WSJ on Banksy in Detroit

[jtw]

Didn't see this posted yet:

If You Take Street Art Off the Street, Is It Still Art?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...164062176.html

An interesting piece anyway.

[majohnson]

How about I go into the gallery, remove the item in question, and install it elsewhere.
Is intentionally trespassing into the Packard much different from intentional trespass into another building.
Or
How about I splash a gallon of paint over the 555 installation. Is that okay?

[crosswordgirl]

If left unattended, Banksy's drawing will most certainly be defaced. If what i witnessed in "exit through the gift shop" is true, the artwork is potentially worth a great deal of money and could be auctioned. I, however, consider the piece to be a "statement piece" by a great artist and should be preserved and placed on view. I would rather it remain where it was originally placed untouched, but that would never happen.

[robyn]

Sometimes these types of things really are art. But a vast majority of the time they are not. Who is to say when they are and when they are not? But I don't think there is anything wrong with displaying them for others to see in a gallery. Some people would really enjoy it. And art is in the eye of the beholder.

[Mikeg]

animals respond to their uncontrollable urge to mark territory by lifting their leg ==>

gangs respond to their primal urge to claim territory by vandalizing others property with their spray-painted signs ==>

non-gang members emulate them by vandalizing others property with spray painted images and suddenly it's "art" ==>

lawyers get involved and now finally somebody is making real money over the modern-day equivalent of animal piss on a bush

[Lt. Dan Bassett]

animals respond to their uncontrollable urge to mark territory by lifting their leg ==>

gangs respond to their primal urge to claim territory by vandalizing others property with their spray-painted signs ==>

non-gang members emulate them by vandalizing others property with spray painted images and suddenly it's "art" ==>

lawyers get involved and now finally somebody is making real money over the modern-day equivalent of animal piss on a bush

animal piss on a bush is, at the end of the day, about the will to power -- continuing to procreate and extend your family line.
In the search for meaning I suppose I want to make the argument that many of those paid-for billboards that clutter our freeways urging us to buy more stuff are more destructive to our dying culture than any "Kilroy was here" street scribble. Banksy for sure does not remember when there were trees on E.Grand. Maybe he was born about the time that the jobs began to leave town enmasse. As a critique of the priorities of our culture and how they contribute to our dissolution I see the value in preserving this sprayed-on-cinderblock concept for contemplation. Turning the piece into a commodity to fight over extends Banksy's prophetic vision of our future.

[Goose]

the irony to me is not the fact that the piece of street art has been removed from it's "natural" environment to be showcased out of context....

the irony to me is that the so called "owners" of the packard plant have all of a sudden come forward to claim "ownership" of this piece of "artwork" after years and years of abandonment....

i also find it interesting that the salvagers claim they were given permission to remove the artwork, but were told not to purloin any scrap metal.... that the notion that this somehow valueable piece of art was an affront to scavange the place for scrap metal....

[Johnlodge]

Way to get the scoop on this year-old story, WSJ!

[Lowell]

What I like find interesting about this whole episode is how everybody is wrong.

• Banksy was wrong to deface property he did not own or have permission to paint.
• 555 was wrong to remove and destroy property they did not own.
• The 'owners', if they are, were wrong not to secure and maintain their properties, let alone not pay taxes.

Apparently 555 thinks two wrongs make a right.

The gallery owners are undeterred, saying their plan to put the piece on display for free in another old building that has outlived its intended use, an old police precinct house, will keep it in context.

Says who? Banksy? The artist who created it in context?

They have arbitrarily decided context to be an interior setting in a protected building -- safe from nature, taggers and perhaps someone else, ahem, like them who might decide to cart it off? Are they mind readers? IMO they might as well put a gilded frame around it and hang it on a wall.

As for the 'on display for free' sop, I find that a bit disingenuous. An item like this will be a great attraction and positively impact attendance to their events, resultant sales and their fund-raising ability.

All art is temporal. It will all be gone, whether in months or a billion years. Art only lives when it is is being experienced and best when done as the artist intended it to be. If that means being destroyed after a short life, so be it. It will happen anyway.

[Django]

How about I splash a gallon of paint over the 555 installation. Is that okay?

You can do whatever you want maj.and you can even call it art. You might get in some trouble though, maybe not since its technically really theirs. I think you should do it, it would bring attention to this what I see as a hiccup.

Most Graffiti Artists know better than to deface something that ppl actually care about, the rest would mainly be considered taggers.

I wouldnt take my friends to the Dequinder Cut if it were not for the work there.



If I publicly promote this type of thing I catch all kinds of shit here, but when I talk amongst my friends its a go.

Technically its wrong but I like it, I generally follow my heart.

I know Im a bit off topic here^ . I do believe the Banksey should have been left alone though only because thats what the artist wanted. I changed my mind after reading what the Banksey had to say.