Slog Comments

 

Comments (12) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Fnarf 1
I dunno, I think the idea of a dumbass landlord deliberately destroying a half-million-dollar gift he received because he was too stupid to know what it was is kind of great. Like burning a pile of cash. There are other Banksies.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on February 21, 2013 at 4:25 PM
treacle 2
What a predicament Banksy is in... Either continue doing what you love and are very good at, and have it stolen and sold by anonymous people, never seeing a penny yourself. Or quit doing public art altogether, and just do the private stuff, and get folded into that art community.

Gah.
Posted by treacle on February 21, 2013 at 4:26 PM
very bad homo 3
Well I'm sure somebody instagrammed it, so it will live forever on the internet somewhere.
Posted by very bad homo on February 21, 2013 at 4:26 PM
Dougsf 4
Looks like plaster over brick—not only is it hard to imagine how that piece would have come off intact, but that wall probably wasn't going to last another New York winter without those repairs being done.

I'd love to live in a city with fantastic, er... "uncommisioned" art around every corner, but if it isn't the precariousness of these pieces that make them so special, then what is it?
Posted by Dougsf on February 21, 2013 at 4:28 PM
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 5
If the artist cared about it lasting forever they would paint it on a canvas and hang it in a gallery. It's rather condescending to assume street artists are too stupid to know what happens to street art. The ephemeral aspect is the point, isn't it?
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on February 21, 2013 at 4:33 PM
Knat 6
Far better to have the art stay on the side of a wall, so that some other "street artist" can come by and scribble their tagger name on top of it the next night. It can only increase the value!
Posted by Knat on February 21, 2013 at 4:57 PM
Clara T 7
I totally get what you are saying - there's a lot of good public art that isn't actually enjoyable.
Posted by Clara T on February 21, 2013 at 5:29 PM
8
I don't get the impression that Banksy is hurting for cash.
Posted by Giftshop on February 22, 2013 at 6:53 AM
9
$700k to $800k isn't "a buck", Cienna. That's put my kids through Harvard money - I'd rip the wall off my building, too.
Posted by kalel80806 on February 22, 2013 at 7:08 AM
venomlash 10
Art should be in museums, IMO. Leave it on the outer wall of a building and the elements will turn it to dust and grit, assuming it's not painted over first.
Posted by venomlash on February 22, 2013 at 10:37 AM
11
Banksy is essentially making Mandalas. And it's also on other people's properties to whom they see fit to do with it however they want. Let the glorified tagger's stuff go.
Posted by Drew2u on February 22, 2013 at 11:44 AM
Fenrox 12
I like the idea of it getting painted over, makes it more real. All art should be destroyed IMO, but also you should always make more and more.
Posted by Fenrox on February 22, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Add a comment