Any person who chooses to desecrate public space with permanent markings commits a crime against responsible society. Sure, he has found fame and now receives legend status for his works, but what is wrong with canvas and oils, water colours or pastels? Why must a spray painted building in a laneway be viewed as art when a train carriage or shop front is viewed as graffiti?
Is it graffiti though? What about cave paintings? Are they prehistoric graffiti? All over the world there a pictures and symbols enscribed on buildings & natural structures from every period in time. I like Banksys stuff, I think it's thought provoking and clever. There's also some very good artistic graffiti about locally in the city that I keep meaning to ride out to and get some shots of my bike against it. A lot of this type is now done with owners permission or in derelict sites. My personal thoughts are it's a world away from the initials and obligatory willy spraying's that crop up time to time on the bypass wall...
With the utmost respect, you can't seriously collate cave and prehistoric paintings and tribal messages as one and the same as a person who, under the camouflage of darkness chooses to desecrate public and private buildings WITHOUT PERMISSION! That is the key and that is where the crime is permitted: Criminal Damage Act 1971: A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence. Defenders of Banksy might say there's no intention to destroy, but the act is 'reckless' and has been deemed so by the courts. Many artists have provoked thoughts; but they generally choose to convey those messages in the traditionally accepted manner. Still love you though, Lozzy!
Older generation will see it as vandalism and most youngsters will see it as art or not fussed about it. it is what is so enjoy it or don’t worry about it I’ll get my coat lol
Nige....the world is a more exciting place in part, due to the deeds of those who don't follow convention... You and bazza need to get a few pints down thee necks and streak around the local roundabout....it'll free you of your Xmas fudidudiness you pair of Ebenezer's
Bah humbug I hate Christmas Used to be the best Santa there was but now the kids have grown up I hate it
Now you come to say it Lozzy my son took a picture of his bike under a bridge in front of some graffiti and it did turn out quite good
Jeez, Banksy's stuff is definitely art in my eyes...here in London graffiti is fekkin awful and all over the shop there are crap sprayed letters. I used to see one everyday on the way to work up by old street roundabout, the two lead characters from pulp fiction in their black suits pointing bananas instead of guns. Like @Lozzy says, there is often a political/satirical message behind the work.
And keep walking please Yes, correct. The graffiti's great - shame about the Suzuki. No disputing that. I think the 'issue' here is about the matter of where this art is applied and displayed.
But that is part of its charm.... the fact that it is in public on display to the everyday guy & you never know where it's going to spring up. The whole package is completely unique...a bit like you Nigel
The funny thing about this thread is I could have put a tenner on right at the start, over who would vote Yes or No lol THE YES'S THE NO'S
There are laws and without those there is anarchy - vandalism (no matter how artistic) is a crime. However, if no complaint by the property owner is made then no charges can be made. No harm, no foul.
He can do what he wants , I don't really give a rat's arse I'm more bothered about the state of the feckin roads , but that's another thread
Admit to not being a fan of graffiti wether it be considered art or not The defacing of buildings etc is in my view vandalism and raphael is correct in his opinion, but I think graffiti does demonstrate a disrespect for the environment and surroundings