Let that be a lesson to you, mate. Don’t nick stuff that doesn’t belong to you.
The endowment effect is strong with this one. I’m talking about the critic, the sign-stealer, the modern art market, and Banksy itself.
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.
Something from 2004 is now considered “antique”? Maybe they need to rename to “Found Objects Roadshow”.
If the art is deposited without permission, what’s wrong with taking it without permission?
Banksy only became high brow stuff that needs to be protected and preserved because of the absurd valuation.
The medium itself lends to ephemera.
They own the building materials he stole from their building. Very simple. (and @mns )
(And Banksy has been clear in the past that he wants and expects his art to remain where it was put.)
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?
Is there no chance this is a Banksy stunt?
In terms of the lifespan of graffiti art, maybe? Does “antique” scale differently depending on the item?
And this affects anyone else how? The desires of a vandal are surely no more important than the desires of another vandal.
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.
Well, that metal would require a fairly robust shredder.
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,
I’m going to print out these comments, etch them, and then mount them somewhere here in Austin.
A first generation Ford Mondeo is officially an antique car (seriously), so why not?