3 ms·
It's illegal graffiti art over illegal street art. I don't understand property rights application here. To me it's Instagramers getting photos of who they are
by aaron695 6y ago
It's illegal graffiti art over illegal street art. I don't understand property rights application here.
To me it's Instagramers getting photos of who they are told by the media is cool with zero respect of the scene.
Banksy used to distroy other artists work. Check out Robbo vs Banksy perhaps -
https://youtu.be/ulOiB3xEkzM https://youtu.be/ulOiB3xEkzM
- throwaway894345 6y agoMy point is that the way to settle the "illegal graffiti art over illegal street art" ethical argument is to defer to the owner of the property--he alone can legitimize one, both, or neither artist. Legitimacy doesn't depend on some strange need to assess which "scene" is more authentic or otherwise meritorious. And I can't tell if I've made myself sufficiently clear, I have no special affinity or animosity for Banksy or any other modern artist.
- aaron695 6y agoI 100% agree. The owner decides what stays and goes. It is theirs. It's just complicated since the first person attacked their property. The second also, so the third, and the third might be the one they like the best, not the forth. The doco I link is fun. It's a not bad Friday night viewing.