Then we don't have an argument. A 3rd party can authenticate it and the market will value it accordingly. Even a backdoor print has some value. One of the problems I see with Vermin is that they are anonymous so nobody can get any assurance as to their expertise. Personally I only buy works that are authenticated and registered but that's just me because I'm paranoid about getting burnt with a fake.


My feeling is that people will take the work either for themselves or for resale regardless of his wishes but equally I don't see why he can't be obstructive if he wants to be, he doesn't own these people a duty. The FUD approach he is taking will make sure the value of this work grows slowly if at all - basically it's stuck in the decorative art price bracket.


The art market is completely amoral in my opinion so I *seriously* doubt there will be any fallout. Collectors really couldn't care less about other people getting burnt.

So I'll again ask the question I asked before. If you don't like what Banksy does, what are you doing on this forum? I don't spend any time on the Daily Mail's website as I don't agree with how they see things. If you don't agree with what Banksy does and how his fans view it, why are you are? I can only guess it must be purely for the money that can be made? If I've got the wrong I apologise in advance, but your posts have left me wondering what else it could be?

All this talk of 'brand building' and crap like that is just management speak, like someone has watching 'the Office' and taken it as an educational programme. I've followed Banksy's work since the mid-nineties when a few stencils started appearing around London and believe me that was not anybody trying to make a living out of a brand, it was some bloke being clever with stencils.

It seems obvious that you are at odds with a lot of the posters on here. People aren't going to agree with you, because your ideals are opposing ours.

The Picasso and Emin examples are pretty good I think. It seems that everyone agrees that even the street pieces have some value, although not as much value as the authenticated pieces. As long as some people out there believe the street pieces are genuine then they will always have some value - even if not authenticated by the artist - so the moral debate doesn't really change anything.

I think in reference to Picasso, this probably is no longer the case. I'm sure those paintings he gave as gifts would fetch just as much as any other Picasso works these days (disregarding the seminal pieces). Mind you, it's probably a lot easier to fake a Banksy than it is to fake a Picasso.

These guys make money out of selling art...its not a crime. Just cos you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong.

Blimey!!!....Lazarides staged the whole Banksy Phenomemon himself....well pretty much. Claiming prints had sold out when they hadn't.....and inflating prices accordingly.... is that a vicious rumour? maybe its f***In true. Wind your necks in and stop thinking Pest Control and Banksy are the lords almighty...

eh?

bottom line, without Pest Control authentication street pieces won't make the money the seller wants....rock n'roll deal with it

as its soon panto season, one for you robin.



OH NO YOU DIDNT!!

I feel like I'm in an insane asylum...

No I'm not hear to make money and I don't have street pieces I'm hording. I have 3 banksy prints 2 of which I bought from POW and still have. And I'm not necessarily anti-graffiti but really, I honestly think about 90% of graffiti and tagging is utter crap which makes my neighborhood look like crap and if I was a building owner I would be particularly annoyed that all these crap artists were leaving "gifts for the world" on my building that I would have to waste time and money to remove and possibly damage my building as well. But what are you gonna do?...

Anyway Banksy stenciling in London in the 90s and now is about his ego—otherwise he wouldn't have tagged Banksy on his work or laid claim to it (even if he remained anonymous.) But that's fine. Everyones got an ego. But spraying your stuff all over london and putting your logo next to it is branding himself plain and simple. Again, whatever, I don't have too big of an issue with that.

My issue is that he used that branding/stenciling whatever you want to call it campaign to catapult to stardom. This campaign where he caused damage to buildings, caused building owners headaches and money to clean it up and cost the government money to clean things up and replace items that were damaged. He catapulted to stardom at the cost of the others. So it goes...

And all that is fine except where we reach the point where Banksy starts to step up and criticize people for 'illegaly removing' things even though he 'illegaly paints' things. (hypocritical) (Anyway a fair number of items were removed by proper owners or people who paid to properly remove them.) And then he criticizes people for 'immorally selling works of art that supposedly aren't theirs.' This while Banksy illegally painted on the things that weren't his! (hypocritical)

Although Banksy didn't literally profit from his street campaigns his stardom profited big time from it. In my opinion he now owes an enormous debt to the public and people who's property he abused and used for personal gain so for him to now tell those people NO you can't sell it and if you try to do so I will use my media machine to rain on your parade is a total jackass move.

I can't help but now see how hypocritical all this is. And I don't care if he donates money to charity or buys escalades. It doesn't matter. It's still hypocritical.

I believe the few people spouting off about "hypocrisy" are missing the logic behind refusing to authenticate street pieces. From Banksy's point of view, it will do nothing but cause issue for everyone involved if he begins authenticating street pieces and for a number of reasons.

First, it would be a logistical nightmare for him to authenticate each and every piece that he has ever painted. In the end, Banksy is the only person able to confirm a piece is of his hand, and there isn't enough time in the day to go through the requests he would receive if he opened this door. I personally don't want him mired down in authenticating these pieces anyhow... I'd much rather see him working on new art.

Second, how would one go about proving without any doubt that they are the rightful owner of pieces that had been removed from the street? We know there are a tiny few that have been purchased, but the majority have been stolen. There isn't a way to clearly prove you are the owner, aside from something like a scrap of paper that says 'I, owner of this concrete wall, agrees to sell the portion that has a painting on it to so and so", so there is no method to show a legal and fair ownership transfer has taken place. I am sure if sketchy ownership transfers were allowed in any case, Pest Control would be inundated by requests for authentication that included forged ownership papers, as the people offering them wouldn't have had an issue chiseling a piece from the street and I am sure it wouldn't be a stretch to think they would also forge ownership papers.

Third, the flood gates would be wide open for people to steal everything from the street if Banksy would authenticate pieces. Not only would there be major property damage caused by removal of pieces (not the same thing as the slight damage of painting a piece), but there would be risk of injury of removers and/or property owners when they start getting risky in hopes to gain a Banksy street piece. What about street signs or bollards that have been removed and create an accident or death, because Banksy was willing to chance these types of issues by authenticating street pieces? The idea would prove to be a massive legal issue for Banksy, and hardly worth the issues that would be caused for property owners waking up to some loon jackhammering the side of their house to remove a piece. These risks aren't worth allowing a few street pirates to make a quick profit be removing work from the street.

Lastly, there are numerous fake pieces on the streets. Not only would profiteers be stealing authentic pieces and causing major damage to private property and the public in general by removing the authentic ones, the same issues would be caused for the fakes. Even if someone took appropriate measures to take possession of pieces, anyone who saw something they presumed was a Banksy and decided to purchase from the property owner would be caught out when they went through the issues and cost to remove it, only to find out it was a fake in the first place.

Again Jam, I'm not asking him to authenticate street pieces, I have issue with him painting on property that at this point he know will be fucked with and cause even more damage than just the paint and then call those people criminals but act as though he himself is innocent in the process.

And I have issue with him telling people to boycott sales. If you don't endorse the sale of street works fine but I think it's hypocrisy to use his media machine to f**k with the sale of other peoples property which they rightfully own. If he doesn't like that other people are selling his street works he should have not painted on property he didn't own.

You're missing the point spectacularly, again. He may not like people selling street works, but he is not preventing them from doing so. All is he saying is that he will not authenticate them.

Oh, and when are you going to sell your Banksy prints? You clearly have some deep-rooted loathing for him.

he probably tried selling them at Lying and Turnedbullshit, and because it flopped BADLY, he is taking his frustrations out on us and Banksy

you really are a fuckwit, this is what was reported "In a statement issued through his publicist, Banksy urged buyers to boycott tomorrow's auction."

Do you have literacy issues, you read only what YOU want to read?

TV is on a screen also funster, so it doesnt matter what screen it is, still a debate to be had.

I found this interesting article

www.jossip.com/just-because-banksys-graffiti-didnt-sell-the-sky-isnt-necessarily-falling-20080929/

Just Because Banksy's Graffiti Didn't Sell, The Sky Isn't Necessarily Falling

"Works by Banksy and other graffiti painters failed to sell in London today as buyers stayed away from an auction of contemporary and urban art. Less than a third of the 270 lots found buyers at Lyon & Turnbull's sale, which was the latest gauge of demand for street art after prices surged to records in the last three years. Dealers said demand, reduced by worries about the economy and confusion about the authentication of Banksy's pictures, may be an ominous sign for the mainstream art market." [Bloomberg]

Or maybe it was just because Pest Control, Banksy's official authentication agency, refused to give its stamp of approval on a number of the items. And art collectors willing to drop five and six figures on a work sort of like having the peace of mind that they're purchasing something authentic.