Comments on: Banksy Mural Painted Over

Banksy Mural Painted Over

chuckdarwin — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:03:41 -0800

The Independent's headline actually uses the word 'obliterated'. I like this quote from the stuffed shirts at Travel for London - "We recognise that there are those who view Banksy's work as legitimate art, but sadly our graffiti removal teams are staffed by professional cleaners, not professional art critics." This Reuters article reckons the mural was worth £250,000. This isn't an excellent photo of the mural before it was whitewashed, but it's the only one I could find (Flickr). Do Banksy's pieces create an atmosphere of "neglect and social decay" or are they valuable pieces of art that should be preserved? These folks were so upset that the prospective buyers of their house in Bristol were going to paint over one of his pieces that they've changed the terms of sale. "The owners consider it a work of art and want it kept as it is. They came to us to help sell it as a mural with a house attached."

By: Harald74

Harald74 — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:18:59 -0800

Do Banksy's pieces create an atmosphere of "neglect and social decay" or are they valuable pieces of art that should be preserved? Both. Make a high-res photo and paint over. Send the bill to Banksy.

By: chuckdarwin

chuckdarwin — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:26:01 -0800

Haralk74 - I'm pretty sure he can afford it.

By: jack_mo

jack_mo — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:32:47 -0800

I don't like Banksy's work, but one of the things I do like is that he's deliberately cocking up the conventional art market by making work that's deliberately transient. (Of course, folk have been making temporary public art since forever, and the standard practice, as Harald74 says, is to document the thing, and sell that documentation, if selling is your thing.)

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:36:15 -0800

I would rather the Banksy stuff was left just so could it could raise the bar on the otherwise crap standard of graffiti in England. There is a need for better vandal role models.

By: Harald74

Harald74 — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:37:43 -0800

chuckdarwin: What's an anti-capitalist supposed to do when the big bucks start rolling in?

By: chuckdarwin

chuckdarwin — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:51:49 -0800

Harald74 - *shrug* Stay strong, one would hope... or accept all the offers and then devise a very public and creative way to redistribute the money... Wallpaper Downing Street with £100 notes?

By: chuckdarwin

chuckdarwin — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:57:13 -0800

srboisvert said - 'I would rather the Banksy stuff was left just so could it could raise the bar on the otherwise crap standard of graffiti in England.' I'd personally rather it were left up because most of it is pretty damned good and I'd rather look at his stuff than a million identical hideous pebbledash semi-detached walls.

By: game warden to the events rhino

game warden to the events rhino — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:01:48 -0800

Yay for vandalism so long as its content is in tune with my edgy aesthetic sensibilities! signed, all fans of Banksy

By: pracowity

pracowity — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:05:20 -0800

There is a need for better vandal role models. 2003 Guardian interview:

Does he consider himself an artist? "I don't know. We were talking about this the other day. I'm using the word vandalism a lot with the show. You know what hip-hop has done with the word 'nigger' - I'm trying to do that with the word vandalism, bring it back."

By: pracowity

pracowity — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:07:05 -0800

But also this:

Here's a mystery for you. Renegade urban graffiti artist Banksy is clearly a guffhead of massive proportions, yet he's often feted as a genius straddling the bleeding edge of now. Why? Because his work looks dazzlingly clever to idiots. And apparently that'll do.

By: knave

knave — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:07:58 -0800

chuck: More inside is your friend.

By: Koko

Koko — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:10:09 -0800

"You wouldn't paint over a Van Gogh and nor should you paint over a Banksy." *choke*

By: chuckdarwin

chuckdarwin — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:14:59 -0800

Sorry knave - it's my first post. More inside is a sort of cut tag? Too bad I can't edit it.

By: saturnine

saturnine — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:16:30 -0800

As a native Bristolian that actively supports/documents/follows the Bristol street art scene, I couldn't care less about Banksy now. He's not really relevant to what's going on, (as far as I know) he's not influencing any of the really awesome artists (45rpm, 3dom, Sickboy, Cheo, Feek, Ponk, Zesk, Sums, Voyder, Cheba etc etc), and his art has been co-opted by the city and people as some kind of money making tourist scam, whilst they actively destroy all the other Bristol street art, because it's "vandalism". None of this is Banksy's fault, but he's quickly becoming less of a cultural spokesperson, and more of a brand, and that destroys the point of his work for me. srboisvert wrote: I would rather the Banksy stuff was left just so could it could raise the bar on the otherwise crap standard of graffiti in England. There is a need for better vandal role models. Maybe you should look harder - I don't know where you live, but it's certainly not that way in quite a few cities in the country. Taking a look around some Flickr pools might help you change your mind.

By: knave

knave — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:17:09 -0800

Generally people put a few lines on the front page (not a few paragraphs), and if there is more detail to include, they post it as the first comment in the thread. Honestly the "new post" form doesn't help you do this, it's just customary here. Hopefully Matt will make it like the AskMe posting page some day, where "more inside" is an actual feature.

By: Jakey

Jakey — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:21:24 -0800

I started out kind of liking Banksy, when he seemed to be giving the art establishment the finger. Now he's been subsumed by the beast, he's just another YBA.

By: furtive

furtive — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:26:20 -0800

If you're not willing to have your stuff painted over then you don't know the first thing about graffiti.

By: furtive

furtive — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:27:36 -0800

obligatory: Metafilter: looks dazzlingly clever to idiots

By: teleskiving

teleskiving — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:29:26 -0800

Doing this kind of thing in a country without freedom of speech might actually mean something. In the UK it just looks like empty attention seeking, and I can't help but find it a little bit insulting to those people around the world who actually need to break the law in order to express themselves.

By: Katemonkey

Katemonkey — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:35:40 -0800

I like what he's done personally, but I'm much more impressed with the effect he's had on street art around the country. I mean, just in Nottingham, I'd much rather have the giant Stop Wars than Big Gay Following or You Or Jesus. Although, for several years, around the local shops, there was one person who would regularly write "Mrs Peel we're needed" on walls, bus shelters, signs, everywhere. Mr. Steed, wherever you are, please come back to Netherfield!

By: public

public — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:49:14 -0800

Was the electricity substation owned by TfL or some other public organisation? If not they could soon find themselves getting taken to court for damage to private property. I know if I had a street facing wall with a Banksy mural on it i'd be pretty pissed if the council painted over it for me.

By: reklaw

reklaw — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:55:00 -0800

Painting over it was just as much an act of art as was the original graffiti, in that it adds to the whole performance/story of the piece. Just like that guy who tied string all over an art gallery, only for someone to turn up with a pair of scissors - scissors-man was as much a part of the art as the string 'artist'. Unless Banksy wasn't going for performance-y art, just normal painting-on-a-canvas art, in which case I would suggest not doing it on other people's buildings.

By: game warden to the events rhino

game warden to the events rhino — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:56:04 -0800

If not they could soon find themselves getting taken to court for damage to private property. Yep. And if there's one thing Banksy can't stand, it's people doing things with paint on property that isn't theirs and that they have absolutely no right to touch! That kind of thing makes Banksy mad.

By: rhizome23

rhizome23 — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:57:09 -0800

Banksy For Dictator.

By: jfuller

jfuller — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:02:30 -0800

I was doing a major, major series of works on the sides of other people's BMWs, but the philistines got upset.

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:06:03 -0800

You wouldn't paint over a Van Gogh and nor should you paint over a Banksy *choke* Van Gogh painted over Van Gogh's. That bastard! Maybe you should look harder - I don't know where you live, but it's certainly not that way in quite a few cities in the country. Taking a look around some Flickr pools might help you change your mind. saturnine, I am a contributor to those flickr pools. There is some good graffiti in England but it's rarer than anywhere else I have been. Most of what I see isn't very good and I know the response will inevitably be "There is a lot of crap everywhere". To which I'll say - the proportions are different. It's not that I think the good artists are worse than elsewhere. It is more that I think the average artists are worse than elsewhere.

By: pracowity

pracowity — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:24:51 -0800

Banksy's efforts are not as interesting as much other art, but I'd rather look at a Banksy than look at common tagging. Or at a car. Or at the asphalt reserved for a car. Or at a loud face stuck to a mobile phone. There are a million ways worse than Banksy's to mess up a public space. I was doing a major, major series of works on the sides of other people's BMWs... I wish someone would. Ideally, taggers and BMW drivers would get into a war and annihilate one another.

By: gfrobe

gfrobe — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:27:36 -0800

If we let people, talented or otherwise, paint where they want it will be anarchy I say! So yeah, tell him to buy a canvas or billboard space just like all the others out there who want to display something.

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:29:43 -0800

Generally people put a few lines on the front page (not a few paragraphs) I'd echo knave here, and suggest that in the future you not use this much front page space, chuckdarwin: it's not exactly fair to other posters who get their FPPs knocked off the front page a little sooner than they rightfully should.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:29:57 -0800

So he's selling his work now, eh? How's he different then any hack artist pulling stunts to inflate the value of his work? Kind of takes the edge off. I liked his stuff, but the coolness of what he does really does depend on the motivation.

By: bashos_frog

bashos_frog — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:36:26 -0800

I'm curious about what all the people hatin' on Banksy think about Moose, and others who are doing 'reverse graffiti.' Is your problem really with the property damage, or do you just wish there was less creative expression in public?

By: scissorhand2

scissorhand2 — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:43:26 -0800

If you have ever used the subway in Amsterdam you would see how they dealt with graffiti. They simply made it into art. There are some very talented artists painting graffiti around the world

By: game warden to the events rhino

game warden to the events rhino — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 05:54:15 -0800

Is your problem really with the property damage, or do you just wish there was less creative expression in public? I will confess that the street-art debate riles me to an unusual degree. The annoying thing about street art in general is the way in which its proponents believe they're enriching the visual environment on behalf of the masses, when in fact there's something so bullying and anti-communal about making the unilateral decision to inflict your art on that environment - usually on property that is communally owned by the public, and it's the masses, not The Man, who end up paying for the clean-up. Banksy specifically is 10 times more annoying because his works, and his statements about it, so clearly demonstrate that he believes he has an important message to convey, yet I've never seen a Banksy work that rises above the adolescent level in its "meaning". I didn't know about Moose. I kind of like him.

By: chuckdarwin

chuckdarwin — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:03:18 -0800

To knave and flapjax at midnite - I'll bear this in mind. Perhaps the mod here will put a cut in?

By: CitrusFreak12

CitrusFreak12 — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:08:36 -0800

What gfrobe and delmoi said. And not a bad first post, chuckdarwin, aside from some minor formatting issues.

By: chuckdarwin

chuckdarwin — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:09:36 -0800

Hey bashos_frog! Thanks for those links; that's genius. 'when is cleaning sidewalks a crime? when you're doing it to create art...'

By: pracowity

pracowity — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:11:05 -0800

Is your problem really with the property damage, or do you just wish there was less creative expression in public? Most graffiti artists (judging by what you see around town, almost all of them) are not artists at all, they are just kids who happen to have access to paint and markers and free time: no one has been happy to find their stuff on a wall since mum put their house-with-smoking-chimney masterpiece up on the fridge. The damage they do is aesthetic, not (or not necessarily) monetary, and it doesn't matter whether the method is 'reverse graffiti' or not, though of course it's easier to remove a dirt-based cleaning scrawl. A blank wall (freshly cleaned or uniformly grimy) is far more beautiful than most graffiti and other forms of advertisement.

By: chuckdarwin

chuckdarwin — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:12:12 -0800

CitrusFreak12 - Thanks, kindly... I'm a long-time reader and fan of MeFi in general. I've done a lot of posting elsewhere over the years... and I'm glad I decided to join. Sorry I put too many [br] tags in!

By: chuckdarwin

chuckdarwin — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:15:19 -0800

A blank wall (freshly cleaned or uniformly grimy) is far more beautiful than most graffiti and other forms of advertisement. I don't know... dirty walls, tunnels and signs are pretty ugly. You're reminded that all that pollution is also currently in your lungs...

By: chuckdarwin

chuckdarwin — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:20:52 -0800

Hey, mod-type person! Thanks for cleaning up my HTML!

By: Elmore

Elmore — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:21:29 -0800

I saw some kids vandalising the beach the other day. Building castles and shit. Who do they think they are temporarily ruining our beach? I don't hate him, but find Banksy a bit wanksy. I do like the idea of reverse graffiti.

By: chuckdarwin

chuckdarwin — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:30:55 -0800

I do like the idea of reverse graffiti. Me, too! What I like about the most is that it's patently legal. I mean, they're just selectively cleaning the walls. If the authorities kept the walls clean, they'd have no canvas.

By: mokey

mokey — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:36:36 -0800

I like Banksy, I find his images very appealing visually. And a lot of them are witty, though not all. But look at these ones he did in Israel on the massive wall they've built. I think they're fantastic.

By: chuckdarwin

chuckdarwin — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:47:14 -0800

mokey - I also like this link. [cheers to insalubrious]

By: cavalier

cavalier — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:03:59 -0800

I had never heard of Banksky nor seen this work or the West Bank work linked above. Thanks very much for posting this.

By: imperium

imperium — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:04:06 -0800

Sorry to see the kool kids have moved on. I'm still liking Banksy. It all just reads like "oh, I preferred their first album" to me.

By: chuckdarwin

chuckdarwin — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:09:18 -0800

imperium - You're channeling Scroobius Pip - Thall shalt not stop liking a band just because they've become popular

By: chuckdarwin

chuckdarwin — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:10:39 -0800

cavalier - You're welcome. I'm just glad that my first post didn't devolve into a flame war.

By: rusty

rusty — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:18:29 -0800

Oh that's such crap. I actually saw that Pulp Fiction mural when I was in London a couple months ago, not knowing anything about it whatsoever, and I thought "Ha! That's cool. Wonder what it's about?" So I can state positively that it enriched my visual environment. I just mentioned this story to my wife, and she connected it with Children of Men, where street cleaners in full riot gear are constantly whitewashing graffitti in the background.

By: patricio

patricio — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:24:49 -0800

"So I can state positively that it enriched my visual environment." Good for you - presumably the point that GWTTER was making above is that there's no choice about the matter, Banksy removed your choice of seeing it or not.

By: chuckdarwin

chuckdarwin — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:42:34 -0800

Banksy removed your choice of seeing it or not. Advertisers do that to me all the time.

By: jeffmik

jeffmik — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:49:16 -0800

looking at the picture of the pre-whitewashed mural, I'm surprised to see the amount of graffiti on the buildings and I can only imagine that the entire city is now painted white to cover all the tags as well?

By: criticalbill

criticalbill — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:50:46 -0800

I'm confused. I'm sure that the Pulp Fiction mural was painted over ages ago. I was in Old Street a month or two ago and it wasnt visible and i'm sure it was gone some time before that. unless i've become some sort of future-telling visionary...

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:02:00 -0800

there's something so bullying and anti-communal about making the unilateral decision to inflict your art on that environment Yeah, damn the graffiti artists' union and their closed shop!

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:25:31 -0800

reklaw writes "Painting over it was just as much an act of art as was the original graffiti, in that it adds to the whole performance/story of the piece." Yep. Part of the appeal of the work is its ephemeral nature.

By: miss lynnster

miss lynnster — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:26:43 -0800

I say? Great first post. :)

By: QuietDesperation

QuietDesperation — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:29:57 -0800

You wouldn't paint over a Van Gogh Of course I would. He's not relevant to what's going on, silly.

By: trulyscrumptious

trulyscrumptious — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:31:53 -0800

well i don't know what the media is so excited about - i live near this mural and it was first painted over after the 7/7 bombings in 2005 when someone wrote 'Fuck al Qaida" on it. there have been at least three other things up there since then - from memory including stuff by Shephard Fairey and Faile. so it hasn't been a "valuable" banksy for some time. but good old independent, only 18 months late.

By: Terminal Verbosity

Terminal Verbosity — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:35:46 -0800

I'm curious about what all the people hatin' on Banksy think about Moose, and others who are doing 'reverse graffiti.' Great link, bashos_frog, I hadn't heard of this. The difference of course is that if a property owner doesn't like the "mural" Bansky has placed on his building, he must buy paint and hire painters--and thereby transform his property. If he wants to remove Moose's work, he only needs soap and water--and the property hasn't changed except for being cleaner.

By: interrobang

interrobang — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:45:41 -0800

Banksy isn't a graffiti artist, he's a mildly illegal muralist.

By: xammerboy

xammerboy — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:47:41 -0800

This is a good one from the same site: http://flickr.com/photos/mykreeve/317004796/in/set-72157594276485038/

By: nickyskye

nickyskye — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:50:34 -0800

Love Banksy's work, this is my fave of his.

By: roll truck roll

roll truck roll — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:01:32 -0800

It's time for the world to give Banksy the spanking he never got.

By: oneirodynia

oneirodynia — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:07:29 -0800

I just mentioned this story to my wife, and she connected it with Children of Men, where street cleaners in full riot gear are constantly whitewashing graffitti in the background. You may have known this already, but there are a few of banksy's pieces in that movie.

By: chuckdarwin

chuckdarwin — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:09:31 -0800

Cheers, nickyskye! I like this piece.

By: chimaera

chimaera — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:17:25 -0800

I like Banksy's work. I don't find it "dazzlingly clever" but I guess I'm only a semi-idiot. I happen to find it merely clever. And that puts it head and shoulders above 99.5% of both "graffiti art" that's extolled by the critics and advertisements which are almost uniformly banal and uninspired. But neither do I take issue with LU painting it over. I mean, it's not like Banksy owned or rented that wall, and as someone upthread mentioned, the ephemeral nature of it is part of the point.

By: nickyskye

nickyskye — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:19:14 -0800

bashos_frog (always loved your name), that reverse graffiti is really cool, thanks.

By: cowbellemoo

cowbellemoo — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:46:19 -0800

By: bhouston

bhouston — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:00:46 -0800

Banksy is a PR wizard. Controversy fuels his notoriety/whatever. Express your opinions whatever they may be, the more the better... and Banksy continues to gain notice. He succeeds even when his work is removed.

By: headless

headless — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:48:40 -0800

The Subconscious Art of Graffiti Removal

By: JHarris

JHarris — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:22:25 -0800

A blank wall (freshly cleaned or uniformly grimy) is far more beautiful than most graffiti and other forms of advertisement. Of course, just ask Bartleby.

By: chuckdarwin

chuckdarwin — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:01:08 -0800

headless - that was bizarre

By: davejay

davejay — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:37:51 -0800

Is your problem really with the property damage, or do you just wish there was less creative expression in public? Bit of a strawman, as I don't think anyone would say "I wish there was less creative expression in public." For me (and I don't hate Bansky et al, by the way, on the contrary) it's twofold: 1. If it's on MY personal property, I take offense because I paid for the privilege of that property, and so I have first right to do something artistic with it (or not.) I'd have the same issue if you lovingly painted my house a nice color without asking, if I didn't like the color you'd chosen. 2. If it's on public property, I'm torn. When it's done well (Bansky falls into this category as far as I'm concerned) I love it, and when it's crappy permanent marker illegible signature-style work, I find it unpleasant to look at and don't like my local government needing to spend money to clean it up. When a piece of public art is displayed with appropriate permits et al, it's likely gone through a review process (or at least a screening of the artist) and so is likely (not guaranteed) to be a well-executed piece of art. Without that screening, the art may be delightful and awesome (and the kind of thing that still couldn't make it past the screening) -- so hooray -- but more likely will be the kind of garbage that comes out of a person who is more interested in vandalizing than they are in art, or who thinks they're a talented artist but is dead wrong. And if you make it legal to put art on public buildings, what justification do you have to take it down if the art sucks balls, and who makes that judgement call? So I'm firmly on the side of "keep it illegal, but give artists lots of opportunities to legally create public art, and if nobody's complaining about the appearance of illegal public art, let it be until it becomes an eyesore."

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:40:58 -0800

davejay writes "strawman" Actually, the correct term for that particular logical fallacy is "false dilemma". And this one is a classic example.

By: 6am

6am — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:20:52 -0800

i've seen this once or twice and it made me smile. blank walls don't create any kind of response in me. but it got five years of exposure, so why not whitewash it and put a new idea up there? it's just a picture on a wall. I'm sure he and we are capable of more than one good idea per half decade.

By: tellurian

tellurian — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:23:01 -0800

Meanwhile in Australia - "Pratt by name".