Page ranger: +33
If you came home and found your house had been covered in graffiti how would you feel about it? Angry I bet. Would you feel differently if the guerrilla artist was Banksy, the elusive Scarlet Pimpernel of the graffiti world? A house in Bristol with Banksy graffiti was put on the market as ‘a mural with a house attached’.
When does graffiti become recognised as a piece of art and not an act of vandalism? If we agree that it’s genuine art, is it acceptable only if it covers an eyesore or is commissioned by the building’s owner? Does Banksy’s graffiti differ from the ‘I was here’ tags due to the fact that a piece of his art in a gallery can fetch up to almost £300,000? Appreciation of art is very much a personal thing, so should we have graffiti art forced upon us, with the artist imposing their self-expression and often subversive or political views on the community?
Banksy is currently celebrating the release of his first movie at the Sundance Film Festival entitled ‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’. Now highly respected in the art world with a 12 week exhibition in Bristol (believed to be his birth place) receiving 30,000 visitors, the illegality of his unsolicited murals in public places appears to be insignificant. However, even the artist is quoted as saying “Some people become cops because they want to make the world a better place. Some people become vandals because they want to make the world a better looking place”.
When the image of a naked man appeared on a wall in central Bristol, the local council ran a poll on the internet to allow the public to vote on whether the mural should be removed or not. With 97% in favour of it staying, the council decided against removal. If your neighbour had their property covered in graffiti, a Banksy masterpiece or not, what would your vote be?
If you came home and found your house had been covered in graffiti how would you feel about it? Angry I bet. Would you feel differently if the guerrilla artist was Banksy, the elusive Scarlet Pimpernel of the graffiti world? A house in Bristol with Banksy graffiti was put on the market as ‘a mural with a house attached’.
When does graffiti become recognised as a piece of art and not an act of vandalism? If we agree that it’s genuine art, is it acceptable only if it covers an eyesore or is commissioned by the building’s owner? Does Banksy’s graffiti differ from the ‘I was here’ tags due to the fact that a piece of his art in a gallery can fetch up to almost £300,000? Appreciation of art is very much a personal thing, so should we have graffiti art forced upon us, with the artist imposing their self-expression and often subversive or political views on the community?
Banksy is currently celebrating the release of his first movie at the Sundance Film Festival entitled ‘Exit Through the Gift Shop’. Now highly respected in the art world with a 12 week exhibition in Bristol (believed to be his birth place) receiving 30,000 visitors, the illegality of his unsolicited murals in public places appears to be insignificant. However, even the artist is quoted as saying “Some people become cops because they want to make the world a better place. Some people become vandals because they want to make the world a better looking place”.
When the image of a naked man appeared on a wall in central Bristol, the local council ran a poll on the internet to allow the public to vote on whether the mural should be removed or not. With 97% in favour of it staying, the council decided against removal. If your neighbour had their property covered in graffiti, a Banksy masterpiece or not, what would your vote be?
I would not care if it were Constable or Michaelangelo…no-one should be allowed to impose their ‘art’ upon others. My feelings are that if any such fool were were to paint my walls they should be placed against the same wall and shot!
The law has been getting softer by the year in many areas and it is past time that it was tightened up in any direction that allows an individual or group to impose themselves or their products or ideas upon others. Freedom entails responsibility, too many forget this all important element of social living.
Graffiti does not become ‘art’ in the normally accepted sense of the word as graffiti, while it may be of an ‘artistic’ nature, remains unwanted embellishment of a surface. It is the visual equivalent of unwanted sound and as such should be totally outlawed with stiff punishments entailed for transgressors. A TV or radio can be turned off, but walls covered in another’s concept of ‘art’ are a large visual picture that unless one takes a detour are unavoidable and if allowed to flourish even a detour would make no difference as many walls would be covered in a similar a manner. There is nothing wrong with the look of brickwork so leave it as the bricklayer did and punish those who desecrate it.
Art is for art galleries and similar locations NOT for the sides of buildings.
RSS News
Twitter
Facebook
Youtube
Vimeo
LinkedIn