The Packards Banksey.

**mauser** · May-12-10, 07:24 PM

Banksy paid Detroit a visit and left a painting in the Packard plant on one of the recently demolished portions.

http://www.detroitfunk.com/?p=4407

555 Gallery has preserved the wall and will put it on public display.

Thoughts about 555s rescue ? I say it is great, that painting woulda been toast otherwise. Others complain that it removes the piece from its original context.

**rjlj** · May-12-10, 10:47 PM

There have been 4 Banksy pieces that I have counted around town. I have to believe there are a few more. Anyway, 3 of the 4 have been removed. I can't speak for the forth in Warren and am not sure if it is still up. There was one removed today in midtown. See attached link. I have to believe that the caretaker of this property was just trying to keep their property clean and had no idea what they were removing. Maybe we are too use to the crap grafitti that is seen around town and will learn over time that things like this attract worldwide attention and keep us on the map.

http://www.woostercollective.com/201...drawing_s.html

**warsaw7** · May-13-10, 12:25 AM

FUCK 555 Gallery. I apologize for the vulgarity. What gives them the right to take down a piece of art installed on private property? It is straight up theft!!! Monte what makes you an authoritative figure to say you are preserving this piece of art? You think by doing this you are making a statement? You are doing it for the PR and there is A LOT of people who are pissed off at what you did. Thank you for putting Detroit in a negative spotlight yet again. Yes granted it would have been stolen, every city his work is stolen on, but to go out and justify as to what you do was preservation, wow you got some nerve. Good luck trying to save yourself from this one, you shot yourself in the foot and I hope your gallery suffers for this one. Your credibility is shot. Would love to hear what Banksy has to say about this.

Chuck_MI · May-13-10, 01:35 AM

Originally Posted by mauser

Others complain that it removes the piece from its original context.

The painting has meaning in it's distressed environment only. There is no stand-alone value to the "art-work".

**aoife** · May-13-10, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by Chuck_MI

The painting has meaning in it's distressed environment only. There is no stand-alone value to the "art-work".

Agreed.

Believe me, I understand the desire to preserve the work, but it is meant to be temporary. And even if you can't live with that, why not leave it up for more than a few days before stealing it? I would have loved to have seen it in its intended environment. On a gallery wall it means nothing.

Finally, the artist did not intend for this to end up in a gallery. Here is the wording from his website regarding his work being taken out of context:

"Banksy does not endorse or profit from the sale of greeting cards, mugs, tshirts,
photo canvases etc. Banksy is not on Facebook, Myspace, Twitter or Gaydar.
Banksy is not represented by any form of commercial art gallery."

Why not just respect the rights/wishes of the creator and let it crumble or get painted over as it was intended?

**Detroitnerd** · May-13-10, 09:14 AM

You CAN sell a Banksy work for a cool sum, perhaps thousands of dollars. But only a tool would do it.

**warsaw7** · May-13-10, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

You CAN sell a Banksy work for a cool sum, perhaps thousands of dollars. But only a tool would do it.

No you can't................http://www.pestcontroloffice.com/AuthForm_Prints.asp

**rjlj** · May-13-10, 10:34 AM

Thieves stealing from thieves.

http://theprocesstheory.tumblr.com/post/593273137

Chuck_MI · May-15-10, 01:03 PM

The Detroit Free Press is reporting today on this matter:
http://www.freep.com/article/2010051...ites-firestorm

**Detwa** · May-15-10, 02:24 PM

Does the gallery charge for viewing? I'm sure, even if they don't, it enhances their collection and makes them more visible and thus more successful by way of donations, sponsors, etc. It's almost like they're getting free art - and not art by little Johnny from elementary school, but art that is renowned and popular. Very interesting debate, but I agree that the gallery has no right to go and take it. I mean, could I go and take it and put it in my basement? Or did they get permission from the property owners?

**n7hn** · May-15-10, 04:49 PM

Seems like theft, but who is the victim? The building owner? the city? its people? Interesting debate on many levels, Including the aspect of the artists intention/space presentation and If his creation of the art itself could be considered a crime. Hmmmmmm

**Jimaz** · May-15-10, 04:58 PM

http://www.banksy.co.uk/

I love the first parking lot piece in his Outdoors section. It looks like he repainted only the "PARK" part of "PARKING" then painted the girl swinging to further make a park out of a parking lot! Clever.

**n7hn** · May-15-10, 06:07 PM

I like "this'll look nice once it's framed"......and it also kinda speaks to one of the issues spoken here as it implies its going to be removed....hmmmm

**Melocoton** · May-15-10, 10:58 PM

I don't know what the gallery people were thinking. It makes them look awfully provincial. And even if they don't sell it, they're clearly taking advantage of his work for themselves--whether it's for the notoriety, the prestige of having a famous artist, etc.

**REL** · May-16-10, 11:40 AM

So, people are upset because the painting [[actually referred to as vandalism because it wasn't his property) of a guy was stolen [[from him? or the building's owner?) that was created while he was illegally trespassing on property that was neglected and abandoned because the owners aren't taking care of it and it's to the point where it inspires art about decay.

Geez. This sounds like a case for Randy Cohen.

**DetroitDerek** · May-17-10, 09:13 AM

Everywhere I've read, and seen, there's only 3 of these, 2 of which have been either "relocated" or destroyed in the process of being removed. The only 1 still standing, that I was aware of , was the Rat on Van Dyke

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3319/...b6f37059_b.jpg

Where is the 4th one?

He wasn't illegally trespassing, there aren't any no trespassing signs at the Packard, which is legally required for it to be considered trespassing. That doesn't justify anything, but I'm just clarifying. The destruction of the wall at the Circle Dry Cleaners in an effort to remove the Diamond Girl piece is much more disturbing to me [[ as it was an intact building for sale ) when compared to removing a small piece of a wall of a building scrappers have been destroying for the last 7 months. If you're upset at the studio for removing the piece, why aren't you upset at the scrappers making already unstable buildings even more so?

**ggcanfield** · May-17-10, 10:18 AM

DetroitDerek, post #2 references the 4th piece and includes a link to photo of it - sounds like it was cleaned away before very many people saw it/photographed it.

**n7hn** · May-17-10, 10:59 AM

For sure removing one from an intact property in the market is the worst case scenario. In that case the owner clearly suffers. Clearly theft and vandalism in its removal. Even worst if the image didnt survive........ shame shame SHAME

**DetroitDerek** · May-17-10, 12:43 PM

Sorry, I missed that the picture was from detroit. Strange that in all the articles I've read and pictures I've seen they only mention 3, and I had not seen a picture of that one. They cleaned that one up fast. It was buffed out and you can barely see what used to be the drawing.

http://banksysforum.proboards.com/in...2&page=4#13807

**detroiturbex** · May-17-10, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitDerek

He wasn't illegally trespassing, there aren't any no trespassing signs at the Packard, which is legally required for it to be considered trespassing. That doesn't justify anything, but I'm just clarifying.

Just an FYI:

Detroit Code of Ordinances

http://library.municode.com/HTML/106...38_AIV_s38-4-1

Sec. 38-4-1. - Trespassing in vacant buildings.

It shall be unlawful for any person; except an officer, employee or contractual agent of a governmental agency in the performance of a public duty; to enter a vacant building or the property it is on without the express written authorization of the property owner, lessee, agent or trustee thereof.

I think there is a state statute that mentions signage, but as I learned the hard way, that won't get you off the hook

Dabirch · May-17-10, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by detroiturbex

Just an FYI:

Detroit Code of Ordinances

http://library.municode.com/HTML/106...38_AIV_s38-4-1

Sec. 38-4-1. - Trespassing in vacant buildings.

It shall be unlawful for any person; except an officer, employee or contractual agent of a governmental agency in the performance of a public duty; to enter a vacant building or the property it is on without the express written authorization of the property owner, lessee, agent or trustee thereof.

I think there is a state statute that mentions signage, but as I learned the hard way, that won't get you off the hook

The signage requirement deals with recreational uses of private property - typically fishing and hunting, off-roading, etc. It is not, at all applicable to buildings.

**Melocoton** · May-17-10, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitDerek

If you're upset at the studio for removing the piece, why aren't you upset at the scrappers making already unstable buildings even more so?

I just want to point out that this sort of red herring logical fallacy is epidemic on this site. It goes like this: a poster is angry about one thing, and then someone attempts to discredit that anger by bringing up some other, perhaps related thing, that the poster has not mentioned and, the logic goes, has therefore "ignored." So, in this case, yes, I'm bothered by the gallery "scrapping" the Banksy painting--that's what I think they're ultimately doing. I'm also bothered by scrappers in general, but we're talking about the specific case of the Banksy painting, and the fact that other scrappers also exist doesn't negate or even relate to that point about whether the 555 gallery acted responsibly in taking the mural.

That is all.

Mel

**warsaw7** · May-17-10, 08:24 PM

Tomorrow on the Craig Fahle Show, Carl and Monte of the 555 Gallery and Studios will discuss their reasons for removing Banksy's work at the Packard Plant, along with Tom Thewes, Matt Eaton, and Travis R Wright of the Metro Times Detroit. Beginning at 11:30am on 101.9 FM

http://lafamigliazine.com/site/blog/archives/2034

**Patrick** · May-17-10, 08:40 PM

I mentioned before at DFunk that the 12 and Van Dyke is a notorious speed trap with asshat Warren cops parked all over those few blocks. That rat looks pretty detailed so did this guy just happend to be in Warre, Michigan of all places and did he ask the owner to do it?