I’m not talking about legalizing graffiti, I’m asking about what should happen to it after it’s done.
Banksy is of course the most celebrated artist of this kind: he basically goes around the world painting stuff on walls. Sometimes it is mostly silly, and other times it’s quite political and thoughtful, like the cutouts on the wall which separates Israel from the West Bank.
Some have gone so far to take down exterior walls of buildings and put them up for auction, with prices even above a million dollars. Other works just get painted over and essentially destroyed.
What’s more interesting to me is that some people have no clue what to do with it: ignore it? Paint over it? Protect it? Profit off of it? I heard on the radio last night that the people referenced in the article put up a garage door over the graffiti, so that the door is opened during the day to let people look at it, and rolled down at night to protect it from vandals. As much as those in the article are thrilled by “owning” an original artwork, they didn’t ask for it, and don’t really have the means to look after it in any meaningful way.
So what should happen to street art that happens to be great? Should it be protected, and if so, who is going to pay for that? Is it okay to disassemble and sell it for profit, even if it’s against the artist’s wishes? Or should any bit of graffiti, whether it’s as worthless as poorly spray-painted tags or as valuable as masterpieces, be treated the same and subject to neglect or destruction?
Personally, I fail to see how the fame of the criminal/painter should in any way overrule the rights of the property owner. If the property owner wants to leave it up as is, fine. If they want to remove the wall and sell it, fine. If they want to paint it over, fine. If Banksy is caught, prosecuted, convicted and jailed, fine.
One of your linked articles mentioned that it belongs to the property owner to do with as wanted.
Frankly, no matter how good it is, if the “artist” is found, they should bear the cost of removal if that’s what’s desired.
Yeah, maybe an artist is so great that his work deserves protection. But the way you determine that is, if it’s good enough, then the owner will decide to save it. If he doesn’t, well then, it wasn’t good enough.
I’m sure Banksy doesn’t care, he’s deliberately making disposable art. What’s more it’s mostly made with stencils, so it’s infinitely repeatable.
When it’s intended as a mural, I love street art. When it’s tiny and insignificant, or a scrawl, I really dislike it and think it’s ugly. I’d rather it was firmly discouraged.
One assumes that by producing this artwork on something which is not his property and leaving it in situ, the artist is essentially gifting/donating it to the person who does own the property.
As such, they own the art and it’s theirs to do with as they please.
Cutting hunks of wall to offer at auction; buying a shark carcass in a huge tank of chemicals - with the need to change the shark every few years.
The high-maintenance nature of this stuff is always in the back of my mind. Banksy doesn’t seem to care if the work endures, but the Art World wants his stuff in circulation.
No real point here - just thinking about the state of the modern art world…
ETA: oh and I know the shark is by Hirst; I’m just thinking about high-maint modern art…
Incidentally, I’ve heard that that some urban property-owners will actually hire local graffiti artists to produce something that’s not too offensive, because the existence of a quality piece of art will generally deter the less-tasteful taggers.
More amusing to me (in a dark humour way, I feel terrible for the owner), is where someone commissioned Banksy to paint on their own property and the local council painted over most of it.
Related question: Let’s say Banksy turned my mailbox into a piece of art one night while I slept. I decide to sell it. Much of the monetary value would presumably be due to the fame of the artist. Is there a way to identify or “authenticate” a Banksy piece?
