4 ms·

So you called that artist a "vandal". Would you also call Bansky a "vandal"? Some people find unapproved grafitti objectionable. How do you feel about that?

• watwut 5y ago
  > Would you also call Bansky a "vandal"? Yes. I like Banksy drawings, really. But Banksy was vandal when Banksy drew his thing on the same wall again and again, while owner quite clearly did not wanted that and kept repainting the wall again again. And to be frank, he was also asshole about it. Banksy can be both and is both.
• lexicality 5y ago
  If someone tagged my front door I'd be quite angry about it and clean it off. If someone spent 6 hours with a ladder carefully painting the entire outside of my house with a beautiful mural I'd still be upset that they painted my house without my permission but I'd probably leave it there.
• jjulius 5y ago
  So I'm not trying to defend Banksy specifically here... >So you called that artist a "vandal". Would you also call Bansky a "vandal"? He can be both, "vandal" and "artist" aren't mutually exclusive. >Some people find unapproved grafitti objectionable. How do you feel about that? I'm not answering for the person you're responding to, but for me, I'd say I feel fine about that. There are people who find nudity in art objectionable; who object to the Mona Lisa; to surreal art; to abstract art; to land art; to a specific artist; to an artistic medium. There's always going to be someone who objects to some form of art, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
  • greggman3 5y ago
    Objecting to unapproved grafitti is not about "is it art". it's about property destruction. If you disagree then I'll be happy to come over to your house and paint whatever "I want" on your house, your car, and TV, your computer, your sofa. If you'd be upset that I painted your stuff then you agree with the people who see it as property destruction. If you'd be upset for your own stuff but not when that stuff belongs to someone else then you're just being hypocritical.
    • jakear 5y ago
      Did you read the linked article? [1] The only thing that matters is if the property owner likes it. If the property owner likes it, it stays up, if they don't, they file a vandalism case with the city. Banksy is a vandal, as I'm sure anyone would admit, himself included. I am equally sure that there have been times when property owners haven't liked his work and have tried to report him for vandalism. But given he doesn't make a habit of posting videos of his actions online and bragging about them, he doesn't get caught/attributed. https://www.tmz.com/2014/04/02/banksy-david-william-noll-ricardo-cabeza-arrested/ https://www.tmz.com/2014/04/02/banksy-david-william-noll-ric...
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • rolph 5y ago
      there is a difference between public banksyification, and home invasion. advertizers invade our homes, our bodies and our souls, the most sinister social engineering campaign yet.
• rolph 5y ago
  advertizers vandalize the sensory experience across the board, they pollute our cognition with conditioned and conditional thinking, they remove our choices in a clandestine style, they reduce the world to a penny mill so the lunch is free while the consumers back is the table for a feast by candlelight