Art, graffiti or criminal damage?
Or maybe criminal damage if a valuable work of art?
What do you think?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2z30p033ro.amp Link to BBC News article.
What do you think?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2z30p033ro.amp Link to BBC News article.
A mural by the street artist Banksy is being removed from the wall of a court building in London.
The mural appeared on an external wall of the Queen's Building, in the Royal Courts of Justice complex, on Monday.
The image depicted a protester lying on the ground holding a blood-spattered placard while a judge, in a wig and gown, looms over him, wielding a gavel.
The work has been covered up at various points since it was discovered and guarded by security staff, with the HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirming that it would be removed due to the building being listed and therefore legally protected.
Comments
I would argue that to the extent it is art, it is art of an ephemeral nature, and it has to be presumed that the artist painted it on the property of another with the understanding that it would not be a permanent work of art, that its artistic value lay as much in the discussions and reactions it would prompt as in the work itself, and that its removal should not only be expected but serves the artistic of goal of generating discussion.
For that reason alone it should be scrubbed off.
MMM
But a blind eye is often turned - especially with Banksy. Or the owner has the work carefully removed and sells it.
A blind eye is often turned for tourism or other reasons. Belfast City Council has approved plans to create legal graffiti walls to provide spaces for artists to practice their craft without legal consequences. But the illegal work is not removed for tourism and political reasons.
Brick Lane in London is another example of a blind eye being turned by authorities - but not by other street artists, don't tread on their toes!
Here is an interesting blog post - https://strawberrytours.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-londons-street-art-scene
"If graffiti changed anything, it would be illegal" Banksy.
Of course he knew the work on the courts would be removed. That's why he did it.
Also British judges don't use gavels.
I can't help thinking that Mike is creating publicity for himself once again to ensure that his value continues to ascend. Maybe that's a bit cynical, I just don't see that this kind of art really adds anything to the cultural conversation.
I think of his stuff as art for people who really don't know about art, but enjoy being stroked by a message they agree with. And I don't think that being famous gives anyone carte blanche to scrawl over someone elses roperty.
"Explore the latest street art and celebrate Bristol's unique creative culture, where the walls change weekly."
A lot of the work is excellent - especially work by Nick Harvey aka Kin Dose or Kin One (Same person).
We live half an hour from these walls yet we aren't even allowed to paint our walls the 'wrong' colour. My friend wanted to paint her house a slightly different shade of pale pink and had to seek written permission.
She should go to live in Aberaeron, famed for its colourful buildings (and a lovely place to visit): https://tinyurl.com/4zb69cjj
Tobermory is another possibility ...
Back when art was primarily funded by patronage that was a lot of art.
True.
Yes, both. Hers is the pale pink house - https://photos.app.goo.gl/JbcgRdmGSzvXcgeb8
I've been to Tobermory many times. We visited Mull every year when the boys were small. Aberaeron looks lovely.
Our house isn't listed but I think Words would be had if I filled the outside walls with works of art.
First, I think if it's my building, I have the absolute right to maintain its exterior, which would include removing someone else's graffiti, regardless of how artistic that graffiti was.
Second, if it's my building and you draw on it, you're the one engaged in criminal damage, regardless of how pretty your drawing is.
Suppose I own a cafe, and Andy Warhol strolls by one day and, without permission, sprays a small stencil of Marilyn Monroe on my outside wall.
Fantastic! Makes the place look good, brings in free advertising, shoots up the property value etc.
A year later, Roy Lichtenstein comes by and, also without permission, sprays a small stencil of the worried girl on my wall. Man, things just keep getting better!
Another year later, and some nobody in a lumber jacket comes by and does a third-rate stencil of Eddy The Head smoking a giant reefer on my wall.
In whatever civil or criminal legal measures I might pursue against the heavy-metal hipster, would his lawyers be able to weaken my position by pointing out that I did not pursue similar measures against Warhol and Lichtenstein when they vandalized my wall?
For this reason, pay Warhol and Lichtenstein $1 each (or £1 or €1 or whatever) to make it a business transaction, get a receipt, then the Eddy artist can't claim favoritism.
I wonder if in this case there may be legal issues with a political artwork outside a law court, as well as the fact that this is a listed building so changes can’t be made to it without permission.
And if it is my wall I'm perfectly within my rights to wash it off. I don't care if people think Mike's stencils are worth millions.
As an aside, there's an interesting thing about celebrity artists in our era. In the past many/most artists were either entirely anonymous or unrecognised in their era. Even the greats like Mondrian and van Gogh had trouble giving away their works during their lifetimes.
Street and protest art is a whole other thing, particularly when it is mixed in with celebrity and wealth.
It's a strange experience seeing it there. Warhol made lots of versions of his iconic soup based art, one of which is on a wall in a gallery in Switzerland.
I do see that street art is best experienced on the street. There's some really interesting things to see in Barcelona and probably lots of other cities.
This one brightens up a drab wall and, hopefully, deters the scribbling taggers.
https://www.northdevongazette.co.uk/news/home/1677858/ilfracombe-brightened-by-new-sea-themed-mural.html
That would be a good idea, but my story assumed that I wasn't thinking about the long-term legal implications when the first two images were put up, and might not even have had any contact with the artists.
It doesn't have to be famous artists, either. Just two images I like, a third I dislike, and does a failure to pursue legal action in the first two cases undermine my position if I pursue legal action in the third.
Or you could just paint over the one you dislike. Or remove it and sell it for a fortune. 🙂
Indeed.
Our auditory and atmospheric environment is a shared resource. Anything you do that unnecessarily affects my health, that impinges on my right to avail myself of (relatively) clean air and the peace of mind and body that comes with a low decibel (within health norms) environment, is a form of antisocial behaviour.
One might extend that POV to our visual environment as also a form of shared resource. At what point does your right to erect an ugly edifice impinge upon my right to a view that doesn't include your architectural posturing or lack of taste or lack of budget to implement your taste?
We have enshrined property law as our god given right to own the land and express our individual or collective identites through the structures we build upon it. It's not just about the function of the creation, it's also about its location, form and ornament. Which is why the public is invited to comment on new constructions.
If an edifice is owned by the people through the application of collected taxes, then who can say who has a greater right to embellish that edifice than those people?
But this happened in England where feudal property laws and the rights of the Crown have precedence so, I guess until the republic rises, y'all are stuck with whatever you have, and Banksy gets scrubbed and jailed for damaging the Crown's property.
AFF
In this case it's a public building, which moves it more into the category of 'street and protest art' as previously mentioned or indeed of 'non violent direct action'
(Sidenote if it actually were a listed building, you would not in fact have an 'absolute right to maintain its exterior')
I think even in a republic, the right of an individual artist to put his unsolicited work on a courthouse and have it stay there is pretty thin.
The artist would have anticipated this, I think.
Yep.
For all we know.
Banksy is an actual artist whose work sells for millions. I think the best way to find out if The People would like to retain the value added to the edifice is to ask them directly.
After all, it's not like some teenage gang banger tagged the wall.
I think such an important work is an issue worthy of a plebiscite.
However, it is the ephemeral nature of street art to be temporary. To be scrubbed or overpainted. I doubt Banksy will care either way. I think if it's scrubbe it will say more about us than it will about him.
AFF
I'm sure people in America are supremely comfortable with, for example, graffiti on nuclear silos. Around here, you don't get to daub whatever you like on a public building just because you claim to be a representative of "the people" who own it.
If it's so offensive, why is such a big deal being made? Scrub it and move on, don't create a whole faux outrage imprison the artist snit out of it. Just about nobody would have known it was there if they scrubbed it without fanfare next morning.
AFF
You don’t get to do that in America either.
If it’s worthy of a plebiscite (which I don’t think it is, and at least where I live in the US would likely be a legal impossibility), then it was worthy of a plebiscite to ask whether it should be painted in the first place.
I assume he counted on it being scrubbed. More publicity that way.
"Non-violent direct action" is generally intentionally breaking the law in some non-violent fashion in order to draw attention to some cause or other. Very much like drawing on someone else's stuff.
The fact that "someone else" here is a government body is irrelevant. I don't get to go and repaint the town hall just because I think it would be nicer a different color. The fact that it may be owned collectively by "the people" doesn't give an individual person the unilateral right to make alterations to it. There is no more an implied right for me to graffiti the town hall or police station than there is a right for me to graffiti my neighbor's house.
No, very much not like drawing on someone else's stuff, it's focused on a particular building and not on some random 'someone'.
And sure, it's breaking the law, which I'm sure will be applied equally to all such graffiti.
Irony.
Much like the people that like to chuck red paint over war memorials as part of their protest?
Banksy often attests his creations when they go up, which in this case appears to have been on instagram, with the caption "Royal Courts Of Justice. London." I don't think there was ever any danger of it not being widely noticed.
It's sometimes better to ask forgiveness than permission. This is a victimless "crime".
I'm certain that the People to whose property this paint was applied are aware of the millions of pounds in value such an artist's donation of work accrues to their estate.
The more controversy, the higher the value.
I think they know what they are doing.
AFF
I used to know someone in the police at Greenham Common, which was a famous peace encampment outside of an RAF based used by the Americans to store nuclear warheads.
This guy was a civilian and he said to me that the majority of his job was keeping the protestors from getting shot my the American military. The protestors would cut a hole in the fence and the British police would rush over there to stop them getting anywhere near the silos.
The idea that the American military would allow graffiti on a nuclear silo is an example of irony because the American military would blow your head off long before you were anywhere close to it.
Unfortunately, both sarcasm and irony can be lost when posting on a forum such as this because readers lack the cues provided by voice tone and facial expressions, and because the variety of cultural backgrounds of those participating can result in a lack of shared cultural contexts on which things like sarcasm and irony often rely.
Hiding behind the facade of a listed building...
Come the revolution, first up against the wall will be a plethora of street art. And the market will tank.
Alternatively...
The primary purpose of the three branches of British Government is to maintain the established system of property ownership and preserve the value of property. Including art markets. I suggest the value of Banksy's work might fall if the primary target of his critique was seen to be complicit in the creation of his works.
So it's not just controversy, it's the right amount of controversy - the tricky balancing act artistically successful critics must perform if they are to stay relevant. (While maximising their market potential.)
Well and it seems that the right amount of controversy has been achieved.
Banksy's art can be performative. Vis a vis the painting that sold at auction and shredded itself right after the gavel fell. The shredded pieces are now worth so much more than the original work because of the statement made by the performance.
The work in question has been scrubbed, but owing to the deliberately formulated special chemistry of the underlying black paint, what is left is a ghostly shadow of the original work, leaving us with the message that "Justice is a shadow of its former self".
And soon even that shadow will be erased, and the message will be even more stark.
Take a bow, Banksy. It's a perfect performance.
AFF