4 ms·

You're right and all, and I more or less agree, but it's still private property we're talking about, isn't it? If I don't want someone to stick gold onto my pro

You're right and all, and I more or less agree, but it's still private property we're talking about, isn't it? If I don't want someone to stick gold onto my property, I shouldn't have to put up with it. It just so happens that most people are OK with free money, though. That said, I was under the impression that he asked permission first, at least recently?

Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
It would make sense that he would, both commercially and criminally, though there are still pieces around London just sat there on walls. Kind of gives the lie to his whole counter culture personality, though I think that status has been questionable for some time now.
27182818284 16y ago
More often than not it seems to popup in interstitial spaces and public areas. For example, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4748063.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4748063.stm
estel 16y ago
I think he asks permission when it suits him. Given his profile as an artist, I'd imagine he mostly wants to work on projects of the sort of scale that require permission from an organisation of some sort. I don't think he has an objection to tagging the streets of London still, but his most high-profile works now would be impossible without permission. I'm still impressed he managed to do stuff like his Bristol exhibition with the knowledge of only three staff members at the Museum http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/bristol/hi/people_and_places/arts_and_culture/newsid_8097000/8097022.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/bristol/hi/people_and_places/art...
hugh3 16y ago
Even if he does ask for permission, the whole cult-of-some-guy-who-sprays-crap-on-other-people's-property is only serving to encourage other vandals who consider themselves "artists". If he gets permission before each and every one of his "artworks" then he should come out and be explicit about it so that copycats don't get inspired. And if he doesn't, he should be thrown in prison, and the various city governments and other property owners who have been "blessed" by his work should subpoena (or whatever) the Simpsons producers in order to find out who exactly this asshole is. edit: I wonder how many of the people who defend this guy are not property-owners themselves.
- justsee 16y ago
  You've demonstrated perfectly the old-grandpa 'get off my lawn position'. However dismissing him as just some guy who sprays crap on other people's property probably just indicates you aren't aware of the social / political messaging he engages in. "Any advert in public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours…You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head…They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs." - Banksy in Wall And Piece He certainly doesn't ask for permission. Look at his "One nation under CCTV" piece: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-559547/Graffiti-artist-Banksy-pulls-audacious-stunt-date--despite-watched-CCTV.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-559547/Graffiti-arti...
  - hugh3 16y ago
    However dismissing him as just some guy who sprays crap on other people's property probably just indicates you aren't aware of the social / political messaging he engages in. No, I think that just serves to make it worse. Any advert in public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours…You can do whatever you like with it. That's a ridiculous position to hold. By that logic, if I see your face in a public place then I have the right to rearrange your face as I see fit.
    - justsee 16y ago
      Your reductio ad absurdum is another's straw man. I think you're wilfully missing the point, so I'm picking straw man. Anyway, I agree with your sentiments about those who disrespect private property, but only to a point. The endless messy 'tagging' on small businesses in urban areas is egotistical, mindless, territorial pissing. I agree. My beef with your previous comments is that you're throwing Banksy into that category, when any basic investigation of his activities clearly demonstrates he's a subversive with a very deliberate set of social and political messages. That quote is extreme (and not the full quote - sorry), but Banksy clearly makes the point that we live in a world where we are constantly bombarded by banal, manipulative, consumerist messaging, and he feels that individuals with messages should not be given any lesser right to societal messaging, even if it means currently breaking the law to do this. Sure there's fertile ground to do a "By that logic, if everyone...". Boring. Living in East London I'd say the urban culture was massively enhanced by Banksy pieces lurking everywhere, and felt far more intelligent than a Singaporean, Truman-show, world of perfect polished billboards making everyone feel inadequate if they don't buy that product. meh. http://www.artofthestate.co.uk/banksy/banksy_another_crap_advert.htm http://www.artofthestate.co.uk/banksy/banksy_another_crap_ad...

Tyrannosaurs 16y ago

It would make sense that he would, both commercially and criminally, though there are still pieces around London just sat there on walls. Kind of gives the lie to his whole counter culture personality, though I think that status has been questionable for some time now.

27182818284 16y ago

More often than not it seems to popup in interstitial spaces and public areas. For example, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4748063.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4748063.stm

estel 16y ago

I think he asks permission when it suits him. Given his profile as an artist, I'd imagine he mostly wants to work on projects of the sort of scale that require permission from an organisation of some sort. I don't think he has an objection to tagging the streets of London still, but his most high-profile works now would be impossible without permission. I'm still impressed he managed to do stuff like his Bristol exhibition with the knowledge of only three staff members at the Museum http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/bristol/hi/people_and_places/arts_and_culture/newsid_8097000/8097022.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/bristol/hi/people_and_places/art...

hugh3 16y ago

Even if he does ask for permission, the whole cult-of-some-guy-who-sprays-crap-on-other-people's-property is only serving to encourage other vandals who consider themselves "artists". If he gets permission before each and every one of his "artworks" then he should come out and be explicit about it so that copycats don't get inspired. And if he doesn't, he should be thrown in prison, and the various city governments and other property owners who have been "blessed" by his work should subpoena (or whatever) the Simpsons producers in order to find out who exactly this asshole is. edit: I wonder how many of the people who defend this guy are not property-owners themselves.

justsee 16y ago
You've demonstrated perfectly the old-grandpa 'get off my lawn position'. However dismissing him as just some guy who sprays crap on other people's property probably just indicates you aren't aware of the social / political messaging he engages in. "Any advert in public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours…You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head…They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs." - Banksy in Wall And Piece He certainly doesn't ask for permission. Look at his "One nation under CCTV" piece: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-559547/Graffiti-artist-Banksy-pulls-audacious-stunt-date--despite-watched-CCTV.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-559547/Graffiti-arti...
- hugh3 16y ago
  However dismissing him as just some guy who sprays crap on other people's property probably just indicates you aren't aware of the social / political messaging he engages in. No, I think that just serves to make it worse. Any advert in public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours…You can do whatever you like with it. That's a ridiculous position to hold. By that logic, if I see your face in a public place then I have the right to rearrange your face as I see fit.
  - justsee 16y ago
    Your reductio ad absurdum is another's straw man. I think you're wilfully missing the point, so I'm picking straw man. Anyway, I agree with your sentiments about those who disrespect private property, but only to a point. The endless messy 'tagging' on small businesses in urban areas is egotistical, mindless, territorial pissing. I agree. My beef with your previous comments is that you're throwing Banksy into that category, when any basic investigation of his activities clearly demonstrates he's a subversive with a very deliberate set of social and political messages. That quote is extreme (and not the full quote - sorry), but Banksy clearly makes the point that we live in a world where we are constantly bombarded by banal, manipulative, consumerist messaging, and he feels that individuals with messages should not be given any lesser right to societal messaging, even if it means currently breaking the law to do this. Sure there's fertile ground to do a "By that logic, if everyone...". Boring. Living in East London I'd say the urban culture was massively enhanced by Banksy pieces lurking everywhere, and felt far more intelligent than a Singaporean, Truman-show, world of perfect polished billboards making everyone feel inadequate if they don't buy that product. meh. http://www.artofthestate.co.uk/banksy/banksy_another_crap_advert.htm http://www.artofthestate.co.uk/banksy/banksy_another_crap_ad...