I don’t know if “increasing the value of something by up to one million dollars” can properly be defined as “vandalism.”
John Cage gets all the credit for 4’33" even though my grandpa had performed it a year earlier; the art itself was nothing, the story around it everything.
You know how much a first edition of James Audubon’s Birds of America goes for? Ten million, easy. And that’s for a published book, which by definition, is a copy.
And yet, no one ever reads a story like that, and decides it means that all literature is bullshit.
Nobody buys Birds of America just because it’s written and illustrated by James Audubon. It is a work that can and does stand on its own merits, where wanker fodder like 4’33" is literally nothing without resorting to “So-and-so made it, so it must be good” bullshit.
Remember that story about the world-famous violinist who played in the subway and nobody stop to give him money? That story was pretty silly too.
That would have been my thought. I don’t follow modern art but Banksy is well enough known that I would recognize his style. So if I had come across that stall I would have thought “Here’s a guy selling Banksy-like paintings.”
Millions of dollars’ worth?
Well, not really. I mean, it’s a great work of ornithology by 19th century standards, but (and I admit I making an assumption here) I’m pretty sure in the intervening two hundred years or so since he published it, we’ve learned quite a bit more about the birds of America. We’ve also invented the camera, so we can see what the birds actually look like, instead of having to rely on the interpretation of an artist, however talented. By any objective standard, surely, a more modern ornithology book would be vastly more valuable. And yet they do not, generally speaking, fetch ten million dollars at auction.
So, I think the name on the dust jacket actually has quite a bit to do with the value of the book.
I don’t think he would say it’s bullshit, just that it’s adjustable. It’s a new way to think about the value of modern art where almost every conversation has at least one guy saying that the current method of valuing art is a scam. So here we have the artist himself lowering the cost of his work and showing that this doesn’t help, people still say it’s a scam, or assume that it is and keep walking.
Now, I love a Banksy. I think his work is smart and funny and beautiful and I would have bought a $60 canvas because I liked it and wanted to see it in my home every day. It wouldn’t matter to me that it wasn’t a “real” Banksy any more than it would bother me to have a real Warhol and know that he hadn’t actually made it with his own hands. This may have something to do with the fact that both use stencils and those are meant to be used to recreate the exact same image multiple times so a copy actually is an original, but it’s also a reminder to buy what you like, not what you think you can sell later for a profit.
I can see his talent and would appreciate it in another context and yes it can be art and vandalism but in my mind the vandalism trumps the art aspect. Never said it wasn’t art just that it was vandalism.
I’ve seen lots of graffiti where the person doing it clearly has talent doesn’t mean it is okay to do it.
Does the fact that he is famous make it different from some high school kid doing the same thing just on a different level?
By the way, I’ve heard about how much some of Banksy’s work sells for, but as much of it is done on other people’s buildings, don’t they profit when it sells and not him? So how does he make money, to afford things like spending a month in New York?
I’m not particularly enamored with Banksy’s work and my philosophical position puts me at odds with street artists in general, but I do really like him when he prods the art world like this. Exit Through the Gift Shop is excellent and this seems to be along the same lines. The message I take away is “for god’s sake, stop worshiping big name artists as celebrities and instead embrace the ‘lesser’ works of beauty around you.”
Scottie Pippen the Ricardian Socialist small forward or Scottie Pippen the Neo-Keynesian small forward?
Sorry that’s silly. Of course he was the Chicago School.
Yes, they do.
He makes prints as well (like the ones on sale, funnily enough). His work is stencil-based so easily replicable. Many other UK artists work in similar mediums, with their work originating in street art but extending to more traditional mediums. Another such artist is Pure Evil.
I have bought limited edition prints by similar artists at a great little gallery in London called Nelly Duff - they sell Banksy prints, but also much cheaper works.
He should try it here- in Bristol, England- he could join the three other regular stalls (that I’m aware of) selling Banksy prints…
A lot of the graffitti round here (including some of the Banksy stuff) was done with the consent of the owners- some I’ve heard that directly from said owners, others are in locations that need scaffolding to get to, and on a scale that takes several days to complete. Hardly spray 'n run tagging.
Just to increase the thread’s statistical data…I can’t name any single contemporary artist, and I’ve also never heard of this guy or the movie about him.
I’m intrigued however by the conceptual question of, if vandalism increases the value of the structure, does it remain vandalism? I suppose it depends on whether vandalism is defined by social, monetary, property, or legality views.
So, in his case, he’s legally committing vandalism. He’s only committing property vandalism to those owners who want to undo his ‘damage’. He’s only committing social vandalism to those who dislike graffiti or his art on aesthetic principles.
So, to sum up, this guy is 25% of an artist that I’ve never heard of, and 75% of a vandal that I’ve never heard of 
He probably already has, given that Banksy is from Bristol.
Bristol seems to have a ‘thing’ about street art - am I right in thinking it’s encouraged or even funded by the council?
I’ve just moved here! Hey neighbour!
And you, apparently, are 0% of someone who knows anything about art.