My opinions on the subject are ambivalent. So I don't have a simple answer to your question.

A properly considered position would require a 3 to 5-page essay. It might also take a fortnight for me to come up with text I was satisfied with. What follows instead is a précis.

____________


One thing I can say categorically: The perspex-covered street art I've seen almost always looks atrocious.

But unnecessarily atrocious as well. In most cases, it seems the priority of the relevant property owner has been to get something up quickly, for as little money as possible (i.e. using cheap, shiny, excessively-small sheets of plastic). Protective acrylic could be applied in such a way that it results in a merely disappointing experience for viewers like you and me, rather than a terrible one.

With respect to viewers, note that I make the distinction between:

(i) enthusiasts such as ourselves who are informed on the subject of art history and actually thinking about street pieces (including their placement, context, and immediate environment); and

(ii) the average passerby who doesn't pay too much attention, whose priority might be to ensure they get a flattering selfie for social capital purposes, and who may for these reasons be largely indifferent to the acrylic.

____________


These are my personal objections to covering street work (merely cited, not fleshed out):

1. Aesthetic.
2. Physical barrier created. In relation to the viewer, and to the surroundings the work would otherwise more effectively interact with.
3. Distortion of the work, along with the introduction of a clinical aspect affecting viewer perception and appreciation.
4. The acrylic sheet creating a visual frame, thereby adding a compositional element that previously didn't exist (usually cramping in the work) and impacting how the art is viewed.
5. Philosophical, relating to the nature of street art generally.
6. The assumed intent of the relevant artist.

____________


Now let's look at the alternative.

What would be the outcome of not protecting any street art by Banksy?

Each one of us here knows the answer to this question. We already started to see what would happen with the recent Barbican pieces. Within hours we had the eBay chancer, supremett, making his parasitic appearance. Separately, we had a coattail-riding buffoon, Danny Minnick, with his desperate (yet successful) attempt at basking in reflected glory.

And if these new Banksys had been left uncovered, many other opportunists, trophy hunters, street artists, writers and taggers would have intervened as well for whatever objective. Would that have been a desirable outcome? If so, would it be desirable for all street works by the artist?

____________


Extreme positions against protection being offered to any outdoor work by Banksy often seem based on ideology. For me, they're tragically short-sighted and solipsist.

Of course, decisions we take today will also affect those who come after us.

So let's consider the likely perspectives of future artists, art enthusiasts, collectors, curators, researchers, authors, etc. to whom we have a responsibility.

Query how they would judge you or me if they knew we had ample opportunity to protect in situ (as opposed to cutting out), not all, but a small number of outdoor works by the most famous street artist of our generation.

And instead of doing so, we, in our wisdom, decided the artist's studio output along with digital images of his street pieces would be sufficient for their purposes. That photos of walls rather than the walls themselves would be enough for them to look at and study. That anything else was unacceptable since any attempt at preservation would be "contrary to the spirit of street art".

____________


With Banksy being both a contemporary and polarising figure, I believe emotion often has an unhelpful influence on viewpoints sometimes expressed. This is why illicey offered us such an excellent thought experiment here. I'm giving him or her another respectful nod because their posts didn't at the time receive the recognition they merited:

Imagine an early Basquiat graffiti piece (from, say, 1981) where the property owner had chosen to cover and protect it rather than leave it exposed to the elements.

How would we view that property owner's action today? What would we say to them if they were in front of us?

Presumably, it would be something like, "Thank you for your foresight."

I seriously doubt it would be, "Fuck you and your plastic sheeting. Graffiti's meant to be ephemeral. The 20-year-old artist wouldn't have wanted that."

____________


Coach

A short answer to your question:

Would I like all Banksy street pieces to be covered in perspex? Definitely not.

Do I believe that, on balance, it is a good idea to protect some Banksy street pieces? Most certainly.

Is basquiat or his work any less great because we didn't have some person throw an ugly plastic sheet over it and 'save' it?

No need for a lengthy post to try and distract. The answer is no.

So whether you would say 'good job' or 'f you' is irrelevant.

Why are you guys putting this mans face all over UAA?
What did he do? Or does his face just fit your narrative?

Why has the photo got a central news watermark on it??

Also tried to steal one of the eggs from the Pejac sculpture at the London show...

...many others I’m sure.

It's hilarious that the guy you guys are referring to may even be commenting on this thread.

From the Banksy, Basquiat and the Barbican thread here:


___________________


I suspect he might be.


A slight mess with the paraphrasing there, but we get the gist. To give credit where credit is due, Grace Hopper also deserves a respectful nod.

Over the years, Banksy has certainly come up with a number of amusing quotes, sometimes with help or inspiration from others.

I was checking earlier to see if he ever commented on buffoons who refer to themselves in the third person when posting online. But sadly I couldn't find anything.