3 ms·

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 pro

by 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...
dkarl 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. It's easy to say that the law should not be enforced against Banksy because he is engaged in worthy social/political messaging, but consider: what if the government can't be trusted to decide what is politically legitimate and artistically worthy? I know, I know, crazy talk, but it's an interesting thought experiment, right? You and I might think Banksy is great and different, but it's a legitimate point that "some guy who sprays crap on other people's property" doesn't recognize that he is, in fact, different from Banksy. He thinks he's Banksy, just like every gay-bashing, church-bombing white power thug thinks he's Batman, cleaning up scum off the streets. And who are we to say they're wrong? Even worse, who are the cops that we trust them to make the distinction? The difference between Batman and a white power vigilante is politics; the difference between Banksy and a paint-huffing teenage dipshit is political and artistic understanding, as well as aesthetics. Tolerating Banksy means selective law enforcement based on someone's political and artistic sensibility. In the United States we have a long history of the cops being on the wrong side of these kinds of distinctions, and I hope every other country recognizes the same thing in their history. Personally, I hope Banksy stays ahead of the cops, but I also hope they're trying in earnest to bust him when he does something illegal.
- justsee 16y ago
  The quote you snipped there was just making the point that throwing Banksy in to the same category as your pedestrian vandal is a mischaracterization. You make some good points. The artistic / social / political value of an act is subjective - yes. However I never actually said the law shouldn't be enforced against Banksy. Like you I'd expect the police to take on people wilfully damaging private property. It's a filter that ensures only the very committed will produce works as bold as Banksy, and whether I like or loathe their messages, I expect they're worthy of a pause for thought by society. Which is what Banksy is trying to achieve. Keep in mind graffiti has been a problem since forever (didn't Herodotus record some citizen outrage in Athens?), and is mostly banal. So admitting that in our times there is a very interesting character who is engaged in something a little more high-minded than tagging or 'spraying crap' isn't a cause for too much philosophical hand-wringing.

by justsee 16y ago

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...

dkarl 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. It's easy to say that the law should not be enforced against Banksy because he is engaged in worthy social/political messaging, but consider: what if the government can't be trusted to decide what is politically legitimate and artistically worthy? I know, I know, crazy talk, but it's an interesting thought experiment, right? You and I might think Banksy is great and different, but it's a legitimate point that "some guy who sprays crap on other people's property" doesn't recognize that he is, in fact, different from Banksy. He thinks he's Banksy, just like every gay-bashing, church-bombing white power thug thinks he's Batman, cleaning up scum off the streets. And who are we to say they're wrong? Even worse, who are the cops that we trust them to make the distinction? The difference between Batman and a white power vigilante is politics; the difference between Banksy and a paint-huffing teenage dipshit is political and artistic understanding, as well as aesthetics. Tolerating Banksy means selective law enforcement based on someone's political and artistic sensibility. In the United States we have a long history of the cops being on the wrong side of these kinds of distinctions, and I hope every other country recognizes the same thing in their history. Personally, I hope Banksy stays ahead of the cops, but I also hope they're trying in earnest to bust him when he does something illegal.

justsee 16y ago
The quote you snipped there was just making the point that throwing Banksy in to the same category as your pedestrian vandal is a mischaracterization. You make some good points. The artistic / social / political value of an act is subjective - yes. However I never actually said the law shouldn't be enforced against Banksy. Like you I'd expect the police to take on people wilfully damaging private property. It's a filter that ensures only the very committed will produce works as bold as Banksy, and whether I like or loathe their messages, I expect they're worthy of a pause for thought by society. Which is what Banksy is trying to achieve. Keep in mind graffiti has been a problem since forever (didn't Herodotus record some citizen outrage in Athens?), and is mostly banal. So admitting that in our times there is a very interesting character who is engaged in something a little more high-minded than tagging or 'spraying crap' isn't a cause for too much philosophical hand-wringing.