Does Anyone See This As Art?

[Treffie]

Or just as grafitti?


All by Banksy.


http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0710/sweep_banksy_1031.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/images/2008/04/02/banksy_bang300_300x400.jpg

http://wwbi.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/banksy_cctv_narrowweb__300x4590.jpg

http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10/07a_31_banksy_415x638.jpg

http://visualresistance.org/wordpress/images/banksy_westbank.jpg

http://www.itravelnet.com/photos/eu/england/bristol/banksy-bristol.jpg

http://emgfo.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/banksy4.jpg

http://www.planetvideo.com.au/blog/2008/11/14/banksy-431.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksy

[Beorn]

No, I do not see it as art.
I see it as graffiti which people fawn over to compliment.

The establishment wish to stamp out graffiti, yet publicly praise Banksy?

Where is the common sense?

[Treffie]

Personally I see it as Art as it makes a statement. Most of the images are powerful and immediately start you thinking. However, I don't understand the `urban hero` status that Banksy has achieved.

[Ulf]

It's graffiti, but it looks a hell of a lot better than some assholes who just spray their name/gang all over. I think it's art, it sure takes talent to do that type of graffiti and it is often thought provoking/controversial which is one of the reasons the government would disapprove.

[Ulf]

http://www.weburbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/belfast-3.jpg

[Æmeric]

If they don't own the property, the art/mural or whatever you want to call it, is painted on, it is vandalism. Some gangs in Southern California use this kind of "art" to mark their territories.

If it is sanction by the owners or proper authorities it could be called art - but that doesn't necessary mean it is all in good taste.

[Beorn]

Personally I see it as Art as it makes a statement.

If placed in the correct venue, then yes, it is art.


However, I don't understand the `urban hero` status that Banksy has achieved.

More down to the perceived 'two fingers' up at authority.

A Bristol based cleaning company working for Bristol City Council, were largely handled away by residents when attempting to paint over, or remove, (I'm not too sure now), one painting by Banksy on a residential street.

[Revenant]

Technically yes it's art. Urban art of a more unique sort.

I don't consider it art personally though.

[Lady L]

I think it is art. I think if you took it off the walls it wouldn't have the same reaction...I think it belongs there/not on some canvas...

Since when does art have to be only on paper anyway..?


:)

[Aemma]

Well personally I agree with Tref and do consider it art. As Ulf stated, it sure beats some of the graffiti that gets posted by gangs just marking their territory. And also I agree with Mrs L. that it does belong on public walls. It is another type of art...not all of it belongs in a museum or gallery. I also agree with Æmeric as well though in that it too can be seen as vandalism if the work was not commissioned and was placed on public buildings without invitation shall we say.

In the end, I think that these examples at any rate show beautiful guerilla type of artwork. It sure beats the absolutely preposterous "high art" painting that my own government bought about a decade ago now. I forget the piece's name now (yes it's that memorable) but it basically consisted of three large vertical swaths of colour painted on a huge canvas. Apparently we the taxpayers here paid millions of dollars for this thing. Gods, anybody could have painted the thing! :mad:

Cheers!...Aemma

[Jägerstaffel]

I'd be pissed if someone used my property as a canvas for their art; creative or not.

[Birka]

Very interseting, but not "art". I would be very angry if my taxes were used to pay this guy for this.

[Psychonaut]

If they don't own the property, the art/mural or whatever you want to call it, is painted on, it is vandalism. Some gangs in Southern California use this kind of "art" to mark their territories.

If it is sanction by the owners or proper authorities it could be called art - but that doesn't necessary mean it is all in good taste.

Graffiti is a huge problem here as well. You can hardly drive anywhere outside of the tourist areas without seeing both private and public property that has been illegally defaced by local "artists." I think there's certainly a place for public outdoor art, but what I see when I drive through town is as much art as rap music is.

[woody]

I'm going to throw in my 2 cents. If it was done on someone's own property, canvas, wall, or the person was commissioned/hired/paid to to it on that person's wall, it's art. Art doesn't really have to "say" anything.

If someone paints/draws on property that belongs to someone else and permission was NOT given, it is graffiti, therefore, vandalism.

You treat it just like sex. Sex feels great. But, if a woman doesn't give a man permission, then it is rape (vandalism). If the woman gives permission, it is consensual (art). Of course, the damage done differs greatly between rape and vandalism, but I'm just comparing rape and consensual sex to vandalism and art. Permission vs no permission.

If I caught someone putting "art" on my wall, I would create "art" with their brain with a gun. But, that's just me. Though, I just saw where some cracker-ass thug is making bank because his graffiti got noticed and he's making "art" for people now. Of course, he's not very original. Most of his "art" is a character that was the creation of someone else (smurfs, mickey mouse, ect) and big cauliflower ears thrown on and "X"s instead of the eyes. For a project or two, I could see that as "art". But, when you just continue to do that same trick for everything, it because stale. They all look the same...just my 2 cents, again.

[Brännvin]

Well I see both.

Even though most graffiti is horrible looking, like almost anything today it is considered a art. Though this discussion is a little confusing because anything can be art and vandalism no matter how good or bad it looks.

Personally I dislike graffiti, which I find something related to visual pollution, criminality and urban decay. I can not speak for other places, however in Malmö, Helsingborg and Copenhagen that is visibly noticeable in day to day.

[Útrám]

Well made graffiti is fine with me, as long as there is not too much of it.

[Atlas]

Art for me aswell, especially the first picture, very well done.
I'm so used of the ugly graffitis we have here on the trains, on old manufactories etc... that when I see something beautiful like this, I can consider it art.

Those who paint trucks, homes or even cars, are total asshole. People work for this.

[Tabiti]

Personally, I don't like graffiti, especially those ugly inscriptions on walls. Yes, there are some graffiti people with talents and their works can be considered art.
The most I dislike about graffiti is the culture and views of their artists. Here they are mostly those wiggers, marijuana lovers, Bob Marley fans and so on. Almost no people with my ideas to do graffiti, instead some scratching of "Holocaust is a Zionist lie", "Kill the gypsies" and so on slogans...Also quite ugly and stupid...

[Äike]

That is art, unlike 99% of graffiti.

In Estonia, most of the graffiti is done by Russians. It looks like this: "Dima was here" "Masha was here" "Vladimir was here" etc. That's not art, that's pure vandalism.

Only very few graffiti artists know how to make real art.

[Eldritch]

If he does this without permission it's not art -- it's vandalism. I'm not denying that this guy has talent, because judging from those pictures he does, but he needs to find a more constructive way to fulfill his potential.

[Beorn]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2008/05/06/banksy.jpg


Council officials have painted over a Banksy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/banksy) graffiti sketch that was used by the band Blur (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/blur) as the cover artwork for their 2003 single Crazy Beat.
The artwork – a cartoon of the royal family waving from a balcony (http://www.artofthestate.co.uk/banksy/Banksy_blur_crazy_beat.htm) – had been left untouched on the side of a block of flats in Stoke Newington, east London (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/london), for eight years before Hackney council intervened last week.

Officials removed the sketch by Banksy (http://news.google.co.uk/news/url?sa=t&ct2=uk%2F0_0_s_1_0_t&usg=AFQjCNFKW4128J59IIiHCXqDaupA5WLjqQ&cid=1305448858&ei=W96gSsi6OMbUjAfw6LQR&rt=SEARCH&vm=STANDARD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hackneygazette.co.uk%2Fconten t%2Fhackney%2Fgazette%2Fnews%2Fstory.aspx%3Fbrand% 3DHKYGOnline%26category%3Dnews%26tBrand%3Dnorthlon don24%26tCategory%3Dnewshkyg%26itemid%3DWeED02%252 0Sep%25202009%252017%253A21%253A02%253A033) – whose works have sold for hundreds of thousands of pounds – as his largest exhibition to date, in Bristol, prepared to close. The exhibition has attracted over 300,000 visitors since 13 June, raising £45,000 in museum donations, and is estimated to have been worth £10m to the local economy.
Banksy vs Bristol Museum featured more than 100 works of art. The notoriously secretive artist was reported to have been secretly adding new installations to the exhibition by night.
A Stoke Newington blogger (http://thisisstokenewington.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/hackney-council-v-banksy/#comment-3692)known only as Kris broke the news of the artwork's removal.
She reported that council workers said they had told their employers about the importance of the artwork. "We knew it was a Banksy, love. It's a Stoke Newington landmark; we know that. We told them, but they wouldn't listen," wrote Kris.
The owner of the building, Sophie Attrill, told the Hackney Gazette that she was devastated when she saw the wall being painted.

"I looked out the window and saw what they were doing, so I ran downstairs and I told them to stop," said Attrill. Hackney council said it tried to contact Attrill before ordering the artwork to be painted over, but notices asking her to remove or cover up the piece had not reached her address due to the Land Registry having the incorrect contact details.
Alan Laing, the Hackney council cabinet member for neighbourhoods, said the council removed all graffiti regardless of artistic value.
"Hackney council does not make a judgment call on whether graffiti is art or not, our task is to keep Hackney's streets clean. We made four attempts to contact the owner of the property to inform her of our intention to remove the graffiti," said Laing.
"We are now speaking with her about how to resolve the issue."

It's not the first time Banksy has had his street art removed by authorities. In October last year Westminster city council removed a mural from Newman Street in central London after the deputy council leader, Robert Davis, said keeping it would be "condoning" graffiti.
In 2007 a piece showing a monkey preparing to blow up a bunch of bananas at Waterloo station in London was painted over by staff.



Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/sep/03/banksy-artwork-painted-over-hackney)

Congratulations to Hackney council for finally cleaning up the streets and facades of East London, even though it is a small dent in an otherwise huge disgusting shield.

Everytime I go to the children's hospital I'm forever accosted by that ugly Banksy graffitti hanging off the side of the wall, and would pay dearly to see that, and the whole street, get cleaned up.

I wonder if Sophie Attrill would be so welcoming to me spraying my artistic interpretation of the decline of Western society on the side of hee building?