You must log in or # to comment.
Banksy
Guess
All I see are two companies.
sip
Banksy is overrated sentimental trash and I will die on this hill. Also yeah it’s a money making cooperative, not a single artist
Also aren’t a few of his(their) pieces literally made of collages of other people’s art?
That’s fair use. Using small parts of something to create something new. It’s transformative in nature.
Is banksy making money from those images? Afaik no one’s ever claimed the graffiti to sell it.
How did this play out?
Umm, isn’t Banksy’s entire career centered around helping himself to others property without asking permission?
I’m honestly confused if he is using this display to advance his subversive messaging or if he is upset that he is the one being subverted.
As far as I know, he doesn’t make money from that. He gets publicity from street art, but it’s not like someone is paying for it —at least, they aren’t paying for it to be created, but many will pay more for it after.
The public has a right to public spaces
wait wait wait wait … if I vandalize property, do I get intellectual property rights over the creation?? Or even ignoring the legal aspect, do I get moral rights to the creation? Not sure I have the balls to make that claim.
Yes, you absolutely do get Copyright protection: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom (see the section on “Qualification for protection”)
You don’t get property rights over the physical object, but you automatically get copyright protections on the work itself.
Those are completely separate things and there’s no reason they would be tied together.
You don’t get property rights over the physical object
Woah, not true dude! I’ve spent enough time with gangbangers to know that if you tag something, it means you own that entire city block, and anyone who says differently gets their ass kicked, or shot.
curious how you know it’s vandalism. like murals are a thing, getting approval from the building owner is a thing, one of the parts I miss most about my hometown was the art everywhere, but “fuck you” if you use spray paint as your medium I guess
You’re asserting that Banksy gets permission from the owner of the wall before they paint on it? If so there’s a lot of people out there pretending to know nothing about it when some art appears on their walls.
I’m not asserting anything, I was asking why he was asserting that it was definitively vandalism lol
How is creating a work of art by an artist of worldwide renown on an ugly bare concrete wall vandalism? If it in some way affected the utility or even the aesthetics, you might have a point. But trying to make a crime out of improving public spaces through art is just silly.
except that it’s literally a crime to vandalize public spaces to impose your ideas, aesthetics, and art on the public. Are you in actual denial or what is happening here?
this is not a comment on my opinion of Banksy’s artistic value. But a major component of their art is the simple fact that it IS a crime. If you take that away, it loses most of its meaning.
Cool…so it’s ok for businesses to force their ideas, aesthetics, and art on the public because…money?
I think it’s more ownership and permission than money (although unfortunately they often overlap). You’re allowed to paint your own house, but not somebody else’s unless you have permission to do so.
Exactly. You can get a permit to place artwork on public property, but there’s a significant amount of red tape there. You can even be commissioned to place artwork on public property, but that’s pretty niche.
If you don’t want to deal with that, place your artwork on private property and display it publicly from there.
You should be able to form your arguments about the merits of Banksy’s work and whether or not they commit crimes without pulling in emotional and irrelevant facts like, “I don’t like everything I can see advertized (typically on private property) from public.”
Look, their whole shtick is that their art is criminal. That’s their fucking gimmick. I don’t know why people are pushing back so hard on this.
The point isnt that it is illegal to do, but the criticism expressed towards many societal issues and capitalism. The fact that it is often done clandestinely is more an indication for a desire for his personal privacy and/or safety I would guess, albeit I admit that it meshes well with the anti system message.
It seems hypocritical from my standpoint. He can use private property as much as he wants for his art, but no one can infringe on his god given copyright? He can’t have it both ways, either they are both in the wrong or neither of them are.
The problem is this isn’t a person using his art, it’s a company using it to make more money. So in this case he can have it both ways.
