Re:I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy
by lotsofcows on Monday October 21, 2013 @04:16AM
(#6584070)
"At no time have any of his works been capable of being bought or sold."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/arts/design/another-banksy...
Re:I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy
by stickydink on Monday October 21, 2013 @04:17AM
(#6584075)
They, were on sale, just last week ;)
If people enjoy seeing it it seems decidedly churlish not to preserve it for future generations. As does someone who can only enjoy it because other people won't be able to.
As for missing the point, I'll raise you death of the author. A piece of art must stand on its own merits, not the intentions of its creator.
Re:I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy
by icebraining on Monday October 21, 2013 @05:02AM
(#6584261)
But you can't preserve it for future generations, because the location and inevitable impermanence is part of the work. By covering it, you'd be defacing the work to protect it.
The defence of the value of his work was that "people enjoy looking at" it. Is that compromised by covering it? No.
(Any measure of art preservation is an inconvenience to viewing it, but we generally consider this a worthwhile tradeoff)
Re:I’m the Accidental Owner of a Banksy
by icebraining on Monday October 21, 2013 @06:16AM
(#6584509)
we generally consider this a worthwhile tradeoff
Yes, generally we do, and I'd agree for graffiti done in canvas or similar mediums, but I think street art is an obvious exception, since the canvas is the whole street. You could only preserve the artwork by preserving at least the whole building, and possibly more than that.
Just because some rich people feel like attaching monetary value to most art doesn't mean Banksy's art has to fall in line. It's not like you're going to take down a section of wall and sell it, and someone did, he would also be missing the entire point.
Just be happy that cameras exist and take a picture.
[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article8886934.ece/ALT...