We Hate Adverts
-
Elmlea wrote:This is like the Starbucks conversation again. I don't see any benefit in Banksy's work. I think the level of political analysis is about what you'd get from 6th form students. The art is interesting and the style is quite nice, but I'd rather they were just hung up in a gallery rather than painted on the side of my house. I also don't like graffiti, because for every one piece of genuinely attractive art, there's 10 000 000 bits of shit teenage tagging with no merit whatsoever. And as discussed, I can't see an easy way to legislate against one but not the other. You and Noxy evidently think more of this stuff than I do; but rather than explaining why it's good, why it's of benefit, or why we should allow scrotes with spraycans to run wild decorating entire cities, all I get is "your idea of benefit is quite limited." So tell me! What's the benefit? Why should we allow it? How do you differentiate between vandalism and tagging and genuine art? Why should something you like that I don't like be protected; why is your opinion worth more than mine?
Fair play.
To start off with, I see generally bringing political issues into peoples' consciousness to generally be a good thing regardless of the level of political analysis applied to it. If I see a protest by, for example, teachers, I doubt I'd walk away from it thinking 'well, I understand that you're interested in better pay and conditions and that you'd like these immediately, but I felt that you could have used your chant to flesh out your demands a bit more thoroughly', but then no-one would, that's not the point. The point is to help prick someone's conscience, that's all. That, to my mind is the benefit. If it happens to look nice, or contain humour, or do whatever it does to make someone smile or allow someone to appreciate it on purely aesthetic terms, that's another benefit, or at least it is to the people who enjoy it on those terms.
However, beyond that, I'm not sure what I'm being asked. I'm not calling for street art to be made legal. I'm not asking for it to be protected. I'm not asking for anything. The original comment that got me involved in all of this was saying that I think you'd be a cunt for taking down a piece of street art and trying to make a profit from it, even if that was your right, simply because that goes against the whole spirit of it. I have no problem with people painting over it if they see no value in it, but don't recognise the value in something that's designed to be open to everyone and then try to use that value for personal gain, that just seems cunty to me.
I also feel that people who condemn street art can sometimes overlook the fact that our towns and cities are already covered in words and images expressly designed to sell us stuff and that many of us find these annoying, ugly and intrusive, and in fact, for some of us, street art is a nice antidote to all of that. -
Elmlea wrote:This is like the Starbucks conversation again. I don't see any benefit in Banksy's work. I think the level of political analysis is about what you'd get from 6th form students. The art is interesting and the style is quite nice, but I'd rather they were just hung up in a gallery rather than painted on the side of my house. I also don't like graffiti, because for every one piece of genuinely attractive art, there's 10 000 000 bits of shit teenage tagging with no merit whatsoever. And as discussed, I can't see an easy way to legislate against one but not the other. You and Noxy evidently think more of this stuff than I do; but rather than explaining why it's good, why it's of benefit, or why we should allow scrotes with spraycans to run wild decorating entire cities, all I get is "your idea of benefit is quite limited." So tell me! What's the benefit? Why should we allow it? How do you differentiate between vandalism and tagging and genuine art? Why should something you like that I don't like be protected; why is your opinion worth more than mine?
Sorry if my response was too brief. All i was getting at is that your idea of 'benefit' seems to conclude that money must be changing hands, and that any kind of street decoration must encourage us to spend because otherwise it serves no constructive purpose. I guess that's what i disagree with, on pretty much every level possible. -
To go back to the original argument then, what if like me you see no value in it whatsoever? I see that other people do, and I think if they're willing to pay me for a worthless piece of junk then they're more than welcome to throw away their money.
-
Noxy, we seem to have read different posts, as I have no recollection of Elm saying that at all.
-
Diluted Dante wrote:To go back to the original argument then, what if like me you see no value in it whatsoever? I see that other people do, and I think if they're willing to pay me for a worthless piece of junk then they're more than welcome to throw away their money.
Then you see a value in it, a cash value, but a value nonetheless. -
Because to certain people it has value, even if you don't like it personally. Taking that value and benefiting from it with something that's supposed to be for everyone makes you a cunt.
-
Elmlea wrote:No-one benefits directly from Banksy painting on something. Considering one of his was on a Woolworths or something, I don't believe the link that just because there's a painting on a building people will be more inclined to enter that building and buy something. Sure, people will come to look at it, but that's about it.
That's the bit i was getting at
@dante -
Diluted Dante wrote:Paint it on your own wall then.
That's a pretty fundamental part of it, really. If it's for everyone, put it in a gallery, or on the internet. Complaining about someone selling it when it was on their property is a bit like complaining when they paint over it. -
krs wrote:typically facile Banksy
The King of Advertisers said that?! -
Artists don't tend to have a lot of property.
And if we're going to have just one thing locked behind doors in a gallery, i'd personally rather it was advertising than art. -
Page 3 reminds me I have some Jumbo Animal Biscuits. There's a hippo on a bicycle.
-
If you don't have your own, seek an agreement with someone to provide your artwork somewhere that guarantees public view, rather than chancing it.
If you paint something somewhere intending it to be for public view, and you don't have an agreement that it will remain on public view, don't complain when a situation arises that means it's no longer in public view. -
equinox_code wrote:Artists don't tend to have a lot of property.
Banksy has a net worth of £20 000 000. -
Elmlea wrote:Diluted Dante wrote:Paint it on your own wall then.
That's a pretty fundamental part of it, really. If it's for everyone, put it in a gallery, or on the internet. Complaining about someone selling it when it was on their property is a bit like complaining when they paint over it.
I disagree. For one thing I'm not complaining when people paint over it, and I don't think anyone else is. The artists certainly aren't. No, people complain when an individual takes something intended for everyone for themselves, which is fair enough IMO. -
-
Elmlea wrote:
Banksy has a net worth of £20 000 000.equinox_code wrote:Artists don't tend to have a lot of property.
I'm not sure that proves anything. -
equinox_code wrote:
I'm not sure that proves anything.Elmlea wrote:
Banksy has a net worth of £20 000 000.equinox_code wrote:Artists don't tend to have a lot of property.
He could buy some property and put his stuff in it if he wanted to. -
Sorry, when a bunch of people live together in a building they've neither paid for nor earned the right to live in, I tend to lump their political ideals into that sponger/thief category you occupy.equinox_code wrote:To pull up just one point amongst many in all that rubbish you typed, i've never even lived with anyone who shared my 'socialist/communist/whatever' ideals. So yea, you're talking rubbish. -
Part of the point of Banksy's work is the reclaiming of 'public' space for the public. Buying property and sticking his art on there would rather negate this point. Not that 20m would buy much property anyway.
Edit: @Elm -
What Banksy should do is take a million pounds, place it in a public area, and then time-lapse record it.
-
It's been done:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=enshnZsyXoA
What are the video tags again? No YouTube button on mobile. -
-
adkm1979 wrote:
Sorry, when a bunch of people live together in a building they've neither paid for nor earned the right to live in, I tend to lump their political ideals into that sponger/thief category you occupy.equinox_code wrote:To pull up just one point amongst many in all that rubbish you typed, i've never even lived with anyone who shared my 'socialist/communist/whatever' ideals. So yea, you're talking rubbish.
Yes you fucking prick, and i've never actually done that. This is not the first time i've had to correct you on this point. It isn't even the first time i've had to correct you in this thread!
Learn to fucking read. -
Yossarian wrote:It's been done
Not with Banksy's dough it hasn't. He could display the video in a gallery under "For All I've Done for Them". -
Paul the sparky wrote:
Well, that's the rub really. Essentially, what's meant are areas created for use by the public, although this doesn't encompass everything he does. But certainly the streets that we have to walk down every day are a part of it. -
Yossarian wrote:Part of the point of Banksy's work is the reclaiming of 'public' space for the public. Buying property and sticking his art on there would rather negate this point. Not that 20m would buy much property anyway. Edit: @Elm
... which would be more like it if he used a fountain in a public park as a canvas, but most of the buildings used for some of his more famous pieces that I've just spent a while Googling were on property belonging to private landlords. Just because they can be seen by the public doesn't make them public spaces, and for everyone who enjoys a cleverly put-together piece on a public fountain, there'll be hundreds of old dears who like to feed the ducks and think it's horrible. -
Elmlea wrote:Yossarian wrote:Part of the point of Banksy's work is the reclaiming of 'public' space for the public. Buying property and sticking his art on there would rather negate this point. Not that 20m would buy much property anyway. Edit: @Elm
... which would be more like it if he used a fountain in a public park as a canvas, but most of the buildings used for some of his more famous pieces that I've just spent a while Googling were on property belonging to private landlords. Just because they can be seen by the public doesn't make them public spaces, and for everyone who enjoys a cleverly put-together piece on a public fountain, there'll be hundreds of old dears who like to feed the ducks and think it's horrible.
Fair play. As I say, I'm not saying that everyone should enjoy it, that it should be made legal or protected or even kept visible, I'm simply saying that I enjoy the work myself, far more, as it happens, than any other public artworks I've seen, and I think it's cunty to take it down and profit from it whether or not you have a right to do so. That's all.
And I'd say that the walls that I look at every day are as much a part of my world as they are the private landlords who happen to own them. They make up part of my every day world, the very literal boundaries of my existence in a certain way. Fair enough, those might be owned by another individual, but they impact on me in a very real and meaningful way, which is part of the reason why I can appreciate it when someone does something with them that brightens up my day a bit, that makes me smile, that makes me look at the world, or even a corner of London a bit differently.
If a piece of street art can do that for ten or twenty thousand people who walk past, then surely it has some sort of value even if it is an inconvenience to the person who owns the wall.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,715
- Games1,879
- Off topic836