7 ms·
Couple May Need to Pay $250k to Have Banksy Mural Removed from Their Home
- superchroma 3y agoOh yes, so very terrible. A "living nightmare" with a clearly labelled and painless exit door. They could of course just paint over it, but no, they want to sell it and make money, therefore they have no choice but to hire a security guard and remove the wall. Crocodile tears.
- paulpauper 3y agoWhy not sell the home? I am sure the mural would make it more valuable?
- mbg721 3y agoMaybe they just intended to live in it and didn't want to be uprooted? This comes up with US eminent domain from time to time.
- vkou 3y agoThen they should paint over it. I'll do it for half that amount.
- SanjayMehta 3y agoThey should paint over it while filming the process and then sell the video as an NFT.
- a2800276 3y agoNo, they live somewhere else entirely and let out the building.
- orra 3y agoSo they're not even paying the mortgage on the property (the tenants effectively are). This just adds to the "cry me a river" vibe.
- laweijfmvo 3y agoHow can a “mural” weigh 22 tons?
- furyofantares 3y agoIt's painted on bricks
- bagels 3y agoThey're talking about the wall that the mural was painted upon.
- furyofantares 3y agoI get very attached to my home. If Banksy painted on mine, I suppose I would be initially elated, but: - I wouldn't want to live there anymore with it up - I wouldn't want to paint over it, because it would feel wrong to do so to me for reasons I can't explain - I wouldn't want to cover it up also because I wouldn't want to deal with stress and controversy over such - I wouldn't want to move, because of how attached I get to my home Comments like "why don't they just move" seem to miss the point that it really is quite rude to swoop in overnight and do something to someone's house that will make them want to move, even if the sale price goes up because of it.
- isoprophlex 3y ago- I wouldn't want to cover it up also because I wouldn't want to deal with stress and controversy over such Isn't graffiti art supposed to be ephemeral by nature? Banksy could have put that seagull on a wall of his own, or on a canvas. 100 liters of white latex, one afternoon, and all the troubles disappear. The art was up for a while, now it's gone, poignant moments were had by all and let's move on.
- viraptor 3y agoWhile I can't read his mind of course, I would think Banksy especially would not be annoyed with destroying it if it causes issues for ordinary people. Treating it as important art specifically is the problem here and he's destroyed his own art as a statement before.
- azurelake 3y agoI would go so far as to guess that the entire reason the piece exists is to be a commentary on the arbitrariness of important art, and that the real art intended was creating a situation where someone who isn’t an insider gets to decide what’s important.
- isoprophlex 3y agoThese and your parent comment are all excellent observations, and I fully agree with this line of reasoning. I'm sure there is some zen koan hidden in this story about chaining your own mind by inflating the importance of things that were never really that big a deal...
- postalrat 3y agoThey could just let it go. Is it that hard?
- croes 3y agoSell it under the condition that the buyer pays for the removal costs. If nobody wants it, let it go and paint it over.
- SanjayMehta 3y agoI would sell the house and move to place bereft of vandals.
- agnosticmantis 3y agoMaybe sell the art as an NFT and then remove it, or even better, sell an NFT for the act of removal of the mural, like the shredding painting thing. (Partly /s)
- ant6n 3y agoNFTs are so 2021
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- datashaman 3y ago$250k for a white paint job? surely, they jest.
- charcircuit 3y agoThe article also said that people were painting over it for free.
- rippercushions 3y ago250k to rip the entire side of a building off cleanly: https://archive.is/A1IGF https://archive.is/A1IGF
- vlz 3y ago> forced to either pay for the bird’s protection and preservation, which would cost almost $50,000 per year. Otherwise, they could have the mural removed, which could cost up to a quarter of a million dollars. I don't get it. Who is doing the forcing here. Is there some kind of law that you have to preserve graffiti if they are by banksy?
- imgabe 3y agoYes, actually. The US has the Visual Artists Rights Act which means an artist can sue if you destroy their artwork. France has even stronger laws where you can’t destroy an artwork even with the permission of the artist. I assume the UK has similar laws.
- fred_is_fred 3y agoThe US also has strong don't paint other people's houses laws. If what you say is true, I could graffiti your front door and sue you if you tried to fix it. I don't think that's at all how the law works for us.
- vlz 3y agoOk, but that doesn't seem to apply to "normal" graffiti does it? People remove them all the time, even when they are quite good or interesting.
- wahnfrieden 3y agowe're not actually a very rules based society
- shjake 3y agoOr rather these ‘rules’ would only generally apply anywhere if the mural/graffiti was painted with the consent of the owner
- otherme123 3y agoI understood that they want to profit. But people are stealing parts or painting over, so they either have to put security (50k per year) or sell it paying 200k for the removal. They really are asking potential buyers to pay the bill. For what I read about VARA, it applies only if you paid the artist to paint the graffiti, and later you decide to destroy it, as the artist keeps some rights even if you own the art.
- h0l0cube 3y ago$250k to sell it > The only way forward, the Couttses say, is to have the 22-ton mural removed, a major undertaking which over the last month has involved “reinforcing it with 12 layers of resin, fibreglass [sic] and five tonnes [sic] of steel and using a 40ft crane to take it away.” > The Couttses hope to sell the massive work in order to offset the $250,000 cost. “We are just normal people,” Mr. Coutts told the Sun, “so we’d like to sell it and make something back on it.”
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y agoI find the [sic] amusing because those would both be the correct British way to reference the material and the mass. The oddball in that blurb would be interspersing feet.
- h0l0cube 3y agoYeah, I was confused by that too.
- ralferoo 3y agoGiven that the costs are in dollars in the quoted passage, it's clear that this article is aimed at a US audience. So when reporting a written quote with sections that a reader might assume was an error but is actually correct because it's a direct quote, using [sic] is exactly the right thing to do.
- orra 3y agoOrdinary people have nowhere near that amount of cash (or investments). I can only imagine they had potential buyers lined up.
- Apreche 3y agoCan't they make Banksy take care of it, with lawyers if necessary?
- nprateem 3y agoSince he hides his identity, who would you send letters to?
- gnabgib 3y agoThis article references The Sun[1] which references The Times[0], which is probably what the URL should be. The artwork has already been removed (last Monday, May 22nd), it's not clear where the £200,000 estimate comes from since the move has already happened (wall rebuild, transport to buyer perhaps?). There is even a photo of their house exposed to the elements in the original. [0]: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/homeowners-spend-200-000-removing-banksys-seagull-mural-f30j7zd7w https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/homeowners-spend-200-000-... [1]: https://www.the-sun.com/news/8193316/huge-bansky-mural-plastering-our-home/ https://www.the-sun.com/news/8193316/huge-bansky-mural-plast...
- gnabgib 3y agohttps://archive.is/A1IGF https://archive.is/A1IGF
- sologoub 3y agoThey should have a protective case installed (similar to those in museums) and then sell the property. That can’t possibly be as much as $250k. Then have someone clean it periodically. There are probably ways to profit off of it without selling though.
- thrill 3y agoI wonder if the Council would have had the same thoughts if it'd been a Chuy?
- jamestimmins 3y agoThis title is misleading. The $250k is the cost to remove the brick walls its painted on if they want to sell the mural, not something that is being forced upon them.
- pcurve 3y agoConsidering the enormous size and weight of 20ft x 20ft brick wall, I wonder how much the work would go for. Perhaps not as much as we think?
- denkmoon 3y agoThey're just trying to make bank off it. A bottle of paint stripper costs $20, hiring a pressure washer less than $100.
- Roark66 3y agoCome on, it's clear this article is just a way for them to find a buyer for the mural. If someone puts a painting on your property without your permission it's called graffiti and you have the right to just paint it over. Why will they not do that? Did Banksy come over one day with a contract saying "hey, I'd like to paint here, sign on the dotted line you'll care for the thing forever"? I doubt that. They probably are trying to extract as much value from it as possible (as anyone else would in their position). Do I blame them? Of course not. Do I belive their "struggle"? Not really.
- OJFord 3y agoThey're not hiding that, quoted at the end 'we are just normal people, we want to make something back from it' and gives an example of another one that was (carefully) removed and sold for a tidy sum.
- m463 3y agoReminds me of the bedroom wall shown at the Charles Schulz museum. https://schulzmuseum.org/timeline/8497/ https://schulzmuseum.org/timeline/8497/ (Charles Schulz was the artist who created the Peanuts cartoon with Charlie Brown, Snoopy and others...)
- xeromal 3y agoWhat a lovely person that they took the time to find the painting and then donate it. Very selfless!
- __turbobrew__ 3y agoIf banksy painted on my house I would paint over it, I really don’t give a rats ass about their art and I think vandalizing people’s home is distasteful.
- seydor 3y agojust invite local graffiti boys to paint the rest of the wall, call it a Museum and have entry tickets. After all your museum owns a bansky
- gcau 3y agoI think he's a disgrace to artists (if he even is an artist) and a menace to society if he's literally vandalising private property like this. I know the arguments people have against that and I don't care, get a canvas like the rest of us.
- orra 3y agoHe is clearly an artist, even if you disagree with his method. Besides you forget the house owners here were happy: initially they thought it was cool. Then, instead of painting over it, they sold it for a profit.
- deafpolygon 3y ago> they sold it for a profit So they can take that profit to pay for 250k
- orra 3y agoSome of it, yes, but definitely not all of it. Don't pretend they had to pay 250k. It wouldn't have cost more than a couple hundred just to paint over it.
- isitmadeofglass 3y ago> “We are just normal people,” Mr. Coutts told the Sun, “so we’d like to sell it and make something back on it.” The normal people approach to vandalism is to just paint it over and continue your life. These people are gamblers who are spending 250k on a lottery ticket that might not pay out.
- jxidjhdhdhdhfhf 3y agoI would personally just get a bucket of paint and paint right over it. If you want to remember what it looks like, take a photo. Graffiti is supposed to be semi-temporary anyways.
- fullshark 3y agoWhy can't they paint over it?
- netrus 3y agoBecause then they cannot sell it. It's a BS story, they made a $250k investment because they expect to sell it for much more than that. It's a non-story.
- lloydatkinson 3y agoWhat an absurd claim and article? As someone in the UK I estimate it was would cost probably a less than a couple of hundred for the paint, supplies, and ladders. Probably less if they bought the paint and did it themselves.
- anbende 3y agoIt’s very clear from the article that they actually value the work and do NOT want to destroy it. The problem is that they feel obligated to protect it from vandals and thieves. As mentioned elsewhere, the whole thing may be essentially marketing to find a buyer.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y agoI'm surprised that the local authority doesn't step in to protect and preserve it. We had a relatively recent Banksy not far from where I live (Bristol, UK so we do have quite a few around the place): https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/has-a-new-banksy-artwork-appeared-in-barton-hill/ https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/has-a-new-... . The council quickly put a protective plastic covering over it. Otherwise, the house owners could just attempt to sell it and specify that the buyer has to cover the costs of removal and repair.
- crossroadsguy 3y agoYou mean the council forced the home owners to live with it? How does that work? Someone vandalises your property and then it’s made permanent?
- ndsipa_pomu 3y agoI don't think that's a fair interpretation as having a Banksy on your property wouldn't be considered vandalism by most people (i.e. making your house worth 10x more). I guess if the owners objected to it, then they could get it removed though other people wouldn't be too happy about that. Here's an example in Totterdown (also Bristol) that appeared whilst the house was about to be sold: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/dec/12/owners-confirm-sale-of-bristol-banksy-house-going-ahead https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/dec/12/owners-...
- aczerepinski 3y agoIf Banksy painted a seagull on any house within miles of me, the homeowners associations would be calling for a paintover the next day. I’m slightly jealous that they at least get to be in the drivers seat of deciding what to do.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jmclnx 3y ago>have been plagued by vandals and forced to either pay for the bird’s protection and preservation, which would cost almost $50,000 per year. Otherwise, they could have the mural removed, which could cost up to a quarter of a million dollars I do not understand this quote. Why are they being "forced" ? Either paint over it or let the vandals destroy it. Who is forcing them ? With that said, I would like to see it maintained but the owner should not have to do that. If the City wants to keep it, they foot the bill.
- Mizoguchi 3y agoThey know that piece has the potential to find a buyer at auction for several millions. I would also rip apart my house.
- JoeAltmaier 3y agoNo empathy. The supposed costs are to preserve their windfall of what, a million dollars? Poor them, having to make cost-benefit analysis on a fortune. It won't cost any damn million to get rid of their problem. Just a bucket of paint and an afternoon.
- hammyhavoc 3y agoIt doesn't look like a Banksy. His stuff is quite different aesthetically. Graffiti is graffiti. Enjoy art whilst it's there, whether that's graffiti or not. But remember, nobody should be above the law, and there's far better artists than Banksy out there, graffiti included. There's some genuinely incredible murals out there that make this look like a doodle. Why be precious about it? Banksy artwork shredded itself: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/watch-14-million-bansky-painting-shred-itself-soon-it-sold-180970486/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/watch-14-million-b...
- JdeBP 3y agoThis sourced to reports in The Sun and the Eastern Daily Press. For those unfamiliar with U.K. newspapers, these are well-known sources of clickbait low-effort journalism. Never trust their headlines, for starters. Think about how a couple of landlords who live in Enfield in London can have "woken up one morning" to find that their property in Lowestoft, in East Anglia, had been painted on, for instance. They're approximately 200km apart.
- sacnoradhq 3y agoWhat a travesty they would have to pay some money to sell something worth much more. Poor them.