece; (vi) being covered up with advertising posters or hoarding; and/or (vii) being physically cut out of the wall by speculators. Take all the above out of the equation. _____________ My focus is just on you, dan993c2. Or just on me. Or on anyone else here with a passion for str eet art. Someone who proactively seeks out works in situ. Who discovers, observes, and perhaps documents and discusses. I'm therefore looking at the situation purely from your perspective. From each of our individual perspectives. _____________ Imagine standing next to Ban ksy himself, in front of his newly-created ferris wheel piece. You do not start rubbing a newspaper on the Bas quiat crowns to remove a layer of oil pastel. That would be almost inconceivable. But nor do you attempt such a stunt hours later after Ban ksy has long gone. And so it isn't the certainty of getting caught that discourages you from being a prat in the first scenario. You stop yourself for other reasons. What I'm referring to are the convictions guiding your behaviour. They're probably similar to mine. For you to consciously damage a painting (in however minor a way, and whether that painting be in a studio or the street) would be incompatible with the respect you hold for artists, their profession, and their work. Now, that personal code of conduct is logical. It's consistent with being an appreciator of art and culture. To be clear, you aren't intervening to artificially preserve str eet art. But nor are you acting in a way that actually damages it. In other words, you don't lessen the viewing experience for others — who might only be able to reach the street piece minutes, hours or days after you. [Although perhaps not the right analogy, compare it to a national park. There's a duty to leave it in no worse a state than when you arrived. The idea is to allow later visitors the same level of enjoyment you had.]_____________ So here's the argument:The sense of responsibility you feel is desirable. Because any act (large or small) making things worse is contrary to the interest of each of your fellow street art enthusiasts. Sound reasonable? If yes, it follows that behaving in a conflicting manner is selfish and undesirable. And if it's undesirable, then we should be discouraging such behaviour — at least amongst ourselves. Separately, with this being a fresh Ban ksy, the timing issue is also worth considering. For me, there's an aggravating factor to interventions made before most fans (even local ones) have had a fair chance to see the new piece in person.
This is bizarre.
Does this responsibility only apply to banksy works? Or works you like?
What If it's just a simple ugly piece of graffiti? Or something offensive or rude? Do you still feel that responsibility?
How can you take out all the factors that make street art and the life of a street art piece and still be discussing street art? You can't.
A street art piece that is being potentially damaged by whatever means by whoever, in my mind, cannot be held with the same opinion as a freshly painted canvas receiving the same treatment. All street art decays, whether anything speeds this process for me is not really that important. No one would dispute that all str eet art decays. If it seemed I was alluding to this wider reality in my initial post, then apologies. I hope the second attempt below is more successful in framing my position. _____________ For the purpose of this discussion, let's therefore expressly exclude the main reasons for str eet art's ephemerality: (i) weathering, ageing, general decay; (ii) buffing or other removal by a local authority or property owner; (iii) dogging or destruction by taggers, writers or rival artists; (iv) various collaborative additions to the work by other str eet artists; (v) being gone over by another writer or artist creating a new piece; (vi) being covered up with advertising posters or hoarding; and/or (vii) being physically cut out of the wall by speculators. Take all the above out of the equation. _____________ My focus is just on you, dan993c2. Or just on me. Or on anyone else here with a passion for str eet art. Someone who proactively seeks out works in situ. Who discovers, observes, and perhaps documents and discusses. I'm therefore looking at the situation purely from your perspective. From each of our individual perspectives. _____________ Imagine standing next to Ban ksy himself, in front of his newly-created ferris wheel piece. You do not start rubbing a newspaper on the Bas quiat crowns to remove a layer of oil pastel. That would be almost inconceivable. But nor do you attempt such a stunt hours later after Ban ksy has long gone. And so it isn't the certainty of getting caught that discourages you from being a prat in the first scenario. You stop yourself for other reasons. What I'm referring to are the convictions guiding your behaviour. They're probably similar to mine. For you to consciously damage a painting (in however minor a way, and whether that painting be in a studio or the street) would be incompatible with the respect you hold for artists, their profession, and their work. Now, that personal code of conduct is logical. It's consistent with being an appreciator of art and culture. To be clear, you aren't intervening to artificially preserve str eet art. But nor are you acting in a way that actually damages it. In other words, you don't lessen the viewing experience for others — who might only be able to reach the street piece minutes, hours or days after you. [Although perhaps not the right analogy, compare it to a national park. There's a duty to leave it in no worse a state than when you arrived. The idea is to allow later visitors the same level of enjoyment you had.]_____________ So here's the argument:The sense of responsibility you feel is desirable. Because any act (large or small) making things worse is contrary to the interest of each of your fellow street art enthusiasts. Sound reasonable? If yes, it follows that behaving in a conflicting manner is selfish and undesirable. And if it's undesirable, then we should be discouraging such behaviour — at least amongst ourselves. Separately, with this being a fresh Ban ksy, the timing issue is also worth considering. For me, there's an aggravating factor to interventions made before most fans (even local ones) have had a fair chance to see the new piece in person. This is bizarre. Does this responsibility only apply to banksy works? Or works you like? What If it's just a simple ugly piece of graffiti? Or something offensive or rude? Do you still feel that responsibility? How can you take out all the factors that make street art and the life of a street art piece and still be discussing street art? You can't. |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by Deleted on Sept 21, 2017 11:59:59 GMT 1, A street art piece that is being potentially damaged by whatever means by whoever, in my mind, cannot be held with the same opinion as a freshly painted canvas receiving the same treatment. All street art decays, whether anything speeds this process for me is not really that important. No one would dispute that all str eet art decays. If it seemed I was alluding to this wider reality in my initial post, then apologies. I hope the second attempt below is more successful in framing my position. _____________ For the purpose of this discussion, let's therefore expressly exclude the main reasons for str eet art's ephemerality: (i) weathering, ageing, general decay; (ii) buffing or other removal by a local authority or property owner; (iii) dogging or destruction by taggers, writers or rival artists; (iv) various collaborative additions to the work by other str eet artists; (v) being gone over by another writer or artist creating a new piece; (vi) being covered up with advertising posters or hoarding; and/or (vii) being physically cut out of the wall by speculators. Take all the above out of the equation. _____________ My focus is just on you, dan993c2 . Or just on me. Or on anyone else here with a passion for str eet art. Someone who proactively seeks out works in situ. Who discovers, observes, and perhaps documents and discusses. I'm therefore looking at the situation purely from your perspective. From each of our individual perspectives. _____________ Imagine standing next to Ban ksy himself, in front of his newly-created ferris wheel piece. You do not start rubbing a newspaper on the Bas quiat crowns to remove a layer of oil pastel. That would be almost inconceivable. But nor do you attempt such a stunt hours later after Ban ksy has long gone. And so it isn't the certainty of getting caught that discourages you from being a prat in the first scenario. You stop yourself for other reasons. What I'm referring to are the convictions guiding your behaviour. They're probably similar to mine. For you to consciously damage a painting (in however minor a way, and whether that painting be in a studio or the street) would be incompatible with the respect you hold for artists, their profession, and their work. Now, that personal code of conduct is logical. It's consistent with being an appreciator of art and culture. To be clear, you aren't intervening to artificially preserve str eet art. But nor are you acting in a way that actually damages it. In other words, you don't lessen the viewing experience for others — who might only be able to reach the street piece minutes, hours or days after you. [Although perhaps not the right analogy, compare it to a national park. There's a duty to leave it in no worse a state than when you arrived. The idea is to allow later visitors the same level of enjoyment you had.]_____________ So here's the argument:The sense of responsibility you feel is desirable. Because any act (large or small) making things worse is contrary to the interest of each of your fellow street art enthusiasts. Sound reasonable? If yes, it follows that behaving in a conflicting manner is selfish and undesirable. And if it's undesirable, then we should be discouraging such behaviour — at least amongst ourselves. Separately, with this being a fresh Ban ksy, the timing issue is also worth considering. For me, there's an aggravating factor to interventions made before most fans (even local ones) have had a fair chance to see the new piece in person.
I understand the above and in all honesty I am the type of person who would not choose to deface or add anything to any street pieces. However, I also feel that it is unfair of me to take a moral stance against the people who do. If somebody had done this to any other artists street work and, I understand the motive of this person was monetary, I doubt anybody would see it in the same way. So just because its a street piece by Banksy should it be treated any differently. That is a question that I am still trying to decide my personal answer too as I type this.
A street art piece that is being potentially damaged by whatever means by whoever, in my mind, cannot be held with the same opinion as a freshly painted canvas receiving the same treatment. All street art decays, whether anything speeds this process for me is not really that important. No one would dispute that all str eet art decays. If it seemed I was alluding to this wider reality in my initial post, then apologies. I hope the second attempt below is more successful in framing my position. _____________ For the purpose of this discussion, let's therefore expressly exclude the main reasons for str eet art's ephemerality: (i) weathering, ageing, general decay; (ii) buffing or other removal by a local authority or property owner; (iii) dogging or destruction by taggers, writers or rival artists; (iv) various collaborative additions to the work by other str eet artists; (v) being gone over by another writer or artist creating a new piece; (vi) being covered up with advertising posters or hoarding; and/or (vii) being physically cut out of the wall by speculators. Take all the above out of the equation. _____________ My focus is just on you, dan993c2 . Or just on me. Or on anyone else here with a passion for str eet art. Someone who proactively seeks out works in situ. Who discovers, observes, and perhaps documents and discusses. I'm therefore looking at the situation purely from your perspective. From each of our individual perspectives. _____________ Imagine standing next to Ban ksy himself, in front of his newly-created ferris wheel piece. You do not start rubbing a newspaper on the Bas quiat crowns to remove a layer of oil pastel. That would be almost inconceivable. But nor do you attempt such a stunt hours later after Ban ksy has long gone. And so it isn't the certainty of getting caught that discourages you from being a prat in the first scenario. You stop yourself for other reasons. What I'm referring to are the convictions guiding your behaviour. They're probably similar to mine. For you to consciously damage a painting (in however minor a way, and whether that painting be in a studio or the street) would be incompatible with the respect you hold for artists, their profession, and their work. Now, that personal code of conduct is logical. It's consistent with being an appreciator of art and culture. To be clear, you aren't intervening to artificially preserve str eet art. But nor are you acting in a way that actually damages it. In other words, you don't lessen the viewing experience for others — who might only be able to reach the street piece minutes, hours or days after you. [Although perhaps not the right analogy, compare it to a national park. There's a duty to leave it in no worse a state than when you arrived. The idea is to allow later visitors the same level of enjoyment you had.]_____________ So here's the argument:The sense of responsibility you feel is desirable. Because any act (large or small) making things worse is contrary to the interest of each of your fellow street art enthusiasts. Sound reasonable? If yes, it follows that behaving in a conflicting manner is selfish and undesirable. And if it's undesirable, then we should be discouraging such behaviour — at least amongst ourselves. Separately, with this being a fresh Ban ksy, the timing issue is also worth considering. For me, there's an aggravating factor to interventions made before most fans (even local ones) have had a fair chance to see the new piece in person.
I understand the above and in all honesty I am the type of person who would not choose to deface or add anything to any street pieces. However, I also feel that it is unfair of me to take a moral stance against the people who do. If somebody had done this to any other artists street work and, I understand the motive of this person was monetary, I doubt anybody would see it in the same way. So just because its a street piece by Banksy should it be treated any differently. That is a question that I am still trying to decide my personal answer too as I type this.
|
|
detail
New Member
🗨️ 89
👍🏻 86
November 2016
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by detail on Sept 21, 2017 16:36:24 GMT 1, Personally I wouldn't damage artwork, whether by Banksy or another artist, for my own financial gain.
I leave it alone for others to view/enjoy/critique, especially if it has only just been painted.
Personally I wouldn't damage artwork, whether by Banksy or another artist, for my own financial gain.
I leave it alone for others to view/enjoy/critique, especially if it has only just been painted.
|
|
kaos
New Member
🗨️ 505
👍🏻 627
June 2015
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by kaos on Sept 21, 2017 16:52:05 GMT 1, There were five people there at the time, four were taking photographs and admiring the art one was only interested in getting imprints.
There were five people there at the time, four were taking photographs and admiring the art one was only interested in getting imprints.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by Rouen Cathedral on Sept 21, 2017 17:10:52 GMT 1, Did it damage the art?
Did it damage the art?
|
|
detail
New Member
🗨️ 89
👍🏻 86
November 2016
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by detail on Sept 21, 2017 21:48:51 GMT 1, Yes, it was slightly damaged by this, the crown he took the print from is smudged and a lot flatter than the others.
You cant remove parts of an artwork without altering/damaging it.
Yes, it was slightly damaged by this, the crown he took the print from is smudged and a lot flatter than the others.
You cant remove parts of an artwork without altering/damaging it.
|
|
|
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by Rouen Cathedral on Sept 22, 2017 1:05:50 GMT 1, Yes, it was slightly damaged by this, the crown he took the print from is smudged and a lot flatter than the others. You cant remove parts of an artwork without altering/damaging it.
Still looks pretty good in these photos which I think were taken after.
urbanartassociation.com/thread/147419/banksy-basquiat-barbican?page=4
|
|
.dappy
Full Member
🗨️ 9,841
👍🏻 9,462
December 2010
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by .dappy on Sept 22, 2017 1:20:07 GMT 1,
... and if you already new the answer, why did you ask the question ... Oh I forgot! it's murrke and his inane question after question and talking shït ...
... and if you already new the answer, why did you ask the question ... Oh I forgot! it's murrke and his inane question after question and talking shït ... |
|
detail
New Member
🗨️ 89
👍🏻 86
November 2016
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by detail on Sept 22, 2017 1:27:16 GMT 1, You can't really tell from photos, or from behind your keyboard.
You can't really tell from photos, or from behind your keyboard.
|
|
|
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by Rouen Cathedral on Sept 22, 2017 1:30:18 GMT 1, ... and if you already new the answer, why did you ask the question ... Oh I forgot! it's murrke and his inane question after question and talking shït ...
That's for the rudeness.
I realized those photos were taken after. Sorry that concept may have flow over your head!
No questions to fluster you in that post.
... and if you already new the answer, why did you ask the question ... Oh I forgot! it's murrke and his inane question after question and talking shït ... That's for the rudeness. I realized those photos were taken after. Sorry that concept may have flow over your head! No questions to fluster you in that post. |
|
|
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by Rouen Cathedral on Sept 22, 2017 1:31:26 GMT 1, You can't really tell from photos, or from behind your keyboard.
Is that supposed to be an insult.
The fact I can't fly 5000 miles to look at some graffiti on a wall. How dare I look at photos! Good one.
You can't really tell from photos, or from behind your keyboard. Is that supposed to be an insult. The fact I can't fly 5000 miles to look at some graffiti on a wall. How dare I look at photos! Good one. |
|
.dappy
Full Member
🗨️ 9,841
👍🏻 9,462
December 2010
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by .dappy on Sept 22, 2017 1:40:24 GMT 1, ... and if you already new the answer, why did you ask the question ... Oh I forgot! it's murrke and his inane question after question and talking shït ... That's for the rudeness. I realized those photos were taken after. Sorry that concept may have flow over your head! No questions to fluster you in that post.
... sad bloke ...
... and if you already new the answer, why did you ask the question ... Oh I forgot! it's murrke and his inane question after question and talking shït ... That's for the rudeness. I realized those photos were taken after. Sorry that concept may have flow over your head! No questions to fluster you in that post. ... sad bloke ... |
|
|
|
|
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by Rouen Cathedral on Sept 22, 2017 1:42:39 GMT 1, That's for the rudeness. I realized those photos were taken after. Sorry that concept may have flow over your head! No questions to fluster you in that post. ... sad bloke ...
Says the forum guardian chiming in to throw mud at someone for discussing the topic. Good work!
That's for the rudeness. I realized those photos were taken after. Sorry that concept may have flow over your head! No questions to fluster you in that post. ... sad bloke ... Says the forum guardian chiming in to throw mud at someone for discussing the topic. Good work! |
|
.dappy
Full Member
🗨️ 9,841
👍🏻 9,462
December 2010
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by .dappy on Sept 22, 2017 1:45:20 GMT 1, Says the forum guardian chiming in to throw mud at someone for discussing the topic. Good work!
... you don't discuss anything or any topic ... but you probably don't even realise that ... or you probably do and think you are clever 👍👍👍
Says the forum guardian chiming in to throw mud at someone for discussing the topic. Good work! ... you don't discuss anything or any topic ... but you probably don't even realise that ... or you probably do and think you are clever 👍👍👍 |
|
|
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by Rouen Cathedral on Sept 22, 2017 2:16:16 GMT 1, Says the forum guardian chiming in to throw mud at someone for discussing the topic. Good work! ... you don't discuss anything or any topic ... but you probably don't even realise that ... or you probably do and think you are clever 👍👍👍
.... snore ....
Says the forum guardian chiming in to throw mud at someone for discussing the topic. Good work! ... you don't discuss anything or any topic ... but you probably don't even realise that ... or you probably do and think you are clever 👍👍👍 .... snore .... |
|
.dappy
Full Member
🗨️ 9,841
👍🏻 9,462
December 2010
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by .dappy on Sept 22, 2017 2:44:40 GMT 1, ... you don't discuss anything or any topic ... but you probably don't even realise that ... or you probably do and think you are clever 👍👍👍 .... snore ....
... you don't discuss anything or any topic ... but you probably don't even realise that ... or you probably do and think you are clever 👍👍👍 .... snore .... ... Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha! 😝 🙃 😝 👌 |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by Deleted on Sept 22, 2017 8:13:30 GMT 1, ... Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha! 😝 🙃 😝 👌
... Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha! 😝 🙃 😝 👌 LOL |
|
|
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by Rouen Cathedral on Sept 22, 2017 12:18:57 GMT 1, ... Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha! 😝 🙃 😝 👌
You forgot .............. at the end!
... Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha! 😝 🙃 😝 👌 You forgot .............. at the end! |
|
met
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,797
👍🏻 6,771
June 2009
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by met on Sept 27, 2017 6:58:33 GMT 1,
I understand the above and in all honesty I am the type of person who would not choose to deface or add anything to any street pieces. However, I also feel that it is unfair of me to take a moral stance against the people who do. If somebody had done this to any other artists street work and, I understand the motive of this person was monetary, I doubt anybody would see it in the same way. So just because its a street piece by Banksy should it be treated any differently. That is a question that I am still trying to decide my personal answer too as I type this.
Thank you for the reply. I'll try to respond to the first limb of your post at a later stage. In the meantime, using your last three sentences as inspiration, here's a motion:
A street piece by Banksy should not be treated differently to any other artist's street work.
If we join forces on a debating team supporting this motion, I'm sure we'll come up with many strong points.
We can tie everything in with a slightly vague democratic notion — that everyone should be treated equally. This has traction potential. It can be presented in a very persuasive manner, especially when expressed with passion. Ideas such as these resonate because they appeal to our emotions, to our sense of fairness. Moreover, they're capable of being easily digested and accepted by the average listener.
___________
Now, we also have to anticipate arguments likely to be presented by the other side, by the team opposing the motion. That's the trickier bit — having to respond to adversaries who are paying attention, rather than accepting wholesale anything we say that has superficial coherence.
The summary description by Elizabeth Sloane on lobbying can to a large extent be transposed to debating:
Lobbying is about foresight. About anticipating your opponent's moves and devising counter measures. The winner plots one step ahead of the opposition. And plays her trump card just after they play theirs. It's about making sure you surprise them. And they don't surprise you.
___________
And so let's forearm ourselves and figure out how the team opposing the motion will attack our position.
If members of that team are experienced, in the first instance they'll repeat some of our statements, conceding minor points and expressing partial agreement. This is an effective tactic for winning over the trust of an audience. It helps one to come across as open and reasonable. Give a little away, gain credibility in return.
For instance, with fake conciliatory smiles, the other side accepts that our position does sound noble. However, they then also explain that, in supporting the motion, you and I are effectively saying every street piece should be treated the same, regardless of the work or the artist's identity. Cue dramatic pause, followed by their actual argument, which may go something like this:
"But if we adopt the general principle of equal treatment of all street art, ladies and gentlemen, then a number of consequences need to be accepted as well. Two examples:
1. This approach requires us to dismiss certain realities, including critical and institutional recognition of an artist's work; their art-historical and cultural significance; the influence held by the artist; their history, track record and talent; and plenty of other factors that set certain creatives apart from the herd. All of these, even when combined, now rank second to the overriding priority that all street work be regarded equally.
To illustrate, a Bambi or Martin Whatson street piece must to be treated the same as a Keith Haring mural. An Alec Monopoly, the same as an Osgemeos. And if Francis Bacon and Lucian Freud had been street artists, their outdoor work would need to be dealt with no differently than a Mr Brainwash or Pegasus.
2. Although largely a continuation of point 1, the exceptional popularity of an artist (as referred to by medichead here, or in the considered posts by illicey here) becomes almost irrelevant. Locals and tourists of all age groups and from every cultural or socio-economic background may well be excited about new Banksys popping up in London. They might be willing to make an extra effort, incur expenditure and suffer inconvenience to experience the works in person, not just online. For them, paintings by the artist have a special status. These people may therefore hope new Banksys do not get treated as run-of-the-mill graffiti (e.g. by being quickly buffed, dogged or otherwise altered), at least not before they get a chance to see them in situ.
But such considerations can be ignored. They're unimportant when compared to dogma. As a result, even if a famous artist will pique the curiosity of millions and draw in crowds of thousands, their work should be dealt with no differently than the work of anyone else — including unknown or untalented artists that the public has zero interest in.
Ladies and gentleman, these would be the consequences. The ones we'd have to accept if the lofty ideal of equal treatment of all street pieces were embraced and taken to its logical conclusion."
___________
Phew.
I see there's still a good deal of preparation work to finish. We should divide the tasks between us.
At the moment, I can't think of any convincing retorts to points 1 and 2 above. So let's leave that job with you.
What I'll do is gather some "Yo mama" insults, to fluster the other team while they're speaking. And I'll look through the dictionary for obscure words nobody knows the meaning of. If we get stuck at any point, citing a few of these words will confuse everyone. The subject can then be changed without too many people noticing.
Separately, I've already come up with a closing, to address the audience at the end:
You've listened patiently this evening to the team opposing the motion. But what did they really say? What is it they're opposing? I'll tell you. They're actually fighting against EQUALITY — one of the most sacred principles of our democracy. But why? Look at them. Are they fascists? Are they monsters? Probably not. Though we do believe they are lost souls, sorely misguided. And we're confident you will agree that inequality and exclusion have no place in civilised society. Please therefore join us by voting in favour of the motion. Thank you.
Can't wait to hit the other team with that one, dan993c2. I can already picture the looks of utter defeat on their faces.
We've got this debate in bag.
I understand the above and in all honesty I am the type of person who would not choose to deface or add anything to any street pieces. However, I also feel that it is unfair of me to take a moral stance against the people who do. If somebody had done this to any other artists street work and, I understand the motive of this person was monetary, I doubt anybody would see it in the same way. So just because its a street piece by Banksy should it be treated any differently. That is a question that I am still trying to decide my personal answer too as I type this.
Thank you for the reply. I'll try to respond to the first limb of your post at a later stage. In the meantime, using your last three sentences as inspiration, here's a motion: A street piece by Banksy should not be treated differently to any other artist's street work.If we join forces on a debating team supporting this motion, I'm sure we'll come up with many strong points. We can tie everything in with a slightly vague democratic notion — that everyone should be treated equally. This has traction potential. It can be presented in a very persuasive manner, especially when expressed with passion. Ideas such as these resonate because they appeal to our emotions, to our sense of fairness. Moreover, they're capable of being easily digested and accepted by the average listener. ___________ Now, we also have to anticipate arguments likely to be presented by the other side, by the team opposing the motion. That's the trickier bit — having to respond to adversaries who are paying attention, rather than accepting wholesale anything we say that has superficial coherence. The summary description by Elizabeth Sloane on lobbying can to a large extent be transposed to debating: Lobbying is about foresight. About anticipating your opponent's moves and devising counter measures. The winner plots one step ahead of the opposition. And plays her trump card just after they play theirs. It's about making sure you surprise them. And they don't surprise you.___________ And so let's forearm ourselves and figure out how the team opposing the motion will attack our position. If members of that team are experienced, in the first instance they'll repeat some of our statements, conceding minor points and expressing partial agreement. This is an effective tactic for winning over the trust of an audience. It helps one to come across as open and reasonable. Give a little away, gain credibility in return. For instance, with fake conciliatory smiles, the other side accepts that our position does sound noble. However, they then also explain that, in supporting the motion, you and I are effectively saying every street piece should be treated the same, regardless of the work or the artist's identity. Cue dramatic pause, followed by their actual argument, which may go something like this: "But if we adopt the general principle of equal treatment of all street art, ladies and gentlemen, then a number of consequences need to be accepted as well. Two examples:
1. This approach requires us to dismiss certain realities, including critical and institutional recognition of an artist's work; their art-historical and cultural significance; the influence held by the artist; their history, track record and talent; and plenty of other factors that set certain creatives apart from the herd. All of these, even when combined, now rank second to the overriding priority that all street work be regarded equally.
To illustrate, a Bambi or Martin Whatson street piece must to be treated the same as a Keith Haring mural. An Alec Monopoly, the same as an Osgemeos. And if Francis Bacon and Lucian Freud had been street artists, their outdoor work would need to be dealt with no differently than a Mr Brainwash or Pegasus.
2. Although largely a continuation of point 1, the exceptional popularity of an artist (as referred to by medichead here, or in the considered posts by illicey here) becomes almost irrelevant. Locals and tourists of all age groups and from every cultural or socio-economic background may well be excited about new Banksys popping up in London. They might be willing to make an extra effort, incur expenditure and suffer inconvenience to experience the works in person, not just online. For them, paintings by the artist have a special status. These people may therefore hope new Banksys do not get treated as run-of-the-mill graffiti (e.g. by being quickly buffed, dogged or otherwise altered), at least not before they get a chance to see them in situ.
But such considerations can be ignored. They're unimportant when compared to dogma. As a result, even if a famous artist will pique the curiosity of millions and draw in crowds of thousands, their work should be dealt with no differently than the work of anyone else — including unknown or untalented artists that the public has zero interest in.
Ladies and gentleman, these would be the consequences. The ones we'd have to accept if the lofty ideal of equal treatment of all street pieces were embraced and taken to its logical conclusion."___________ Phew. I see there's still a good deal of preparation work to finish. We should divide the tasks between us. At the moment, I can't think of any convincing retorts to points 1 and 2 above. So let's leave that job with you. What I'll do is gather some "Yo mama" insults, to fluster the other team while they're speaking. And I'll look through the dictionary for obscure words nobody knows the meaning of. If we get stuck at any point, citing a few of these words will confuse everyone. The subject can then be changed without too many people noticing. Separately, I've already come up with a closing, to address the audience at the end: You've listened patiently this evening to the team opposing the motion. But what did they really say? What is it they're opposing? I'll tell you. They're actually fighting against EQUALITY — one of the most sacred principles of our democracy. But why? Look at them. Are they fascists? Are they monsters? Probably not. Though we do believe they are lost souls, sorely misguided. And we're confident you will agree that inequality and exclusion have no place in civilised society. Please therefore join us by voting in favour of the motion. Thank you.Can't wait to hit the other team with that one, dan993c2. I can already picture the looks of utter defeat on their faces. We've got this debate in bag. |
|
|
|
Banksy Original £6k on ebay, by The Blind Kid on Sept 27, 2017 8:16:41 GMT 1, hahahahahahhahaha
hahahahahahhahaha
|
|
