5 ms·
Banksy works cost public almost £150k
- al_borland 2mo agoThey could do nothing and just let the art exist for free.
- benj111 2mo agoHalf this cost is related to security to actively stop people looking at the art work. If it's not acceptable for banksy to cost tax payers £50k to remove the graffiti, why is acceptable for the powers that be to waste another £50k on security to stop anyone seeing it? And if that ruins the character of the building, why is the fence acceptable?
- nprateem 2mo agoProbably to stop people rocking up and cutting them out of the buildings
- Lalabadie 2mo agoThat's true, though it's worth noting that Banksy's pest control – the people who certify that an artwork is legitimate – will always identify anything not meant to be sold as a fake, so resale is a lot more limited than anything meant for galleries and auctions.
- tptacek 2mo agoThey can't. It's a listed building. They're legally obligated to remove it.
- Schiendelman 2mo agoAbsolutely not. There is no enforcement mechanism to punish them if they chose not to enforce the listed building rules.
- tptacek 2mo agoIn the sense that they are the enforcement mechanism of the law it's true that they can probably just ignore the law to a point, but it's no use pretending that there isn't a legal stricture here. (I'm a policy opponent of historic preservation, which is a major impediment to housing reform, but even I don't pretend that it simply doesn't exist.)
- Schiendelman 2mo agoAgreed, btw - I think the only method of preservation should be market purchase, to force the right tradeoffs.
- scott_w 2mo agoJust to be clear, you're asking the Ministry of Justice, the department responsible for maintaining the court system, to break the law? I can't think how that could have horrendous long-term consequences...
- Schiendelman 2mo agoThere are tons of laws they simply don't enforce. This would be one more.
- scott_w 2mo agoWhich laws? Who is "they?" Be clear.
- mrkeen 2mo agoLet them apply austerity measures then.
- ForOldHack 2mo agoThis thread should be nominated for the best of Hacker news.
- Georgelemental 2mo agoNot free, at the cost of the beauty of the vandalized area
- 6510 2mo agoDemolish the building leaving only the wall then make a park around it and name it after the guy who ordered the demolition.
- toomuchtodo 2mo agoA rounding error to support the arts.
- allears 2mo agoAnd well worth it. Too bad they defaced it.
- m0llusk 2mo agoAnd the value of nothing.
- puzzleincomplet 2mo ago[dead]
- FatalLogic 2mo agoOriginal art by Banksy is reportedly valued at millions of £ or $ [0] The BBC says "Banksy works cost public almost £150k" because "The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) says it has spent £50,000 trying to remove paint from the wall of the Grade II-listed building in Carey Street." Therefore, the title is incorrect. The cost to the public is much more than £150k. The Ministry's damage to this freely-contributed artwork has probably already cost the public a few million £, not just £150k [0] https://www.dawsonsauctions.co.uk/news-item/how-much-is-an-original-banksy-worth/ https://www.dawsonsauctions.co.uk/news-item/how-much-is-an-o...
- DroneBetter 2mo agoyou mean... as opposed to removing the bricks with the art on them to auction off and replacing them with new bricks?
- FatalLogic 2mo ago>removing the bricks with the art on them to auction off and replacing them with new bricks That is in fact the kind of process I was suggesting. Auctioning the art would generate income; Destroying the art destroys income.
- kmoser 2mo agoDestroying art generates income for the workers paid to destroy it.
- d4ng 2mo agoHave you considered that the public may be gaining something from the conversations and awareness that arise from the performance of this art? I invite you to move away from evaluating a piece of art simply in terms of the monetary cost to the tax payer.
- mrkeen 2mo agoOf course the poster has considered it, and disagrees with the message!
- jccalhoun 2mo agoShadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy said: ""Our courts are a national symbol of justice and the rule of law." It seems like someone doesn't get the symbolism of the Banksy piece.
- tptacek 2mo agoUh, no, the piece isn't subtle. They simply disagree with it.
- BoingBoomTschak 2mo agoHow could you not get the "symbolism" of Banksy? The man is as subtle as a Family Guy episode.
- omosubi 2mo agowhy don't they just sell the works to recoup the costs? how much does graffiti cost the public in general?
- tptacek 2mo agoThey can't; they're obligated by law to preserve the original structure the graffiti is painted on.
- cassianoleal 2mo agoFrom TFA: > As a final option, the affected stonework may have to be removed and replaced. So it's definitely an option.
- ryandrake 2mo agoThe article's photo of the art barricaded from public view with two security people standing guard in front of it speaks even louder than the original artwork. And then, further down in the article, the picture of a whole structure built to block the view of the piece, with a locked door. Satire writing itself!
- ForOldHack 2mo agoOh the irony. Oh my.
- tptacek 2mo agoYou almost have to ask if Sotheby's didn't somehow arrange for it.
- nzoschke 2mo agoTechnically this is vandalism of a govt building. If they're so concerned about cost, why not do what you'd do with any other vandal with a spray paint can... Immediately paint over it with grey paint to neutralize the "blight", then efficiently do a deeper clean / removal / repair the facade. Seems like they gave the Banksy very special treatment of fence, guards, etc. and now are paying for the side effects of that.
- xnx 2mo agoNow do how much tourist money his works have brought in.
- doikor 2mo agoIt’s street art/graffiti. If someone wants to tag over it let them. Protecting this stuff with tax payer money is just stupid.
- tptacek 2mo agoI think that's where I'm at too (as a lifelong fan of actual street art), but that leaves the question of why Banksy is privileged the way he is, for his trite brand of sub-tour-poster stencil work, most of which would be too on-the-nose for a Rage Against The Machine reissue cover.
- mmooss 2mo ago> trite brand of sub-tour-poster stencil work, most of which would be too on-the-nose for a Rage Against The Machine reissue cover. Art makes questions: It's both stencil-like and precisely, powerfully executed; it's both obviously 'on-the-nose' as you say, and penetrating. How is that all true simultaneously? (I don't know; it's what I've wondered and you helped clarify the question.)
- tptacek 2mo agoIt has no subtext, poses no real questions (Reddit nailed this: "war is bad, innit?"), and pursues only "coolness". It is thus fashion more than it is art, and it's not daring fashion. Its closest analog is Shephard Fairey, of the Obama "HOPE" mural, who now spends his days "engineering meaningful brand experiences with authority & authenticity". There's nothing wrong with that; I respect graphic design and branding deeply. But it's not deep or meaningful.
- mmooss 2mo ago> It has no subtext, poses no real questions (Reddit nailed this: "war is bad, innit?"), and pursues only "coolness". I can't read your mind but that sounds like the usual response to artwork that someone doesn't want to understand: the subjective judgment made truth, the absolutism (no curiosity, not even a possibility of anything else), the aggressive dismissal. Sarcastic comments on Reddit are, IME, truly pursuing only 'coolness' and make no attempt at insight. Pursuing insight requires embracing ignorance and questions, thus surrendering the smarter-than-thou attitude. You're missing out, IMHO.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- _8L34K 2mo ago"Think of the money!" This mentality needs to go extinct. Along with billionaires.
- xbar 2mo agoThe Banksy cost-benefit and clean-protect loops are part of my favorite modern civic dialogs. I like it when the BBC takes the obvious side of the establishment because it is honest.
- ForOldHack 2mo agoIt costs only 150k? Pay the man. Its public art. Its art, and a damn sight better than the advertisements, wait... are you comparing art to ads? Get the ads to pay for the art? This article is merely government propiganda. Oh Charles... wake up! Knight Banksy noe..
- IshKebab 2mo agoWell, prosecute him for vandalism then to recoup the costs?
- bonoboTP 2mo agoWhy does it take 85k to remove it from the wall? I'm pretty sure it doesn't cost that much. There is some ridiculous government inefficiency or embezzling happening or some kind of learned helplessness or malicious compliance. Just go, wash it off and done.
- artisinal 2mo agoThis isn’t an American building where you buy a couple of two-by-fours and some plastic siding from Home Depot. It’s a historical building made out of stone.
- dgellow 2mo agoYou think a stone building is hard to clean with a Kärcher?
- tptacek 2mo agoNot without damaging the masonry. It wouldn't matter at all if it were a standard municipal building, but this building is protected. If Banksy stenciled another My Chemical Romance poster on the Frank Lloyd Wright Unity Temple in Oak Park, you'd get a flavor for how complicated the discussion would be.
- dgellow 2mo agoI have no idea what that temple is or which oak park you mean but I will take your words for it
- tptacek 2mo agoIt's one of the most famous Frank Lloyd Wright buildings (and architecturally one of his most important, and, apropos this story, his building that is most like the RCJ.)
- 2mo ago
- dgellow 2mo ago> The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) says it has spent £50,000 trying to remove paint from the wall of the Grade II-listed building in Carey Street. How in the world do you spend £50k to remove a graffiti?
- scott_w 2mo agoIt's a Grade II-listed building meaning you have to be very careful with it to restore it to its previous state. It's not enough to give it a good scrub, you've also got to ensure you minimise damage to the stonework. There'll also be required paperwork with the local authority to ensure the work they're doing is correct.
- woodruffw 2mo agoFrom a very quick look online, “Grade II” means that the building is of historic or architectural interest. I think it’s reasonable to infer that cleaning graffiti off of a building like that might require materials or consultations that a normal removal wouldn’t, although I have no idea whether £50K is a reasonable amount for that. I guess it would depend on the material, size of the graffiti, etc.
- tim333 2mo agoIt's surprising to me. Spray paint mostly wipes off with cellulose thinners and a cloth.
- karencarits 2mo agoJust a couple of years ago, activists painted a listed building in Norway that also costed about 100k USD to clean https://www.nrk.no/norge/miljoaktivister-domt-til-a-betale-1_2-millioner-i-erstatning-1.17467923 https://www.nrk.no/norge/miljoaktivister-domt-til-a-betale-1...
- scott_w 2mo agoFor the comments questioning why the MoJ are doing this, and the reason for the costs, the information can be found in the article: > A HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) spokesperson said: "The Royal Courts of Justice is a listed building and HMCTS are obliged to maintain its original character." This is the why. HMCTS don't have the option to "just leave it" because they're obligated by legislation to remove the graffiti. Discussions about whether it'll bring in tourism are irrelevant to the discussion. The law requires the listed building to be maintained in its original state, so the government department follows the law. As for the costs: > Court staff barricaded off the area and guarded it. Attempts to clean off the mural began immediately. > Westminster City Council will have to inspect the wall and if the removal is deemed incomplete, another cleaning method will have to be used. > As a final option, the affected stonework may have to be removed and replaced. > A Listed Building Consent (LBC) application has been submitted for the installation of railings across the wall that Banksy targeted. All of this costs money, it's not just a case of putting a bit of turps on the wall and job done. It'll require experts to remove it without causing further damage.
- 6510 2mo agoThe dull blocks have no character, the artwork in contrast captures and hammers out the original character. It doesn't have to be true, nothing ever has, they just need to rubber stamp it as such.
- scott_w 2mo ago> The dull blocks have no character That's your opinion and irrelevant. The Grade-II classification and the requirements it imposes don't care about your opinion. > the artwork in contrast captures and hammers out the original character. That's your opinion and irrelevant. The Grade-II classification and the requirements it imposes don't care about your opinion. > It doesn't have to be true, nothing ever has, they just need to rubber stamp it as such. What on earth are you waffling on about? Speak like a human being instead of getting ChatGPT to write comments for you.
- 2mo ago
- bArray 2mo agoBanksy is an establishment-approved protestor, they promote him regularly [1]. His artwork is regularly on display in galleries [2]. They could easily seize the works to pay for costs, but don't. His name is supposedly Robin Gunningham from Bristol [3], they could take him to court. The whole thing is ridiculous. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cp7r8vglgj1t https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cp7r8vglgj1t [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz91zpgn43do https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz91zpgn43do [3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98q8llqq4po https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98q8llqq4po
- tptacek 2mo agoIn case it's not clear from the story: a big part of the expense here is that the mural was painted onto the Royal Courts of Justice building, which is a Grade I preserved building, putting it in the same tier of building preservation as the Tower of London and the Palace of Westminster. Some of the things you'd do to get graffiti off a subway tunnel wall or a brutalist municipal building in the US (like using a high-powered pressure washer) can't be done to the RCJ building without risking damage to the structure.
- FatalLogic 2mo ago>the mural was painted onto the Royal Courts of Justice building, which is a Grade I preserved building, putting it in the same tier of building preservation as the Tower of London and the Palace of Westminster. The section in question is not a Grade I preserved building, it's Grade II, which is a significantly less stringent standard. That building is in fact a quasi-brutalist tower built in 1968[0], adjacent to a much older building. The site of the mural is visible here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Queen%27s_Court_Building_of_the_Royal_Courts_of_Justice%2C_December_2022_01.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Queen%27... Ironically, in that picture you can see that the wall just above the mural was already badly defaced by the installation and removal of security cameras during several decades. The scars and drilled holes from old, removed cameras and wiring are still plainly visible. Contrary to its rapid reaction to the mural, the government has made no attempt to repair this self-inflicted damage, which calls into question the whole argument about protecting the building (You can verify that the damage has been there for decades, by looking at older Google Streetview pictures back to 2008). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Courts_of_Justice_(Banksy_mural) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Courts_of_Justice_(Banks...