Be Excellent To Each Other

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8292795.stm



See, I don't get this. In my head, Banksy is no different to anyone else who vandalises other people's property. Why should there be one law for him and another for everyone else?

He's very funny?

Note how they have negated the sewerage part of the farm?

I know that road very very well, it's right behind Beddington Lane where ASDA resides. I used to live about 10 miles or so away and we would go to ASDA/Ikea quite a lot.

The entire area smells like the contents of someone's ass so I can't see a piece of graphiti hurting any one. You are right about it still being vandalism though.

Personally I find his art a little facile. However, I'd fight* for some graffitti to be kept that I really admired - stuff I could classify as toppo art.

*Read mouth off in a forum a bit.

I admire Nigel Mansell. I wouldn't want him hacking up my road at 200mph though

Art is subjective, though. It seems all manner of wrong to me that a criminal is admired because he happens to be 'good' at his crime.

No. He's funnier than Shakespeare though.

I prefer Steve Pising.

I would have a stronger answer if the question was "artist or twat?"

It's vandalism. Why else does he hide who he is?

And his art isn't "funny", it's 6th form level crappy humour with some shitty tromp de l'oeil tricks thrown in. I walk past that one of the guy hanging out of the window on Park Street most days and it pisses me the hell off. Can Bristol stop being so proud of having bred yet another chavvy little criminal, please? Ta.

We could pretend.

What Mr C and SA said.

Defacing public property still makes you a cunt, even if it looks really nice or carries a political message.

Or private property, for that matter.

He's not *quite* as much of a cunt as taggers are, but pretty fucking close.

EDIT - actually, no, he's worse, cos he's a smug twat.

What Myp said..

I do like grafitti when it is meant to be there.. ie with permission

I think that this is amazing, (not banksy)



and I very much doubt it was able to be done without the owner's knowledge.

Vandal isn't subjective and not mutually exclusive with artist, so it's a poorly worded question. Better questions are:

Artist: 'Good' or 'You've gotta be joking?' (The answer is "Aaaugh, enough already!")

Vandal: Prove it. Has it vandalised? Then it's a vandal. Ta dah!

A giant tidal wave of blood is about to land on a panda?

Deep.

I'm ambigulent about this. I do really like some of his stencil things, and feel they generally "improve the built environment" where they're found. A bit like a rogue tree that has flourished on an embankment, which the council will then go out of their way to exterminate and restore boring, grey institutional order.

It's alright, Mr C. The panda has a life ring.

For improving the built environment, I'd prefer the tree any time.

Plus: I'd rather walk through a town of vibrant interesting art (done with the property owner's consent and... payment?) than a drab town centre of rotting concrete walls.

See, I find they tend to highlight the miserableness around them. Whilst that may be excellent for raising a political point, it also just makes you painfully aware that you live in a shithole.

Well, yes, but the consent bit is important here.

Of course, anyone who gets a Banksy on their building will never, ever wash it off "because it might be worth something", so he effectively gets retrospective consent. The smug, purile, vandalising cunt.

You win.

Also, I would accept "was the graffitti placed literally by a member of the coloquialised barbarian tribe; vandal?"

Maybe someone should spraypaint speechbubbles from all the people in banksy's art saying 'pakis out' and see if people still want to keep them up.

That would be vandalism, though. AaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAH.

That one you posted earlier is brilliant. But will look shitty in two years time. Most of Banksy's stuff is just shite.

I can totally get behind anybody revandalising a Banksy by colouring the wall the same colour it was originally.

I'm sure it will look shitty in two year's time. Maybe then they'd have a new piece of art painted for them. Like building tattoos.

Exactly.

I had more respect for the guy when he'd done like, three of these things, and it was all a bit mysterious.

Now it seems you can't roll over in bed without him having spray-painted your wife in the night.

Did he graffiti a dog turd on the front of your house, or something?

I'd totally have sold the house if he had.

I just hate him. HATE HIM. And all he stands for. Whatever that is.

Luckily I've always lived in the suburbs verging on rural, so I've never had to spruce up my surroundings with building art. Living in a city looks hellish from where I'm standing. I simply couldn't stand it. If I did, I'd love to brighten up my dwelling with some artwork.

I hate his name the most. (Or, like I said before, 'it's': isn't Banksy some kind of metaperson?)

He's not my friend, he's not your friend, so he doesn't get to be called Banksy. He's Mr. Bank.

It's actually his first name. Bankitude Florence McGregor.

That's possibly why I don't mind then, because I don't live there...

For A MILLION POUNDS.

If that awesome construction really was his name, don't you think he'd use it?

It's hard to been done for vandalism when the vandalism easily adds about £100,000 to the value of the property you wrecked.

When I lived in shoreditch the number of places framing the wall to stop people graffitiing the graffiti was insane.

Personally I suppose kinda like Banksy stuff. I don't mind graffiti when I personally like the results. With the amount of mass produced corporate advertising everywhere I look I like to see things made by human hands.

But when it's just someones twatty name in a font worse than comic sans then it's a different matter.

Talking of which, do you know those Alpha course posters with Does God Exist? in a huge font, the tick boxes for Yes, No and Probably?

Well it appears that a guy it getting done for vandalism for answering the question posed to him.

Your first thought is that he is clearly (at least technically) guilty, but he might not be, if a material "invites" vandalism then you are presumed to be given consent.

More here: http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/10/alpha-course-and-graffiti-ticking-wrong.html

Personally I love people defacing adverts because 1) it gives a public voice to the people and 2) it's almost always funny.

Like when I saw an advert for a jimmy carr gig and someone had added a speach bubble saying "I am a twat".

Absolutely. But what if someone decided unilaterally do spruce your building up with their own choice of artwork. What if they painted zombies running on your wall? Zombies running from cars? With people playing Guitar Hero WT in the background?

No, he'd use BFM and everyone would think he was a dyslexic gangster.

Exactly! I'm not above making money out of something I hate. Hell, I do it for a living.

Well I'd go out. Rub my chin a bit. Walk around. Crouch and tilt my head slightly. Then I'd stand up and stick my jaw out while holding my chin with one hand, and my elbow with the other. Then I'd slowly nod and say "rock on".

I've just been hunting this down, from when Banksy was painting at the West Bank barrier http://arts.guardian.co.uk/pictures/ima ... 16,00.html

Seconded. Even if it's just some muppet schoolboy spraying "FUCK" over it, that's an improvement as far as I'm concerned.

When I lived in Leeds and The Queen Mam died the next day this popped up. They happiness and joy in the image doesn't come across in the really low rez, but it became loved by everyone in the area it was ace.



BIG UP THE QUEEN MAM - BEING DEAD IS MINT!

Well it seems it is one of his.

http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/horizontal_1.htm

M KHAN IS BENT and GIVE PEAS A CHANCE are part of this country's culture, definitely. It's still vandalism though.