|
Vermin article in Art of England, by alsbabar on Oct 28, 2008 15:19:38 GMT 1, like a bad penny, they keep propping up
Article published in December 08 edition of Art of England. Piece isnt online so had to type it out again.
Smelling A Rat
Earlier in the year an announcement was made from the Banksy camp that a new and definitive authentication board had been put in place to help stem the tide of โfakesโ coming into the market. A glance at eBay, with its sudden deluge of โBanksyโ decorated road signs sporting the all too familiar tale of โI came out of a pub in Hoxton and tripped over this abandoned road signโ made it clear why such an operation was required. So โPest Controlโ was born and it quickly became clear that Pest Control was the start of a crusade aimed at taking โcomplete controlโ.
Collectors and punters who had been happy to ride the wave of โBrand Banksyโ were suddenly faced with a purge. What had begun as a seemingly noble and necessary attack on fakes suddenly and without warning became a witch hunt, dealers and auction houses received curt missives telling them what they could and could not sell โgifts by the artist/legitimately salvaged street works and works deemed not to accurately represent the artists body of workโ. Many found themselves languishing on Pest Controlโs cynically titled โDamaged and destroyed registerโ.
Bad enough that our โstreet heroโ had been exposed as one of us, but it was now becoming clear that a new po-faced side to his character was emerging as issued through his managements edicts. Forget the โstreet credโ anti brand sloganeering of the glory days โ brandalism โany advert in public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. Its yours to take, to re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your headโ
like a bad penny, they keep propping up
Article published in December 08 edition of Art of England. Piece isnt online so had to type it out again.
Smelling A Rat
Earlier in the year an announcement was made from the Banksy camp that a new and definitive authentication board had been put in place to help stem the tide of โfakesโ coming into the market. A glance at eBay, with its sudden deluge of โBanksyโ decorated road signs sporting the all too familiar tale of โI came out of a pub in Hoxton and tripped over this abandoned road signโ made it clear why such an operation was required. So โPest Controlโ was born and it quickly became clear that Pest Control was the start of a crusade aimed at taking โcomplete controlโ.
Collectors and punters who had been happy to ride the wave of โBrand Banksyโ were suddenly faced with a purge. What had begun as a seemingly noble and necessary attack on fakes suddenly and without warning became a witch hunt, dealers and auction houses received curt missives telling them what they could and could not sell โgifts by the artist/legitimately salvaged street works and works deemed not to accurately represent the artists body of workโ. Many found themselves languishing on Pest Controlโs cynically titled โDamaged and destroyed registerโ.
Bad enough that our โstreet heroโ had been exposed as one of us, but it was now becoming clear that a new po-faced side to his character was emerging as issued through his managements edicts. Forget the โstreet credโ anti brand sloganeering of the glory days โ brandalism โany advert in public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. Its yours to take, to re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your headโ
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by giiiant on Oct 28, 2008 15:28:39 GMT 1, talk about being bad losers, they need to give up already
talk about being bad losers, they need to give up already
|
|
jfury
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,084
Likes โข 45
May 2007
|
|
|
frank11
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,190
Likes โข 2
September 2006
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by frank11 on Oct 28, 2008 15:53:17 GMT 1, Agree with above. These guys need to give up already
Agree with above. These guys need to give up already
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by alsbabar on Oct 28, 2008 16:07:00 GMT 1, lots of incorrect statements, which says more about Art of England - not doing their research before publishing - but then again i wouldnt expect anything less from vermin, they probably pulled the wool over the editors eyes on this one also
lots of incorrect statements, which says more about Art of England - not doing their research before publishing - but then again i wouldnt expect anything less from vermin, they probably pulled the wool over the editors eyes on this one also
|
|
Heavyconsumer
Junior Member
Posts โข 4,974
Likes โข 5
February 2008
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by Heavyconsumer on Oct 28, 2008 16:14:18 GMT 1, Typical political manouvering, characteristic of someone whose lost a fortune in value on their street-piece collection. Sometimes you catch a break in life and sometimes you don't. Vermin didn't and are scrambling to protect their interests.
It might be different if they weren't a bunch of total w@nkers (which is pretty clear based on what's been posted here in the past), but let's face it, they aren't fans of the work, just profiteers. Some bets win and some bets lose, you don't go crying to the bookies to get your stake back or have the results changed do you? LMFAO! They bought and swindled a load of street pieces to amass a valuable private collection of art, which I bet they hate looking at right about now! How ironic! It's probably because of people like this that PCO made their decision in the first place!
Typical political manouvering, characteristic of someone whose lost a fortune in value on their street-piece collection. Sometimes you catch a break in life and sometimes you don't. Vermin didn't and are scrambling to protect their interests.
It might be different if they weren't a bunch of total w@nkers (which is pretty clear based on what's been posted here in the past), but let's face it, they aren't fans of the work, just profiteers. Some bets win and some bets lose, you don't go crying to the bookies to get your stake back or have the results changed do you? LMFAO! They bought and swindled a load of street pieces to amass a valuable private collection of art, which I bet they hate looking at right about now! How ironic! It's probably because of people like this that PCO made their decision in the first place!
|
|
|
dmandpenfold
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,466
Likes โข 10
December 2006
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by dmandpenfold on Oct 28, 2008 16:17:16 GMT 1, second rule of "Forum Rules - banned and disabled accounts"
2. Posts that target Galleries or Artists in an attempt to damage sales and or reputation.
Not that i support vermin, who aren't a gallery / artist but do appear to represent some galleries / auction houses, just wondered if our rules are biased toward stuff we dont like or is it fair game for all now
second rule of "Forum Rules - banned and disabled accounts"
2. Posts that target Galleries or Artists in an attempt to damage sales and or reputation.
Not that i support vermin, who aren't a gallery / artist but do appear to represent some galleries / auction houses, just wondered if our rules are biased toward stuff we dont like or is it fair game for all now
|
|
Heavyconsumer
Junior Member
Posts โข 4,974
Likes โข 5
February 2008
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by Heavyconsumer on Oct 28, 2008 16:36:30 GMT 1, "2. Posts that target Galleries or Artists in an attempt to damage sales and or reputation."
Sorry, where are the artists or galleries? How are an artist's or gallery's sales going to be damaged by defamation of a dishonest and by its' very nature corrupted organization, who happens to have never offered anything remotely constructive to this forum?
"2. Posts that target Galleries or Artists in an attempt to damage sales and or reputation."
Sorry, where are the artists or galleries? How are an artist's or gallery's sales going to be damaged by defamation of a dishonest and by its' very nature corrupted organization, who happens to have never offered anything remotely constructive to this forum?
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by snausages on Oct 28, 2008 16:39:11 GMT 1, second rule of "Forum Rules - banned and disabled accounts" 2. Posts that target Galleries or Artists in an attempt to damage sales and or reputation. Not that i support vermin, who aren't a gallery / artist but do appear to represent some galleries / auction houses, just wondered if our rules are biased toward stuff we dont like or is it fair game for all now Haha, of course there's bias, it certainly isn't a democracy here.
If that's rule #2 is rule #1 something like: 'Posts that target galleries and artists in attempt to 'big up' an artist or contain false information that may increase sales and prices in order to reap excessive profits and swindle collectors out of more money than they should pay...
second rule of "Forum Rules - banned and disabled accounts" 2. Posts that target Galleries or Artists in an attempt to damage sales and or reputation. Not that i support vermin, who aren't a gallery / artist but do appear to represent some galleries / auction houses, just wondered if our rules are biased toward stuff we dont like or is it fair game for all now Haha, of course there's bias, it certainly isn't a democracy here. If that's rule #2 is rule #1 something like: 'Posts that target galleries and artists in attempt to 'big up' an artist or contain false information that may increase sales and prices in order to reap excessive profits and swindle collectors out of more money than they should pay...
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by snausages on Oct 28, 2008 16:43:32 GMT 1, "2. Posts that target Galleries or Artists in an attempt to damage sales and or reputation." Sorry, where are the artists or galleries? Well it's known that certain galleries and people from certain galleries as well have been involved so of course it applies.
Not to mention that it does target an artist, ...Banksy! This kind of post is made in "an attempt to damage sales" of his street works.
Of course it will most likely be tolerated here even if it's hypocrisy.
"2. Posts that target Galleries or Artists in an attempt to damage sales and or reputation." Sorry, where are the artists or galleries? Well it's known that certain galleries and people from certain galleries as well have been involved so of course it applies. Not to mention that it does target an artist, ...Banksy! This kind of post is made in "an attempt to damage sales" of his street works. Of course it will most likely be tolerated here even if it's hypocrisy.
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by manty on Oct 28, 2008 16:47:05 GMT 1, Please tell me this rule 2 is something you just made up
Please tell me this rule 2 is something you just made up
|
|
dmandpenfold
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,466
Likes โข 10
December 2006
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by dmandpenfold on Oct 28, 2008 17:08:53 GMT 1, "2. Posts that target Galleries or Artists in an attempt to damage sales and or reputation." Sorry, where are the artists or galleries? How are an artist's or gallery's sales going to be damaged by defamation of a dishonest and by its' very nature corrupted organization, who happens to have never offered anything remotely constructive to this forum?
HC, you clearly didnt read my post..or read half of it then jumped in guns blazing
Please tell me this rule 2 is something you just made up Manty, rule two is listed under the forum rules on the main page.
"2. Posts that target Galleries or Artists in an attempt to damage sales and or reputation." Sorry, where are the artists or galleries? How are an artist's or gallery's sales going to be damaged by defamation of a dishonest and by its' very nature corrupted organization, who happens to have never offered anything remotely constructive to this forum? HC, you clearly didnt read my post..or read half of it then jumped in guns blazing Please tell me this rule 2 is something you just made up Manty, rule two is listed under the forum rules on the main page.
|
|
mishco
New Member
Posts โข 871
Likes โข 23
May 2006
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by mishco on Oct 28, 2008 17:09:05 GMT 1, do you read art of england alsbabar or have you been typing 'vermin' into google for the past month trying to dig up more dirt?
do you read art of england alsbabar or have you been typing 'vermin' into google for the past month trying to dig up more dirt?
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by snausages on Oct 28, 2008 17:21:41 GMT 1, do you read art of england alsbabar or have you been typing 'vermin' into google for the past month trying to dig up more dirt? ;D
do you read art of england alsbabar or have you been typing 'vermin' into google for the past month trying to dig up more dirt? ;D
|
|
|
pfffffffffft
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,472
Likes โข 1,017
July 2008
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by pfffffffffft on Oct 28, 2008 17:24:28 GMT 1, Glad to see you alsbabar.
Also, I think as collectors and art fanatics we'd all be interested in the development of the vermins at vermin. Thanks for posting this Als, I would have missed it if you hadnt.
Glad to see you alsbabar.
Also, I think as collectors and art fanatics we'd all be interested in the development of the vermins at vermin. Thanks for posting this Als, I would have missed it if you hadnt.
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by alsbabar on Oct 28, 2008 17:39:14 GMT 1, do you read art of england alsbabar or have you been typing 'vermin' into google for the past month trying to dig up more dirt?
contrary to popular belief, i can read and i do subscribe to Art of England, i also did state this article isnt available online - however i think this article has made me think twice about my subscription - they obviously have a bias towards vermin - also to allow articles like this to go out, unchecked/researched shows how sloppy they really are.
dmandpenfold - i dont get your post - as you can see i am not banned, i served my weeks punishment, thats the end of that matter - however i dont see how my post is detrimental to a gallery or artist - i am just merely showing this forum what was written in a publication, which wasnt available online, you can also see that jfury also saw the article but didnt know how to put it on here for all to read - also vermin are neither a gallery or an artist.
If you want to get me banned again, try another tactic, like talk about my mum, that usually works
do you read art of england alsbabar or have you been typing 'vermin' into google for the past month trying to dig up more dirt? contrary to popular belief, i can read and i do subscribe to Art of England, i also did state this article isnt available online - however i think this article has made me think twice about my subscription - they obviously have a bias towards vermin - also to allow articles like this to go out, unchecked/researched shows how sloppy they really are. dmandpenfold - i dont get your post - as you can see i am not banned, i served my weeks punishment, thats the end of that matter - however i dont see how my post is detrimental to a gallery or artist - i am just merely showing this forum what was written in a publication, which wasnt available online, you can also see that jfury also saw the article but didnt know how to put it on here for all to read - also vermin are neither a gallery or an artist. If you want to get me banned again, try another tactic, like talk about my mum, that usually works
|
|
Heavyconsumer
Junior Member
Posts โข 4,974
Likes โข 5
February 2008
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by Heavyconsumer on Oct 28, 2008 17:41:11 GMT 1, "2. Posts that target Galleries or Artists in an attempt to damage sales and or reputation." Sorry, where are the artists or galleries? How are an artist's or gallery's sales going to be damaged by defamation of a dishonest and by its' very nature corrupted organization, who happens to have never offered anything remotely constructive to this forum? HC, you clearly didnt read my post..or read half of it then jumped in guns blazing
DM, certainly no offense was intended, so sorry if i came off as brash or aggressive at all. But I think I'm having one of my blond moments!
I honestly don't really see vermin as anything other than a group of street piece owners who've had their fingers burnt. Yes of course I get that if their services were endorsed by popular consent, that thiswould benefit auction houses and perhaps some galleries too, but isn't their official line, that they want to provide an authentication service, for those pieces which are not endorsed for sale by PCO? I understand that there may be a double standard and perhaps even some hypocricy in how PCO is operating, but I don't believe that Vermin is a genuine organisation founded for the good of the many. In fact I think that their only interest is ther own collections' values and therefore they are 100% corrupted in their interests.
I'm afraid I'm having trouble seeing how Alsbabar is conravening that rule in any direct or clear-cut way. If you or Snausages (or anyone else) want to spell it out for me and any of my fellow thickos I'd appreciate it. It's not that I'm arguing with what you said, but I don't see how the logic applies here.
And in a Banksy forum, how can we take exception to someone posting information relating to Banksy and his art? I just don't get it really, he's simply copied some imformation from a public source to bring it to our attention.
"2. Posts that target Galleries or Artists in an attempt to damage sales and or reputation." Sorry, where are the artists or galleries? How are an artist's or gallery's sales going to be damaged by defamation of a dishonest and by its' very nature corrupted organization, who happens to have never offered anything remotely constructive to this forum? HC, you clearly didnt read my post..or read half of it then jumped in guns blazing DM, certainly no offense was intended, so sorry if i came off as brash or aggressive at all. But I think I'm having one of my blond moments! I honestly don't really see vermin as anything other than a group of street piece owners who've had their fingers burnt. Yes of course I get that if their services were endorsed by popular consent, that thiswould benefit auction houses and perhaps some galleries too, but isn't their official line, that they want to provide an authentication service, for those pieces which are not endorsed for sale by PCO? I understand that there may be a double standard and perhaps even some hypocricy in how PCO is operating, but I don't believe that Vermin is a genuine organisation founded for the good of the many. In fact I think that their only interest is ther own collections' values and therefore they are 100% corrupted in their interests. I'm afraid I'm having trouble seeing how Alsbabar is conravening that rule in any direct or clear-cut way. If you or Snausages (or anyone else) want to spell it out for me and any of my fellow thickos I'd appreciate it. It's not that I'm arguing with what you said, but I don't see how the logic applies here. And in a Banksy forum, how can we take exception to someone posting information relating to Banksy and his art? I just don't get it really, he's simply copied some imformation from a public source to bring it to our attention.
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by alsbabar on Oct 28, 2008 17:51:16 GMT 1, here is a scan of the article - perhaps then they will see that all i did as post information that i saw in a publication
here is a scan of the article - perhaps then they will see that all i did as post information that i saw in a publication
|
|
Heavyconsumer
Junior Member
Posts โข 4,974
Likes โข 5
February 2008
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by Heavyconsumer on Oct 28, 2008 17:57:04 GMT 1, Yak schew mash mate!
Yak schew mash mate!
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by snausages on Oct 28, 2008 18:07:41 GMT 1, HC, (I'm not 100% sure as I'm not in the market to spend 20-50k) but I do believe these works are probably available for sale through one or several galleries or being sold by people who work at galleries. So slandering this stuff will be detrimental to those people and galleries.
Also it is quite clearly referring to the work of an artist. Banksy. Is it ok to slander works that were made on the street as opposed to the gallery? In my mind no. It's one way or the other.
And simply posting an article is one thing. But there's a little more here than posting an article. There is a consistent slandering by some people of this artists street works and this organization associated with galleries that own them "in an attempt to damage sales and or reputation." Whether you agree with vermin or not they are entitled to their opinion and to do what they want. It's just applying rules to taste that is a little annoying.
HC, (I'm not 100% sure as I'm not in the market to spend 20-50k) but I do believe these works are probably available for sale through one or several galleries or being sold by people who work at galleries. So slandering this stuff will be detrimental to those people and galleries.
Also it is quite clearly referring to the work of an artist. Banksy. Is it ok to slander works that were made on the street as opposed to the gallery? In my mind no. It's one way or the other.
And simply posting an article is one thing. But there's a little more here than posting an article. There is a consistent slandering by some people of this artists street works and this organization associated with galleries that own them "in an attempt to damage sales and or reputation." Whether you agree with vermin or not they are entitled to their opinion and to do what they want. It's just applying rules to taste that is a little annoying.
|
|
Heavyconsumer
Junior Member
Posts โข 4,974
Likes โข 5
February 2008
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by Heavyconsumer on Oct 28, 2008 18:17:16 GMT 1, Well, OK, I do see where you're coming from, although on this occasion I can't say that I agree at all, as there's no slandering of street pieces in this thread.
Also Snausages, yes they are able to do what they want, but they are attempting to undermine PCO, which is the artists' reprasentative company or perhaps even a little more than that! I think it's safe to assume that if PCO is unprepared to accept the street pieces as a market commodity, galleries and auction houses should be more concerned with that, than the conveniences offered by the renegade Vermin group, operating quite clearly contrary to the artists wishes, if they hold any hope of a future relationship with the artist's reprasentatives (ie, Laz, PCO, POW etc). As such, I hardly consider Alsbabar's anti-Vermin stance defamatory of the artist or his works in any way. While I don't feel as strongly as he does, I certainly feel Alsbabar's argument holds water, even if he gets sucked into some unnecessary slagging matched in defense of it.
Well, OK, I do see where you're coming from, although on this occasion I can't say that I agree at all, as there's no slandering of street pieces in this thread.
Also Snausages, yes they are able to do what they want, but they are attempting to undermine PCO, which is the artists' reprasentative company or perhaps even a little more than that! I think it's safe to assume that if PCO is unprepared to accept the street pieces as a market commodity, galleries and auction houses should be more concerned with that, than the conveniences offered by the renegade Vermin group, operating quite clearly contrary to the artists wishes, if they hold any hope of a future relationship with the artist's reprasentatives (ie, Laz, PCO, POW etc). As such, I hardly consider Alsbabar's anti-Vermin stance defamatory of the artist or his works in any way. While I don't feel as strongly as he does, I certainly feel Alsbabar's argument holds water, even if he gets sucked into some unnecessary slagging matched in defense of it.
|
|
Heavyconsumer
Junior Member
Posts โข 4,974
Likes โข 5
February 2008
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by Heavyconsumer on Oct 28, 2008 18:19:05 GMT 1, by the way, "babar" means to drool or dribble in Portuguese ;D
by the way, "babar" means to drool or dribble in Portuguese ;D
|
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by alsbabar on Oct 28, 2008 18:19:46 GMT 1, HC, (I'm not 100% sure as I'm not in the market to spend 20-50k) but I do believe these works are probably available for sale through one or several galleries or being sold by people who work at galleries. So slandering this stuff will be detrimental to those people and galleries. Also it is quite clearly referring to the work of an artist. Banksy. Is it ok to slander works that were made on the street as opposed to the gallery? In my mind no. It's one way or the other. And simply posting an article is one thing. But there's a little more here than posting an article. There is a consistent slandering by some people of this artists street works and this organization associated with galleries that own them "in an attempt to damage sales and or reputation." Whether you agree with vermin or not they are entitled to their opinion and to do what they want. It's just applying rules to taste that is a little annoying.
i have not offered any other comment other than post the article, if you or anyone else wants to make more out of it, then fill your boots - if anything i actually pushed their opinion out to a wider audience - now if they don't wish for their opinions to be subjected to criticism or scrutiny - then they shouldnt have published the article in the first place.
However Vermin obviously feel a need to come out with an article that attacks Banksy and Pest Control, but for what purpose? Certainly not mine, as a collector, nor as a fan. It also would appear to be a complete contradiction to discredit Banksy, when in turn they are trying to support his works? Again for what purpose?
HC, (I'm not 100% sure as I'm not in the market to spend 20-50k) but I do believe these works are probably available for sale through one or several galleries or being sold by people who work at galleries. So slandering this stuff will be detrimental to those people and galleries. Also it is quite clearly referring to the work of an artist. Banksy. Is it ok to slander works that were made on the street as opposed to the gallery? In my mind no. It's one way or the other. And simply posting an article is one thing. But there's a little more here than posting an article. There is a consistent slandering by some people of this artists street works and this organization associated with galleries that own them "in an attempt to damage sales and or reputation." Whether you agree with vermin or not they are entitled to their opinion and to do what they want. It's just applying rules to taste that is a little annoying. i have not offered any other comment other than post the article, if you or anyone else wants to make more out of it, then fill your boots - if anything i actually pushed their opinion out to a wider audience - now if they don't wish for their opinions to be subjected to criticism or scrutiny - then they shouldnt have published the article in the first place. However Vermin obviously feel a need to come out with an article that attacks Banksy and Pest Control, but for what purpose? Certainly not mine, as a collector, nor as a fan. It also would appear to be a complete contradiction to discredit Banksy, when in turn they are trying to support his works? Again for what purpose?
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by alsbabar on Oct 28, 2008 18:21:42 GMT 1, by the way, "babar" means to drool or dribble in Portuguese ;D
more to do with Babar the elephant - as a kid was my favourite cartoon character
by the way, "babar" means to drool or dribble in Portuguese ;D more to do with Babar the elephant - as a kid was my favourite cartoon character
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by snausages on Oct 28, 2008 18:25:23 GMT 1, Well it's a matter of opinion if you think vermin should do what they do or if you side with pest control. Personally I don't care if you slag off Vermin, everyone has an opinion. It's just a little funky when certain opinions and situations are tolerated and others are not.
As I've stated before I think once Banksy puts something in the public domain he relinquishes control over it, simple as that.
Well it's a matter of opinion if you think vermin should do what they do or if you side with pest control. Personally I don't care if you slag off Vermin, everyone has an opinion. It's just a little funky when certain opinions and situations are tolerated and others are not.
As I've stated before I think once Banksy puts something in the public domain he relinquishes control over it, simple as that.
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by alsbabar on Oct 28, 2008 18:51:15 GMT 1, Well it's a matter of opinion if you think vermin should do what they do or if you side with pest control. Personally I don't care if you slag off Vermin, everyone has an opinion. It's just a little funky when certain opinions and situations are tolerated and others are not. As I've stated before I think once Banksy puts something in the public domain he relinquishes control over it, simple as that.
but then what right does someone like Jon Swinstead or anyone else have to remove a public street bollard, lets not forget it us the taxpayers who have paid for the street bollard, and for him then to try and sell it for a vast amount of money - is he going to give that money back to us taxpayers or to the taxman? Or what right did the person have to remove someones door, without the owners permission?
Its one thing to say that Banksy reliquishes control once its in the public domain, but we the public are the ones who subsequently suffer as a direct result of someone removing it, albeit from a road safety perspective, a damaged building which needs repairing or for something that was appreciated by many
Also it is his or any persons right not to comment or authenticate something
Well it's a matter of opinion if you think vermin should do what they do or if you side with pest control. Personally I don't care if you slag off Vermin, everyone has an opinion. It's just a little funky when certain opinions and situations are tolerated and others are not. As I've stated before I think once Banksy puts something in the public domain he relinquishes control over it, simple as that. but then what right does someone like Jon Swinstead or anyone else have to remove a public street bollard, lets not forget it us the taxpayers who have paid for the street bollard, and for him then to try and sell it for a vast amount of money - is he going to give that money back to us taxpayers or to the taxman? Or what right did the person have to remove someones door, without the owners permission? Its one thing to say that Banksy reliquishes control once its in the public domain, but we the public are the ones who subsequently suffer as a direct result of someone removing it, albeit from a road safety perspective, a damaged building which needs repairing or for something that was appreciated by many Also it is his or any persons right not to comment or authenticate something
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by ilikekittens on Oct 28, 2008 19:19:12 GMT 1, Well it's a matter of opinion if you think vermin should do what they do or if you side with pest control. Personally I don't care if you slag off Vermin, everyone has an opinion. It's just a little funky when certain opinions and situations are tolerated and others are not. As I've stated before I think once Banksy puts something in the public domain he relinquishes control over it, simple as that. but then what right does someone like Jon Swinstead or anyone else have to remove a public street bollard, lets not forget it us the taxpayers who have paid for the street bollard, and for him then to try and sell it for a vast amount of money - is he going to give that money back to us taxpayers or to the taxman? Or what right did the person have to remove someones door, without the owners permission? Its one thing to say that Banksy reliquishes control once its in the public domain, but we the public are the ones who subsequently suffer as a direct result of someone removing it, albeit from a road safety perspective, a damaged building which needs repairing or for something that was appreciated by many Also it is his or any persons right not to comment or authenticate something
Surely Banksy used street bollards and signs in his shows - Turf war etc - and these were from the street - will he pay back tax payers money from the ones he took from the streets and no doubt sold from his shows for vast amounts of money?
And it also costs us taxpayers money for councils to remove his work from public spaces . .who's going to pay for the removal of CCTV? Pest Control? I'm only trying to play Devils Advocate here - but the argument you give seems one sided alsbabar
. . .
Well it's a matter of opinion if you think vermin should do what they do or if you side with pest control. Personally I don't care if you slag off Vermin, everyone has an opinion. It's just a little funky when certain opinions and situations are tolerated and others are not. As I've stated before I think once Banksy puts something in the public domain he relinquishes control over it, simple as that. but then what right does someone like Jon Swinstead or anyone else have to remove a public street bollard, lets not forget it us the taxpayers who have paid for the street bollard, and for him then to try and sell it for a vast amount of money - is he going to give that money back to us taxpayers or to the taxman? Or what right did the person have to remove someones door, without the owners permission? Its one thing to say that Banksy reliquishes control once its in the public domain, but we the public are the ones who subsequently suffer as a direct result of someone removing it, albeit from a road safety perspective, a damaged building which needs repairing or for something that was appreciated by many Also it is his or any persons right not to comment or authenticate something Surely Banksy used street bollards and signs in his shows - Turf war etc - and these were from the street - will he pay back tax payers money from the ones he took from the streets and no doubt sold from his shows for vast amounts of money? And it also costs us taxpayers money for councils to remove his work from public spaces . .who's going to pay for the removal of CCTV? Pest Control? I'm only trying to play Devils Advocate here - but the argument you give seems one sided alsbabar . . .
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by alsbabar on Oct 28, 2008 19:34:41 GMT 1, not at all littlekitten, i just give a subjected opinion - cctv is on a private building, so not sure what westminsters remit is on this one - not sure if Banksy has ever removed a street bollard and use it in any show to make vast amounts of money on it!!
i am totally against vermin, so perhaps my views are one sided
not at all littlekitten, i just give a subjected opinion - cctv is on a private building, so not sure what westminsters remit is on this one - not sure if Banksy has ever removed a street bollard and use it in any show to make vast amounts of money on it!! i am totally against vermin, so perhaps my views are one sided
|
|
baznyc
New Member
Posts โข 187
Likes โข 0
October 2008
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by baznyc on Oct 28, 2008 19:48:05 GMT 1, Well it's a matter of opinion if you think vermin should do what they do or if you side with pest control. Personally I don't care if you slag off Vermin, everyone has an opinion. It's just a little funky when certain opinions and situations are tolerated and others are not. As I've stated before I think once Banksy puts something in the public domain he relinquishes control over it, simple as that.
I think whatever anyones opinion is, threads like these are useful because they highlight to people that may have previously unaware, that Vermin are not in the best position to authenticate Banksy's work. That is what Pest Control are set up to do. Plain and simple.
Regarding Banksy's street pieces, it could be argued that he does relinquish control over them once they're on the street. It's a fair point. However, given the skill and it is a skill, that he employs to place his art in situ, I would argue that once it has been removed from its location by some lowlife thieving t**t, it's artistic value is compromised.
Maybe a better idea would be to leave the art on the street as it was intended then people can enjoy it/criticise it or whatever else. Afterall it certainly wasn't put there to line someone else's pocket.
Well it's a matter of opinion if you think vermin should do what they do or if you side with pest control. Personally I don't care if you slag off Vermin, everyone has an opinion. It's just a little funky when certain opinions and situations are tolerated and others are not. As I've stated before I think once Banksy puts something in the public domain he relinquishes control over it, simple as that. I think whatever anyones opinion is, threads like these are useful because they highlight to people that may have previously unaware, that Vermin are not in the best position to authenticate Banksy's work. That is what Pest Control are set up to do. Plain and simple. Regarding Banksy's street pieces, it could be argued that he does relinquish control over them once they're on the street. It's a fair point. However, given the skill and it is a skill, that he employs to place his art in situ, I would argue that once it has been removed from its location by some lowlife thieving t**t, it's artistic value is compromised. Maybe a better idea would be to leave the art on the street as it was intended then people can enjoy it/criticise it or whatever else. Afterall it certainly wasn't put there to line someone else's pocket.
|
|
Heavyconsumer
Junior Member
Posts โข 4,974
Likes โข 5
February 2008
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by Heavyconsumer on Oct 28, 2008 20:04:57 GMT 1, I think whatever anyones opinion is, threads like these are useful because they highlight to people that may have previously unaware, that Vermin are not in the best position to authenticate Banksy's work. That is what Pest Control are set up to do. Plain and simple. Regarding Banksy's street pieces, it could be argued that he does relinquish control over them once they're on the street. It's a fair point. However, given the skill and it is a skill, that he employs to place his art in situ, I would argue that once it has been removed from its location by some , it's artistic value is compromised.
Maybe a better idea would be to leave the art on the street as it was intended then people can enjoy it/criticise it or whatever else. Afterall it certainly wasn't put there to line someone else's pocket.
And surely it's similar beliefs to these, that caused PCO to refuse authentication on street pieces. Who are Vermin to argue otherwise? Oh yes, of course they're the "lowlife thieving t**ts" and pocket owners of whom you speak! How silly of me, of course they should be able to authenticate Banksy's work.
I think whatever anyones opinion is, threads like these are useful because they highlight to people that may have previously unaware, that Vermin are not in the best position to authenticate Banksy's work. That is what Pest Control are set up to do. Plain and simple. Regarding Banksy's street pieces, it could be argued that he does relinquish control over them once they're on the street. It's a fair point. However, given the skill and it is a skill, that he employs to place his art in situ, I would argue that once it has been removed from its location by some , it's artistic value is compromised.
Maybe a better idea would be to leave the art on the street as it was intended then people can enjoy it/criticise it or whatever else. Afterall it certainly wasn't put there to line someone else's pocket. And surely it's similar beliefs to these, that caused PCO to refuse authentication on street pieces. Who are Vermin to argue otherwise? Oh yes, of course they're the "lowlife thieving t**ts" and pocket owners of whom you speak! How silly of me, of course they should be able to authenticate Banksy's work.
|
|