It was pretty oblique :) I mean, there's a difference between those and the ones he puts on the street. It's not like he expects the street art to be treated well.
I don't think it's banksy who's complaining in this post (if he is elsewhere, ignore this comment). If anything I imagine he either (depending if you like him or not) relishes in the publicity, or enjoys watching the behaviour and opinions his work produces.
The October 12, 2013 one is Cooper Union student activism to make it look like Peter Cooper. They added a confessor painting of the Cooper Union president in the next "window"
This happens in London too, although usually it takes a little longer. Banky's "residence" in New York is clearly not being as appreciated by the local street artists as he was intending.
"street art" is the white commodification of graffiti. anyone decrying this "vandalization" of banksy's work should just buy it in coffee table book form so all the legitimate art isn't sullied by uncultured scribbling
I'm a huge fan of Banksy, but this article is so weird for me to read. Banksy's work is being called "art" and that it's being "vandalized" - but that's what Banksy's work is; it's vandalism.
Do people really think Banksy wants people out there removing chunks of walls or doors that he tags and putting them in museums or selling them to private owners for thousands of dollars?
Interesting thought. I'd disagree only because I saw a video[0] where NY residents are not only threatening to destroy these art installs but charging people that want to experience it.
Can you blame them? This is East New York we're talking about - one of the poorest, most violent neighborhoods in the country. This isn't Midtown Manhattan or Greenwich Village - this is a neighborhood that is usually discussed only in terms of fear and derision.
And now that Banksy has "blessed" it with one of his pieces, suddenly people who scoffed at the idea of ever stepping foot in ENY are arriving in droves.
Think about that for a second: people who look down on you, who do everything they can to "contain" the effects of your neighborhood, are now tourists. Not only are they tourists, they are tourists visiting in worship of a figure who has appropriated one of the primary cultural elements of poor urban areas and made it aesthetically and thematically palatable to the wealthy.
that's what all tags in nyc look like. and if you see the more 3 dimensional pieces from this set, they don't have a fraction of the self awareness that it would take to make a statement like that
In the eyes of the New York City Government what Banksy is doing is vandalism[1]:
"§ 10-117. Defacement of property, possession, sale and display of aerosol spray paint cans, [and] broad tipped markers and etching acid prohibited in certain instances."
Graffiti is a Sand Mandala[2], it is art and it is beautiful because of it's guaranteed impermanence. If Banksy's vandalism wasn't vandalized or taken down or painted over it wouldn't be as powerful as it is. It is a symbiotic relationship like a flower and a bee.
To learn about NYC graffiti history watch Style Wars[3] a 1982 documentary on the NYC scene.
Not exactly. The difference is that graffiti can not just be swept up or blown away with a leaf blower like sand. At a minimum, it must be painted over. Sometimes this results in large patches of mismatched colors on a wall. In more extreme cases, it is not possible to just paint over it so it must be scrubbed off.
the vandals who spray directly over it because it is a banksy are just butt hurt idiots, but it is interesting to see the cacophony of graffitti that springs up around his work, almost as if taggers think, "oh we can paint here".
no imaination in tagging, never has been never will be. its the equivalent of a dog pissing on a lamppost.
I've also lived in a house which constantly had a street side wall shittily tagged. Our solution was to organize a few of our graffiti artist friends to do a full mural. It worked, the little shits stopped tagging the wall.
It's about the intention. Banksy's intention was to create art. The other guy's intention was to destroy.
You can see art in destruction if you want, but the guy's intention clearly was to vandalize.
Same reason why Jackson Pollock's pieces sell for millions and I couldn't sell the stain in my garage for a dollar. Even though one could see art in that stain (just like one can see art in nature) having a car with a leaky exhaust doesn't make me an artist.
Destruction is a huge part of street art. No one expects their piece to be permanent. There is a loose code as to when it is acceptable to go over someones piece and a good one can stand for a long time but it won't be there unsullied forever.
These throw ups are making a real statement and it is this:
Banksy is no longer a street artist. He's chosen to give that up by selling out and his work is worth less than a shitty throw up to those in the scene.
'Artist' sprays wall he does not own. Then some 'vandal' have boldness to destroy it. In one case the 'vandal' was owner of the building who cleaned up the mess :-)
At least walls are finally alive. We're being wall-painting cave-dwellers again. And that's a good thing, especially when NYC has become such a controlled environment.
