10 ms·
Mayor Bloomberg's reaction is interesting - I'm curious to know when a person transitions from vandal to artist. I don't think anyone could argue that Banksy ha
by iamben 13y ago
Mayor Bloomberg's reaction is interesting - I'm curious to know when a person transitions from vandal to artist. I don't think anyone could argue that Banksy hasn't cemented a place in the 'history of art' and the books our children read that cover this period will feature his work.
In the UK a lot of people are genuinely gutted when a Banksy gets removed or covered - like something (a gift?) has been removed from the community. People who have their buildings 'vandalised' are often incredibly proud. But at the end of the day, it's still graffiti, still vandalism and I can understand Bloomberg's zero tolerance attitude. I wonder how he'd feel if it was on a building he privately owned (not that he needs the money...)?
- saurik 13y agoWhy can't vandalism be an artistic medium? I don't see any reason why someone can't be labeled both "vandal" and "artist". (edit: re-reading my sentence an hour later, I think even better wording might be "an outlet for artistic expression" rather than "an artistic medium".)
- radley 13y agoIt's only vandalism to those who want to control the city yet not participate.
- jevinskie 13y agoMaybe the opinion of the property owner(s) is the most important when you determine whether it is vandalism or not.
- arrrg 13y agoThat entirely depends on your definition of “vandalism” and that is an extremely boring discussion to have. It’s quite pointless, actually. Who cares about the definition of what is and what isn’t vandalism?
- Tichy 13y agoDo you own a building? Or may I perhaps defecate your web site, for the sake of art?
- James_Duval 13y agoYou'd have to eat it first, and servers can be crunchy.
- Tichy 13y agoWell, it would be for the sake of art. You'd be surprised by the kind of things people do for art.
- rejoinder 13y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Quid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Qui... Extract: Initially The KLF's earnings were to be distributed by way of a fund for struggling artists managed by the K Foundation, Drummond and Cauty's new post-KLF art project, but, said Drummond, "We realised that struggling artists are meant to struggle, that's the whole point."[12] Instead the duo decided to create art with the money.
- arrrg 13y agoWhat are you talking about? I’m talking about definitions and the argument about definitions that’s happening here. Arguing about definitions is foolish, it’s point- and meaningless. Who cares what vandalism is? The important thing is how one views a certain act, not how one defines vandalism. That only clouds the issue. Also, I find people who think there are absolutes when it comes to this issue extremely funny.
- Tichy 13y agopresumably if you want to make a law about it, you have to define it somehow. What solution do you propose?
- DalekBaldwin 13y agoRemember when Karlheinz Stockhausen called 9/11 a great work of art?
- harryh 13y agoMayor Bloomberg's reaction is obvious. If he says the city condones Banksy's work then he's going to immediately get asked "Who's job is it to decide which graffiti is art and which will get you arrested?" He's got 10,000 more important things to deal with so he just says it's vandalism and will be treated as such and then moves on to the rest of his day.
- ojbyrne 13y agoI found this interesting to compare/contrast: "For $41 million — what Citibank paid to sponsor the program for five years — our city bikes became Citi Bikes. To make certain you don’t forget this fact, a Citi Bike sign hangs in front of the handlebars, Citi Bike is printed twice on the frame, and a Citi Bike billboard drapes the rear wheel on both sides. The font is the familiar Citibank font and the Citibank signature decoration floats over the “t.” There is no way to see a Citi Bike without thinking Citibank. The 6,000 bikes so far rolled out, of a possible 10,000, and their signs are a Day-Glo cobalt blue that you see on banks. Nobody wears this color. Nobody paints his or her apartment this color. This blue is bank blue." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/opinion/sunday/color-me-blue.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/opinion/sunday/color-me-bl...?
- o0-0o 13y agogreat point. bravo.... I would love to see banksy do something with those awful eyesore bikes.
- WA 13y agoHaha funny, I was in NYC recently as a tourist and my brother and I, we rented the bikes for a couple days to drive around. I know Citibank, but I didn't pay the slightest attention that the Citibike has anything to do with the bank. There is no way to see a Citi Bike without thinking Citibank If I consider my own experience, I'd say it's pretty easy to miss on that.
- mhurron 13y ago> 'm curious to know when a person transitions from vandal to artist. When they stop vandalizing.
- ianstormtaylor 13y agoNah, they aren't mutually exclusive.
- anabis 13y agoYeah, I agree. It is art, but if the owners sue, its vandalism. Private property is one of the foundations of market economy, and I can't think of any necessity of art that calls for suspension of it. On the same vein, the Mayor can't sue on behalf of private owners. If the owners like it, then its OK.
- yetanotherphd 13y agoThis is a criminal matter, not a civil matter. It's just like if a guy punches me on the street, but I decide it was cool and edgy and added to the gritty vibe of the neighborhood. The prosecutor can still bring charges.
- anabis 13y agoYou are right, my mistake. Although it seems hard to press charges without the property owner's cooperation. Can express permission to paint a graffiti given afterward?
- jasomill 13y agoSurely not. Better question: is "vandalism" without criminal trespass or property damage actually a crime? If it's on private property, and the property owner enjoys the painting, it seems like it'd be quite a stretch for the state to establish that the artist damaged the property by creating it.
- 13y ago
- Millennium 13y ago> I'm curious to know when a person transitions from vandal to artist. When they start asking for permission before painting other people's stuff.
- foobarbazqux 13y agoThe job of an artist is to break the rules.
- md224 13y agoThat's a nice aphorism, but it's too vague; obviously we wouldn't condone artists breaking rules against child abuse or murder. Figuring out where to draw the line is the hard part. One could argue that if an artist breaks a law to make a statement (about either the law itself or wider sociological issues), then your perspective of the morality of the act could be influenced by whether or not you agree with the artist's statement.
- foobarbazqux 13y agoOkay, fair point. I'll revise: the job of an artist is to break the rules intelligently. Also, I think you're conflating legality and morality. I can think of situations for all 8 cases of (legal|illegal)(moral|immoral)(agree|disagree). However, you're probably right that agreement/disagreement influences morality judgments.
- pfortuny 13y agoSo probably neither Raphael nor obviously Murillo nor Gongora nor probably any romantic poet were artists. Not to talk about the Egyptians. I do not know about Shakespeare 'breaking' any rules, or any pre-XIX Century painter. Or the Greeks, you know? What rules did the Parthenon's architect break? Or the sculptor of the Laocoon group? The 'breaking rules' stuff is all very well for some things but it is not the definition of art. Please. (Spanish examples because I am a Spaniard, but you understand). Edit: romantical/romantic.
- pippy 13y agoThe line to me is clear - tagging is vandalism, but if it exists to send a message it's art. A high level of skill is required to make art, either aesthetically or emotionally. Of course there is the grey area where a tag can be so well done you're questioning if it should be in a gallery, but by then the artist has built up a large repertoire of skills.
- Volpe 13y agoBy that definition, tagging an (original) poem is art?
- pippy 13y agoYes. The definition of art is more a philosophical question that varies from person to person, so getting consensus on defining what Banksy is is bound to ask the question. Perhaps that's one of his objectives.
- klenwell 13y agoFor one influential academic answer to this question, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anxiety_of_Influence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anxiety_of_Influence
- nikatwork 13y agoYou realize most writers start as taggers? It's part of the learning process. Everyone's a toy when they start out.
- harlanlewis 13y agoNot all graffiti artists practice on buildings. Plywood is cheap. Of course, tagging in public, perhaps in a hard to reach place, is a separate skill requiring its own practice... I'd just prefer they did it after having practiced the tag in their backyard first. Like Banksy.
- nikatwork 13y ago
- theoh 13y agoWell, most art critics don't take Banksy seriously, so I wouldn't count on him having a place in the history books any more than a novelty musician like Weird Al, for example. In fact that comparison makes Banksy sound more important than he is. David Blaine, maybe? http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2013/oct/02/banksy-warhol-footsteps-new-york-street-art http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/20...
- andrewb 13y agoI made a recent trip to NYC and visited several museums and Five Points. I was more impressed by the artwork by the graffiti artists than the majority of items at say MoMA PS1. Unfortunately, I think graffiti art will be accepted one funeral at a time.
- toyg 13y agoIt's really weird how this could still perceived as an "ongoing debate", in NYC of all places. Keith Haring died 23 years ago! Hip-Hop culture is 40 years old! Pretty much everyone under 50 thinks meaningful graffiti (i.e. not meaningless tags) are art.
- radley 13y agoOur generation accepts graffiti. Previous generations didn't. It's when they die that objections will cease.
- iamben 13y agoHe makes the contemporary/2000s artist pages in a number of the generic art books I've picked up over the last few years. Although I can't claim to be any kind of a critic. [Goes to play some Weird Al on Spotify ;-)]
- radley 13y agoDon't take critics too seriously. Nobody here can name a single critic. But we all know Banksy.
- JamesArgo 13y ago
- justinpombrio 13y ago> I'm curious to know when a person transitions from vandal to artist. Asking for a transition point makes the assumption that they are mutually exclusive. But Banksy is by any reasonable definitions both a vandal and an artist. Hence Bloomberg is simultaneously cleaning up vandalism and destroying art. Whether you think this is a good thing depends on how you weigh these two aspects. Personally, I think it just makes his work more precious. It is the nature of the medium that his work is temporary.
- iamben 13y agoI agree with you completely. But there's a mindset needed from most people before they make the jump from 'vandal' to 'artist' - or vandal artist! There are a lot of graffiti artists doing fantastic pieces - but it'll always be seen as vandalism. With Banksy a lot of people (certainly in the UK) don't even think of the vandalism, they jump straight to artist - something they probably wouldn't do for a lot of other graffiti. Why so? Publicity? Celebrity sales? The fact the piece has immediate value?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- mcantelon 13y agoBanksy is adept at leveraging the Streisand effect.
- epo 13y agoYou badly misunderstand something. The Streisand effect is an unintended consequence whereby trying to minimise attention actually increases it. "Banksy" has known all along that maintaining the mystique of secrecy would create attention where otherwise there would be none. So the exact opposite of the Streisand effect. His secrecy is to create attention, not avoid it.
- 001sky 13y ago/Ironic/ use of the streisand effect == the Banksy effect There ya go...
- dsuth 13y agoThe Streisand effect in this case would be Mayor Bloomberg's reaction, threatening to destroy any of Banksy's artwork found and arrest him if possible. Honestly, he couldn't pay for that kind of publicity, and unless the good Mayor is actually in on it, Banksy must be grinning from ear to ear at the irony.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- mcantelon 13y agoI'm not talking Banksy's secrecy. I'm talking about the effect of provoking authorities and having their condemnation generate publicity that provides more incentive for Banksy.
- brenschluss 13y ago> But at the end of the day, it's still graffiti, still vandalism It's not vandalism if the owners of the buildings are happy to have the piece. If I scrub a brick wall clean, is it vandalism? No. If I glue a solid pound of gold to a brick wall and the building owner takes it, is it vandalism? No. If I have a work painted on my property that draws crowds and will probably have a "market value" of a lot of money, and I'd rather have the work have been painted than not exist, is it vandalism? No. If I'd be happy or even would actively desire to have a Banksy piece painted on my property, is it vandalism when it does happen? No.
- qq66 13y agoIf the building is in public view, local ordinances may require certain displays (obscene displays, tobacco advertisements, etc) to be covered.
- rolandukor 13y agoyes, but you cannot assume that 'the owners' are all happy. Some may be but some may not be. I probably wont be. For those who are happy, fine; but for those who aren't, I would struggle to see how that wont be characterised as vandalism.
- iamben 13y ago> If I scrub a brick wall clean, is it vandalism? No. > If I'd be happy or even would actively desire to have a Banksy piece painted on my property, is it vandalism when it does happen? No. Haha, reminds me of when Banksy would turn up in a van and overalls in the middle of the day, whitewash a wall and then stick up a 'Designated Graffiti Area' sign.. The wall would be covered a few days later... :-) http://www.artofthestate.co.uk/photos/banksy_designated.jpg http://www.artofthestate.co.uk/photos/banksy_designated.jpg