Banksy in NYC - art, or vandalism?

[Deb in IA]

Banksy, the British graffiti artist and political activist, began a one-month "artist-in-residence" show on the streets of New York City this month.

Since then, his works, with their signature stencils and political commentary, have been popping up on an almost daily basis all around the city:

He even has a website just for this display, complete with audio guide:

http://www.banksyny.com/#

So, what do you think about this?

Personally, I like his art, and his social commentary. Certainly better than your usual gang-related obscenities usually seen in graffiti. And I hope the authorities in NYC don't scrub them off anytime soon.

And have any of you NY DIS'ers seen any of these?

 

[JennaDeeDooDah]

I personally believe that if you paint something that you don't own without the permission of the owner (or proper authorities), it is vandalism. Unfortunately for this artist, I'd have to say that what he is doing falls under the graffiti definition.

 

[wiigirl]

Its defienetly art in my opinion. Its also vandalism....which I think is part of the artistic point of it.

 

[Fortuosity]

Does he have permission? If not, it's vandalism no matter what it looks like.

(I say this as one who has vandalized the property of close friends, as well as trespassed on the property of close friends and complete strangers. What can I say? I don't/didn't drink, smoke, chew or go with girls who do/did, but I have done my share of "decorating" houses and vehicles as well as exploring many a wood, field and stream on private property not my own back in the day.)

 

[skatalite]

It's art.

 

[Handbag Lady]

I personally believe that if you paint something that you don't own without the permission of the owner (or proper authorities), it is vandalism. Unfortunately for this artist, I'd have to say that what he is doing falls under the graffiti definition.

Vandalism. It can be art, but art can be vandalism, too. I don't like it when it defaces another person's property and that bit angers me.

 

[Kimberle]

It doesn't matter how beautiful it is, when you don't have permission, it is vandalism.

 

[Cindy B]

Did you see the story of how Bansky set up shop in Central Park trying to sell his art--- It's a fascinating story

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...yet-selling-his-art-on-the-street-for-60.html

 

[lisaviolet]

Both. And I love it.

 

[tasha99]

I agree that it's both. Love it and wouldn't scrub it off if he painted my wall.

 

[DisneyDreamer2504]

I live near the piece shown in the 3rd pic. I'm def on the fence about how I feel about his work. On the one side I think its much lovelier than much graffiti art you see around the city, but I still think he shouldn't do it without permission. I'm sure there's plenty of places around the city that would allow him bc it is nice art. I'm a superintendent and I know if this showed up on my building, we'd prob have to paint over it before anyone really got to enjoy it. And I'm sure many of these will be covered up soon enough either by owners or other artists.

 

[Cantw8]

criminal or not, I found it awesome

 

[aprilchem]

I think Banksy is a criminal, and I think he should be arrested. His "art" is simply painting on items other people own, which is illegal.

 

[Kathi OD]

Let's just say, that if someone painted something that was even 1/2 as amazing as those examples, on a building I owned, for free, I wouldn't be in the least bit upset, even if they didn't ask permission first.

 

[JessicaR]

Some owners of the buildings are making a fortune off of his art.

Annette Markowski, an NYPD public information officer, told CNN police have not launched an investigation of Banksy because they have not received any complaints of vandalism related to the artist.

Many of Banksy's pieces in The Big Apple don't last long after they are located, either defaced by local graffiti artists who don't like an outsider on their turf, or relocated and preserved to be sold to galleries and collectors by whomever owns the property Banksy happened to choose as his canvas.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/24/us/new-york-banksy-art/

Only one more week until he moves on. I love looking at his work.

 

[Hayleybot]

Love banksy. I've always appreciated street art. Illegal or not, it's still art.

 

[JenM]

Did anyone see Stephen Colbert invite him to come vandalize his studio?

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-co...ber-07-2013/banksy-s-new-york-reign-of-terror

 

[ZephyrHawk]

It's art, it's just not legal. And as illegal art goes, it's not destructive, it utilizes (for the most part) blank walls that aren't being put to any beneficial use by their nominal "owners", and actually increases the value of the property (sometimes by hundreds of thousands of dollars). If Banksy "tags" your building your first call should not be to the police, but to a property insurance expert.

DH and I randomly ran across some Banksy art in Venice. It was cool.

 

[FireDancer]

It is art. If the owner of the property objects it is also vandalism and he should be fined or arrested but so far I haven't heard of anyone complaining. I think some are creative and some are boring but I don't think any of the ones I've seen posted are all that political.

 

[ariel71]

It's art, it's just not legal. And as illegal art goes, it's not destructive, it utilizes (for the most part) blank walls that aren't being put to any beneficial use by their nominal "owners", and actually increases the value of the property (sometimes by hundreds of thousands of dollars). If Banksy "tags" your building your first call should not be to the police, but to a property insurance expert.

DH and I randomly ran across some Banksy art in Venice. It was cool.

"Art" is subjective - someone might as well just post "42" as the answer. I find it amusing that people attribute value to a painting of Ronald McDonald getting his shoes shined while a beautiful piece by some unknown graffiti artist is worth nothing because it doesn't have "Banksy" on it. For those who think street art is "art" no matter the context, is it OK for anyone to paint the side of your house with whatever they want? Or is it only "art" if you like it or other people "say" it is now art because it's trendy?

The only real value to a "nominal owner" is if they're willing to sell and someone else is willing to buy. I personally wouldn't want to have to hire security guards, worry about property damage, or have hundreds of visitors outside my home every day (see second link). It's one thing to own art that you can control; quite another to be responsible for something that's subject to the whims of anyone walking by.

Per the first article below, it also says it is difficult for said "owners" to validate the authenticity of his pieces. Interesting that Banksy himself is wealthy and yet hates the commercialism associated with his work.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/daniell...who-doesnt-want-his-art-to-be-worth-anything/

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/10/im-the-accidental-owner-of-a-banksy.html

Interesting social dilemma all around with inherent hypocrisy on both sides of the argument. I think vandalism and graffiti are illegal and should be treated as such. No one has the right to deface someone else's property. I would be extremely PO'd if I got tagged by some anonymous punk who has nothing better to paint than some dumb initials - take a ride on the Chicago L to see the extent of the problem. Let them come scrub it off or repaint the whole side of the house. That said, would I look into cashing in on a Banksy - probably. Not because I think all of it's "art" - but because there are other people out there who do and will pay ridiculous sums of money for that privilege.