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.
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.
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?
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?
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!
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.
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.
Gah.
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?