This is a controversy that has just recently come up in Detroit. The infamous graffiti artist Banksy created a few works around Detroit, and just after one was spotted, a non-profit group swooped in, cut the wall down, and took the piece away to "protect" it. Some of you might be familiar with Banksy, he's an internationally known figure.
The controversy is over whether it was right or not to take the art, and who owns it. Does the actual owner of the wall own it? The community? the art community? Banksy himself? And for that matter, does removing the art from where it was painted destroy the art itself? In other words, is the value of street art intrinsically tied to its location?
I guess personally, my opinion is that street art, if it's determined to be of value should be left where it was created initially, and protected by some sort of city statute. If location is such a big deal, and it appears especially important in this particular case, then it should be enjoyed in its native environment. But, I think that after a period of time, it should be removed and preserved, but well documented/cataloged so that it can best be understood from its original context regardless of where it ends up being displayed. I think it would be cool to go to a graffiti art museum and see not only the pieces, but also photos of where they are from, and some historical analysis of why the location matters and why that piece matters.
Thoughts?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That's pretty funny. I read the title of your thread and came in intending to say "Well, if its by Bansky or Shepard, you do what you can to keep it."
But people cutting away walls in order to 'protect' the art aren't 'protecting' anything. They're stealing an art piece in a way that acquires them possession of its resale value and display rights.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah that's a problem I have with what was done here specifically. Here's this group that now has control over a potentially valuable, in dollar and cultural terms, piece of art, but they really don't have any right to it. I think there should be some official apparatus in place to deal with situations like this.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Eh. If you insist on putting paint on walls owned by other people, then you've given them a gift and have no further control over that paint. Whoever owned the wall originally may have a legit beef with both Banksy and the wall-takers, but Banksy has no claim on the wall.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Take a picture and paint over it. It's vandalism. The owner of the property owns it, unless there was an agreement between the artist and the owner.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I didn't know much about Banksy so I did some googling and found this great article about his visit to New Orleans. A few years ago, there was some controversy over a guy who was going around the city painting over graffiti with this hideous gray paint. Like the graffiti artists he was trying to erase, the "Gray Ghost" applied paint to various properties without the permission of the owners. What's worse, he began to paint over approved murals and community art projects meant to inspire the people in a post-Katrina New Orleans. All while receiving grant money from out-of-touch city officials.
What KoM and kat said. I don't see a controversy.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: But people cutting away walls in order to 'protect' the art aren't 'protecting' anything.
Interestingly, much of the left (west, IIRC) wing of the British Museum consists of stuff that was cut away from walls, hieroglyphs/tomb walls from Egypt, two or three hallways of wall cuttings from an Assyrian palace, and ending with the infamous Elgin Marbles from the Parthenon.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Take a picture and paint over it. It's vandalism. The owner of the property owns it, unless there was an agreement between the artist and the owner.
I sort of agree and disagree. If Da Vinci came back to life today and painted the Mona Lisa on the side of a building, it would be vandalism, and it would also be art. Vandalism doesn't mean that it isn't art. However, I agree that whoever owns the wall still owns and has control over whatever is done. That's a problematic reality in street art.
Here we have a situation however, where the picture was drawn on a crumbling abandoned building that I think does have an owner, but no one has been able to get hold of. At the moment, he doesn't seem to care one way or the other.
For me, the question in general, isn't who owns it. I think the owner of the wall owns it. But I think there is some question as to the often applied belief that all vandalism is inherently worthless, or a blight. I think if we valued it, as in some cases it should be, people might choose differently what to do with their walls when presented with the opportunity.
This case sort of lies outside the general question though. Most cases in Detroit do, given the availability of crumbling abandoned buildings.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
How about Reverse Graffiti? Technically, these graffiti artists are cleaning. Is that still vandalism?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: How about Reverse Graffiti? Technically, these graffiti artists are cleaning. Is that still vandalism?
Done without permission, yes. Again, I don't see how there's a controversy here.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
What was his crime?
quote:Hailing from Brazil, Alexandre sees his art work as a way of getting an environmental message across to those who ordinarily wouldn’t listen. A few years ago he adorned a transport tunnel in Sao Paolo with a mural consisting of a series of skulls [by wiping the grime off of a fence] to remind drivers of the detrimental impact their emissions have on the planet.
The Brazilian authorities were incensed but couldn’t actually charge him with anything so they instead cleaned the tunnel. At first the cleaned only the parts Alexandre had cleared but after the artist switched to the opposite wall they had to clean that too. In the end, the authorities decided to wash every tunnel in the city, missing the irony completely, it seems.
[ May 19, 2010, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: The White Whale ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The Elgin Marbles were paid for. Also, much of the British Museum is war loot, which is a bit of a special case: That is, it is clearly theft, but short of invading Great Britain what are you going to do about it?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Not from the Greeks. In any case, I'm not suggesting a course of action, merely pointing out that cutting away art is somewhat of a old tradition. i.e. Why start the conversation about small potatoes like graffiti?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Because the other conversation is already started, and frankly, it's not going anywhere.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Given the Celtic migrations, presentday Britons are probably more related to AncientGreeks than presentday Greeks, who are probably more related to presentday Turks than to AncientGreeks.
Same thing with most other jingoist claims of national ownership of ancient art and cultural artifacts.
[ May 21, 2010, 02:59 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Unlike Blayne, I don't think I can be jingoistic on behalf of a different nationality, let alone the Greeks.
That said, note "In any case, I'm not suggesting a course of action, merely pointing out that cutting away art is somewhat of a old tradition."
For me, this is primarily a discussion about morality, not pragmatic because most of us have little influence on going-ons in Detroit except for Lyrhawn himself. Given that, it makes sense to discuss wall scraping to "preserve" art in general.