aginghippie
New Member
Posts โข 211
Likes โข 0
December 2007
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by aginghippie on Oct 28, 2008 20:08:32 GMT 1, 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? You know they were stolen for a fact? It's a lot easier just to buy traffic bollards from the regular suppliers that construction companies uses.
This ground has all been gone over before so lets just summarise: - Freely viewable is not the same as public domain by any stretch of the law. - Rights remain with the artist unless they are specifically assigned (which they haven't been). - Accepted form in the art market is that a living artist or their duly appointed representatives is authoritative as far as authentication is concerned. - Anyone can authenticate anything - but the market will discount it. - Anyone can sell anything they legally own regardless of authenticity - but the market will discount the price accordingly
Vermin can scream and kick but that's just the way it is and always has been.
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? You know they were stolen for a fact? It's a lot easier just to buy traffic bollards from the regular suppliers that construction companies uses. This ground has all been gone over before so lets just summarise: - Freely viewable is not the same as public domain by any stretch of the law. - Rights remain with the artist unless they are specifically assigned (which they haven't been). - Accepted form in the art market is that a living artist or their duly appointed representatives is authoritative as far as authentication is concerned. - Anyone can authenticate anything - but the market will discount it. - Anyone can sell anything they legally own regardless of authenticity - but the market will discount the price accordingly Vermin can scream and kick but that's just the way it is and always has been.
|
|
Heavyconsumer
Junior Member
Posts โข 4,974
Likes โข 5
February 2008
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by Heavyconsumer on Oct 28, 2008 20:09:43 GMT 1, It's funny, people speak of Banksy street pieces as if they were a Neate piece which is left loose on a piece of board, on the floor or taped up for the finder to just grab it, but we're forgetting that a certain amout of effort and usually criminal damage needs to go into "claiming" a Banks piece sprayed onto a wall or a permanent roadside sign. It's not the same concept at all.
It's funny, people speak of Banksy street pieces as if they were a Neate piece which is left loose on a piece of board, on the floor or taped up for the finder to just grab it, but we're forgetting that a certain amout of effort and usually criminal damage needs to go into "claiming" a Banks piece sprayed onto a wall or a permanent roadside sign. It's not the same concept at all.
|
|
Gallery Grace
Art Gallery
New Member
Posts โข 254
Likes โข 0
December 2007
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by Gallery Grace on Oct 28, 2008 20:12:39 GMT 1, didnt Art of England also publish an article on the banksy vs warhaol exhibit last year at hospital galley?
didnt Art of England also publish an article on the banksy vs warhaol exhibit last year at hospital galley?
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by ilikekittens on Oct 28, 2008 20:15:53 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
Alsbabar - 181 thousand pounds - 'received' from the artist - Pest Control approved Cost to tax payer ?
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 Alsbabar - 181 thousand pounds - 'received' from the artist - Pest Control approved Cost to tax payer ?
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by alsbabar on Oct 28, 2008 20:20:47 GMT 1, littlekitten - that wasnt submitted by banksy or pest control to auction!!!!
littlekitten - that wasnt submitted by banksy or pest control to auction!!!!
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by ilikekittens on Oct 28, 2008 20:26:18 GMT 1, 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? You know they were stolen for a fact? It's a lot easier just to buy traffic bollards from the regular suppliers that construction companies uses. This ground has all been gone over before so lets just summarise: - Freely viewable is not the same as public domain by any stretch of the law. - Rights remain with the artist unless they are specifically assigned (which they haven't been). - Accepted form in the art market is that a living artist or their duly appointed representatives is authoritative as far as authentication is concerned. - Anyone can authenticate anything - but the market will discount it. - Anyone can sell anything they legally own regardless of authenticity - but the market will discount the price accordingly Vermin can scream and kick but that's just the way it is and always has been.
Aging hippie - I said 'surely' meaning I don't know I was more asking than telling. BUT - Do you really think that bad boy vandal icon Banksy went to the local Balfour Beatty highway supply shop to buy bollards and road signs because he's frightened to de-face public property? If you 'are sure' about this - then there is no argument about the bollard is there??
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? You know they were stolen for a fact? It's a lot easier just to buy traffic bollards from the regular suppliers that construction companies uses. This ground has all been gone over before so lets just summarise: - Freely viewable is not the same as public domain by any stretch of the law. - Rights remain with the artist unless they are specifically assigned (which they haven't been). - Accepted form in the art market is that a living artist or their duly appointed representatives is authoritative as far as authentication is concerned. - Anyone can authenticate anything - but the market will discount it. - Anyone can sell anything they legally own regardless of authenticity - but the market will discount the price accordingly Vermin can scream and kick but that's just the way it is and always has been. Aging hippie - I said 'surely' meaning I don't know I was more asking than telling. BUT - Do you really think that bad boy vandal icon Banksy went to the local Balfour Beatty highway supply shop to buy bollards and road signs because he's frightened to de-face public property? If you 'are sure' about this - then there is no argument about the bollard is there??
|
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by snausages on Oct 28, 2008 22:18:02 GMT 1, Aging hippie - Do you really think that bad boy vandal icon Banksy went to the local Balfour Beatty highway supply shop to buy bollards and road signs because he's frightened to de-face public property?
;D ;D ;D Exactly.
if Banksy painted on a Bollard or street sign etc. Chances are the streets department will have that object removed from service and destroyed or refurbished anyway costing taxpayers lots of money.
Banksy is responsible for thousands of pounds worth of damage around the world. He profited from this damage. So is Banksy now going to pay back the hard working taxpayers worldwide?
And Public Domain, forgive me, a very poor choice of words. Obviously (technically speaking as that term has come to be used about rights to an image) the imagery is not public domain. I agree Banksy should of course retain rights to any of his established images even if he illegally marks them on objects.
But should he have the rights to physical objects after he has illegally defaced them? Of course not. If that were the case anyone could paint on any property that they desired and then claim that it's theirs!
Banksy is 100% aware that anything he paints on is like him painting a giant red 'please take me' target. It's silly to act as if he's innocent. He's 100% complicit in any and all vandalism and it's possible removal or theft.
The other problem is that a number of these items were not removed illegally as everyone likes to argue but were removed by the owners, or were removed by a third party after paying off the owner, or were on otherwise practically worthless pieces of wood and or were supposedly gifts.
Aging hippie - Do you really think that bad boy vandal icon Banksy went to the local Balfour Beatty highway supply shop to buy bollards and road signs because he's frightened to de-face public property? ;D ;D ;D Exactly. if Banksy painted on a Bollard or street sign etc. Chances are the streets department will have that object removed from service and destroyed or refurbished anyway costing taxpayers lots of money. Banksy is responsible for thousands of pounds worth of damage around the world. He profited from this damage. So is Banksy now going to pay back the hard working taxpayers worldwide? And Public Domain, forgive me, a very poor choice of words. Obviously (technically speaking as that term has come to be used about rights to an image) the imagery is not public domain. I agree Banksy should of course retain rights to any of his established images even if he illegally marks them on objects. But should he have the rights to physical objects after he has illegally defaced them? Of course not. If that were the case anyone could paint on any property that they desired and then claim that it's theirs! Banksy is 100% aware that anything he paints on is like him painting a giant red 'please take me' target. It's silly to act as if he's innocent. He's 100% complicit in any and all vandalism and it's possible removal or theft. The other problem is that a number of these items were not removed illegally as everyone likes to argue but were removed by the owners, or were removed by a third party after paying off the owner, or were on otherwise practically worthless pieces of wood and or were supposedly gifts.
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by alsbabar on Oct 28, 2008 22:32:30 GMT 1, snausages, again you speculate, when you provide no facts to support your claims. Cite to me examples of where banksy has profitted from damage he has created? He has never removed a piece from the street and then subsequently sold it via an auction or gallery.
I dont see why you keep trying to discredit what he stands for or argue in favour of vermin - really what is your agenda, because you make out you dont care either way, but you are playing more than devils advocate - you seem to me to be pro vermin.
snausages, again you speculate, when you provide no facts to support your claims. Cite to me examples of where banksy has profitted from damage he has created? He has never removed a piece from the street and then subsequently sold it via an auction or gallery.
I dont see why you keep trying to discredit what he stands for or argue in favour of vermin - really what is your agenda, because you make out you dont care either way, but you are playing more than devils advocate - you seem to me to be pro vermin.
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by baileymontana on Oct 28, 2008 22:46:36 GMT 1, The real issue I feel is not whether Banksy wants the pieces preserved or not, he just does not want to encourage people to take them to sell on as artwork for the home, office, penthouse or castle. They are just street pieces no more or no less.
The bottom line is Vermin want to establish something to allow people to sell street pieces for the maximum amount of money and the artist unsurprisingly does not want them to do that.
If Banksy / Pest Control are doing this so that owners of street pieces can't maximise their profits but Banksy and Pest Control can, I'm all for it. At least with Banksy / Pest Control from the profits of art sales you get the NY Pet Store, Santas Ghetto, Cans Festivalx2 (all within the last year).
The real issue I feel is not whether Banksy wants the pieces preserved or not, he just does not want to encourage people to take them to sell on as artwork for the home, office, penthouse or castle. They are just street pieces no more or no less.
The bottom line is Vermin want to establish something to allow people to sell street pieces for the maximum amount of money and the artist unsurprisingly does not want them to do that.
If Banksy / Pest Control are doing this so that owners of street pieces can't maximise their profits but Banksy and Pest Control can, I'm all for it. At least with Banksy / Pest Control from the profits of art sales you get the NY Pet Store, Santas Ghetto, Cans Festivalx2 (all within the last year).
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by snausages on Oct 28, 2008 22:52:43 GMT 1, snausages, again you speculate, when you provide no facts to support your claims. Cite to me examples of where banksy has profitted from damage he has created? You're missing my point completely. Ask yourself if he would be as rich and famous if he never once vandalized a piece of property. His gallery money is driven by his street cred.
Agenda? I have nothing to gain. And I'm not trying to rip on Banksy for vandalizing property. I just think it's completely unjustified and hypocritical for him to vandalize property and tell others not to vandalize property or take it too. You can't have it both ways.
snausages, again you speculate, when you provide no facts to support your claims. Cite to me examples of where banksy has profitted from damage he has created? You're missing my point completely. Ask yourself if he would be as rich and famous if he never once vandalized a piece of property. His gallery money is driven by his street cred. Agenda? I have nothing to gain. And I'm not trying to rip on Banksy for vandalizing property. I just think it's completely unjustified and hypocritical for him to vandalize property and tell others not to vandalize property or take it too. You can't have it both ways.
|
|
loucastel
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,551
Likes โข 53
October 2007
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by loucastel on Oct 28, 2008 22:56:00 GMT 1, I think this thread has lost it's way a bit, alsbabar posted an article from a magazine saying how vermin are just a little bit hacked off. Their plan to authenticate street work (of which they have a commercial interest in) by the said artist, backfired somewhat. This has nothing to do with who/what/where or when work was taken from the street. Good post alsbabar
I think this thread has lost it's way a bit, alsbabar posted an article from a magazine saying how vermin are just a little bit hacked off. Their plan to authenticate street work (of which they have a commercial interest in) by the said artist, backfired somewhat. This has nothing to do with who/what/where or when work was taken from the street. Good post alsbabar
|
|
flypitcher
New Member
Posts โข 189
Likes โข 0
January 2008
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by flypitcher on Oct 28, 2008 22:59:04 GMT 1, Banksy has always profited from the damage/graffiti he has created. Financially or just good PR. Think when Pulp was at Old Street for nearly 3 years. That advert would cost you well over 100k. That Pulp let to book deals,ltd prints, etc etc. Cause and effect. But I am happy it did because as is well known Banksy gives most of his money away and does not care about money. I am not Banksy sycophant per se but the guy does more good than bad in my book and if he wants to say that the piece is not authentic or deny it, then that is his choice.
The only time he would be in the wrong is if someone bought a piece direct from Banksy or his agents and then he turned round later and said he wasn't going to give it provenance.
As for Vermin everybody's got to eat .
Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year
Banksy has always profited from the damage/graffiti he has created. Financially or just good PR. Think when Pulp was at Old Street for nearly 3 years. That advert would cost you well over 100k. That Pulp let to book deals,ltd prints, etc etc. Cause and effect. But I am happy it did because as is well known Banksy gives most of his money away and does not care about money. I am not Banksy sycophant per se but the guy does more good than bad in my book and if he wants to say that the piece is not authentic or deny it, then that is his choice.
The only time he would be in the wrong is if someone bought a piece direct from Banksy or his agents and then he turned round later and said he wasn't going to give it provenance.
As for Vermin everybody's got to eat .
Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by alsbabar on Oct 28, 2008 23:03:38 GMT 1, Banksy rich? He puts on shows like Cans, NY Pet Store (each animinatronic piece must have cost at least ยฃ75K, with no pieces for sale), SG's, all of which the proceeds come from where? For years his art were sold for stupidly low value, its only in the last 12-18 months has his prices rocket up, and thats not at primary, but in the secondary. He has no benefactor, the little money he does make, he pumps back in to this work for all to see/share - Banksy isnt motivated by money - he is too militant and anti-capitalist to be rich - so the sooner this myth is squashed the better.
OK you have no agenda, and i will accept that at face value, however you have to accept that its wrong people remove his pieces, witb the agenda of tryiing to sell them in the secondary market for 100's of thousands of pounds!!!
Banksy rich? He puts on shows like Cans, NY Pet Store (each animinatronic piece must have cost at least ยฃ75K, with no pieces for sale), SG's, all of which the proceeds come from where? For years his art were sold for stupidly low value, its only in the last 12-18 months has his prices rocket up, and thats not at primary, but in the secondary. He has no benefactor, the little money he does make, he pumps back in to this work for all to see/share - Banksy isnt motivated by money - he is too militant and anti-capitalist to be rich - so the sooner this myth is squashed the better.
OK you have no agenda, and i will accept that at face value, however you have to accept that its wrong people remove his pieces, witb the agenda of tryiing to sell them in the secondary market for 100's of thousands of pounds!!!
|
|
funyoung
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,040
Likes โข 20
February 2008
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by funyoung on Oct 28, 2008 23:14:04 GMT 1, 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
Are you having a giraffe?
Imagine someone stealing a vandalised bollard. Which crime is worse? One of modern lifes' true quandries.
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 Are you having a giraffe? Imagine someone stealing a vandalised bollard. Which crime is worse? One of modern lifes' true quandries.
|
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by alsbabar on Oct 28, 2008 23:24:11 GMT 1, Are you having a giraffe? Imagine someone stealing a vandalised bollard. Which crime is worse? One of modern lifes' true quandries.
why imagine, when someone already has
Lot 53 ยง BANKSY (BRITISH, B. 1975) PHOTOGRAPHER RAT, 2003 Stencil and spray-paint on plastic road bollard, bearing the Banksy 'tag' signature.
THIS WORK IS SOLD WITH A FULL VERMIN CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICITY 90cm x 37cm x 37cm (35.5in x 14.5in x 14.5in) Estimate ยฃ30,000-40,000
Provenance: Jon Swinstead Collection
Note: Jon Swinstead was the original founder of Pictures on Walls (POW) which is responsible for publishing all Banksy prints. Unsold
Are you having a giraffe? Imagine someone stealing a vandalised bollard. Which crime is worse? One of modern lifes' true quandries. why imagine, when someone already has Lot 53 ยง BANKSY (BRITISH, B. 1975) PHOTOGRAPHER RAT, 2003 Stencil and spray-paint on plastic road bollard, bearing the Banksy 'tag' signature. THIS WORK IS SOLD WITH A FULL VERMIN CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICITY 90cm x 37cm x 37cm (35.5in x 14.5in x 14.5in) Estimate ยฃ30,000-40,000 Provenance: Jon Swinstead Collection Note: Jon Swinstead was the original founder of Pictures on Walls (POW) which is responsible for publishing all Banksy prints. Unsold
|
|
aginghippie
New Member
Posts โข 211
Likes โข 0
December 2007
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by aginghippie on Oct 29, 2008 0:08:42 GMT 1, Aging hippie - Do you really think that bad boy vandal icon Banksy went to the local Balfour Beatty highway supply shop to buy bollards and road signs because he's frightened to de-face public property?
I have no knowledge either way so I'm not about to accuse someone of theft without some sort of evidence. I would think it's pretty stupid to put on an exhibition featuring stolen property when it's so easy to do it legitimately.
But should he have the rights to physical objects after he has illegally defaced them? Of course not. If that were the case anyone could paint on any property that they desired and then claim that it's theirs!
Where did I say things became his property because he defaced them?
The artist retains image rights and copyrights. These are entirely separate from physical possession and not transferred by physical possession nor stripped by criminal action. That's why selling the work without his permission is legitimate provided you have good title to the physical object. Equally he hasn't claimed those rights and so the work remains unauthenticated to some peoples financial disadvantage, I can live with that ;D
Aging hippie - Do you really think that bad boy vandal icon Banksy went to the local Balfour Beatty highway supply shop to buy bollards and road signs because he's frightened to de-face public property? I have no knowledge either way so I'm not about to accuse someone of theft without some sort of evidence. I would think it's pretty stupid to put on an exhibition featuring stolen property when it's so easy to do it legitimately. But should he have the rights to physical objects after he has illegally defaced them? Of course not. If that were the case anyone could paint on any property that they desired and then claim that it's theirs! Where did I say things became his property because he defaced them? The artist retains image rights and copyrights. These are entirely separate from physical possession and not transferred by physical possession nor stripped by criminal action. That's why selling the work without his permission is legitimate provided you have good title to the physical object. Equally he hasn't claimed those rights and so the work remains unauthenticated to some peoples financial disadvantage, I can live with that ;D
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by manty on Oct 29, 2008 0:13:33 GMT 1, If i saw a little banksy rat on something that was easily removeable, and I knew I could get ยฃ20k for it, would i take it, or leave it?
Maybe we should vote on it
If i saw a little banksy rat on something that was easily removeable, and I knew I could get ยฃ20k for it, would i take it, or leave it?
Maybe we should vote on it
|
|
blacksy
New Member
Posts โข 180
Likes โข 0
September 2006
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by blacksy on Oct 29, 2008 0:30:55 GMT 1, This thread (like alot on here) is becoming a total joke!
If you were in the market to spend ยฃ50k on a piece of Banksy art - who would you believe when it came to authenticating it - an organisation setup by the artist? - or - a similarly named opposing company with no solid connections to the artist?
here's a question for you.
If you were looking to buy an piano once said to be owned by Mick Jagger - and you were splashing out say ยฃ50k for it. now imagine there are 2 people offering to varify it for you. the first person is Jerry Hall, she says for ยฃ50 she'll tell you for sure, and offer you a cast iron garauntee. The second person is a man called Dave who used to know Mick years ago, and says he'll tell you if it's yay or nay for free................... hmmmmm - tough choice eh!
Why people continually feel the need to wind people up sparking so much b1t(hin on here is beyond me.
I'm here to talk about art, may i suggest those that don't want to talk about Art and those things connected it. May i suggest those who want to wind people up jump onto the BBC complaints website and offer their support to Mr Brand and Mr Ross. or perhaps consider commenting on www.thesun.co.uk
This thread (like alot on here) is becoming a total joke! If you were in the market to spend ยฃ50k on a piece of Banksy art - who would you believe when it came to authenticating it - an organisation setup by the artist? - or - a similarly named opposing company with no solid connections to the artist? here's a question for you. If you were looking to buy an piano once said to be owned by Mick Jagger - and you were splashing out say ยฃ50k for it. now imagine there are 2 people offering to varify it for you. the first person is Jerry Hall, she says for ยฃ50 she'll tell you for sure, and offer you a cast iron garauntee. The second person is a man called Dave who used to know Mick years ago, and says he'll tell you if it's yay or nay for free................... hmmmmm - tough choice eh! Why people continually feel the need to wind people up sparking so much b1t(hin on here is beyond me. I'm here to talk about art, may i suggest those that don't want to talk about Art and those things connected it. May i suggest those who want to wind people up jump onto the BBC complaints website and offer their support to Mr Brand and Mr Ross. or perhaps consider commenting on www.thesun.co.uk
|
|
dmandpenfold
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,466
Likes โข 10
December 2006
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by dmandpenfold on Oct 29, 2008 11:30:59 GMT 1, i'd buy the piano off Mick Jagger
i'd buy the piano off Mick Jagger
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by alsbabar on Oct 29, 2008 17:27:19 GMT 1,
Alsbabar - 181 thousand pounds - 'received' from the artist - Pest Control approved Cost to tax payer ? [/quote]
that streetsign as two lines doesnt exist - banksy created this sign and probably put in there - rather than vandalised an existing
this is what an actual sign looks like
alternatively go through the Highway Code and see if you can find such sign www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/trafficsigns.pdf
Alsbabar - 181 thousand pounds - 'received' from the artist - Pest Control approved Cost to tax payer ? [/quote] that streetsign as two lines doesnt exist - banksy created this sign and probably put in there - rather than vandalised an existing this is what an actual sign looks like alternatively go through the Highway Code and see if you can find such sign www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/trafficsigns.pdf
|
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by ilikekittens on Oct 29, 2008 19:11:13 GMT 1, Well Alsbabar - Logic would say that Banksy being the artist he is painted white over one of the original lines and repainted a straight one over the top in black - adding a little plane.
I also would say that Silky is right in the choice of sign - rather like this one I'd say that Banksy painted over a 'flood' sign here and I believe Damien Hirst bought this Street Piece from Laz Inc
You can see how the original council image was painted out with white here painted over by Banky then sold by Laz Inc Gallery to Andipa Gallery ;D
And this looks like a road sign painted over by Banksy in situ here But I dare I am wrong
Well Alsbabar - Logic would say that Banksy being the artist he is painted white over one of the original lines and repainted a straight one over the top in black - adding a little plane. I also would say that Silky is right in the choice of sign - rather like this one I'd say that Banksy painted over a 'flood' sign here and I believe Damien Hirst bought this Street Piece from Laz Inc You can see how the original council image was painted out with white here painted over by Banky then sold by Laz Inc Gallery to Andipa Gallery ;D And this looks like a road sign painted over by Banksy in situ here But I dare I am wrong
|
|
|
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by alsbabar on Oct 29, 2008 19:41:47 GMT 1, but thats not your point littlekitten, you are stating that banksy has removed streetsigns, vandalised them and then sold then for vast profits. Without having facts, you could give benefit of the doubt and suggest that banksy could have bought them.
I could be wrong - but very rarely am ;D
but thats not your point littlekitten, you are stating that banksy has removed streetsigns, vandalised them and then sold then for vast profits. Without having facts, you could give benefit of the doubt and suggest that banksy could have bought them.
I could be wrong - but very rarely am ;D
|
|
cutty
New Member
Posts โข 226
Likes โข 1
April 2008
|
Vermin article in Art of England, by cutty on Oct 29, 2008 23:36:31 GMT 1, So if B paints on my door and I decide my house does not suit a Banksy on its door........... Can I replace the door and sell the Banksy? Can I replace the door and hang the Banksy in my house?
What am I able to do with the Banksy on my door?
Cheers
So if B paints on my door and I decide my house does not suit a Banksy on its door........... Can I replace the door and sell the Banksy? Can I replace the door and hang the Banksy in my house?
What am I able to do with the Banksy on my door?
Cheers
|
|