4 ms·

What 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 ladder

What 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 ago
It’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 ago
I'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 ago
  You 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 ago
    I 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-...
    - crossroadsguy 3y ago
      I kind of get what you say. But all I was asking about -- whether owners were "forced" to keep it? Because that is vandalism. Now you like that on your property after the deed, or not, if up to you. Not upto the vandal/artist and should not be up to the city council.
      - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        Not "forced" per se, but it might get you some unwanted publicity for doing it. There's even an example of an old codger painting over a Banksy caught on camera here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59236187 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59236187
OJFord 3y ago
They are trying to stop people painting over it. The title is.. well clickbait really.

anbende 3y ago

It’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 ago

I'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 ago
You 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 ago
  I 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-...
  - crossroadsguy 3y ago
    I kind of get what you say. But all I was asking about -- whether owners were "forced" to keep it? Because that is vandalism. Now you like that on your property after the deed, or not, if up to you. Not upto the vandal/artist and should not be up to the city council.
    - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
      Not "forced" per se, but it might get you some unwanted publicity for doing it. There's even an example of an old codger painting over a Banksy caught on camera here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59236187 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59236187

OJFord 3y ago

They are trying to stop people painting over it. The title is.. well clickbait really.