When I watched it on BBC on Sunday I wondered if the owner of the original building it was part of (possibly Brighton Council?) might be getting in touch with the show to ask if they knew how to find this guy. Or asking their local police force to contact the show, having reported a theft and an admission of the theft on national television.
If the building owner didn’t commission the artwork, didn’t ask for it to be attached to their building… do they actually own it?
Dude put his art everywhere and all of a sudden it becomes someone’s responsibility to protect it (covering with Plexiglas or otherwise making accommodations to keep it in shape).
And if you don’t get that half a bill, well now the artwork is worthless (for resale). I suppose you could set up a t-shirt and gift kiosk beside it… again… who owns rights to the imagery?
In the end, Bansky could deface anything he wants and you’re a prick if you try to wash it off. Non-consensual art installation.
So this is implying (or explicitly stating) that Banksy created an official certificate-of-authenticity clearinghouse so that he could withhold COAs from otherwise authentic works to discourage removal of his graffiti?
The Pest Control Website is a delight, especially what they tell you what to do if you think you’ve figured out who Banksy is. Also, the bottom of the page.
You seem to have conveniently ignored the main point which is that the guy on TV stole some part of someone else’s property/structure and expected to profit from it. If you paint on my house, I own it. Neither you nor anybody else gets to take bits of my house away because they have some of your paint on them.
I like the way the valuator called the guy a pest, without calling him a pest. And how he lectured vaguely in his direction quite specifically, but didn’t actually lecture him.
This is actually a better question replacing vandal|vandal with artist|dealer. And the answer, in this case, as explained even in the BB summary, is the artist’s Certificate of Authenticity process, which grants or withholds value.
ETA: Sure, someone might value an unauthenticated Bansky, and everyone may someday decide that Banskys aren’t valuable, but for now, Bansky’s rules.
The thing about Banksy, and he’s not the first to have done this, of course, is that he manages his brand very, very carefully indeed
That, more than the art itself, is the most subversive aspect of Banksy: he manages the brand so carefully in an effort to point out the greed behind branding fine art.
This story, where unbranded art sold at $60 in a Central Park stall was later revealed to be Banksy-“branded” (with the value subsequently skyrocketing to 2600X the orginal price), also comes to mind,