NationStates Jolt Archive

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070420/tuk-uk-britain-art-fa6b408.html

Cleaners whitewash famed Banksy mural
Reuters
Reuters - Friday, April 20

LONDON (Reuters) - Transport workers in London have painted over a mural by world-renowned graffiti artist Banksy, erasing a piece of art estimated to be worth $500,000 (250,000 pounds).
(Advertisement)

The mural, depicting a scene from the Quentin Tarantino movie Pulp Fiction in which Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta are holding bananas instead of guns, was spray-painted on the side of an electricity substation around five years ago.

It became one of the most famous graffiti paintings by Banksy, a reclusive artist whose work has attracted star-studded buyers including Angelina Jolie and Jude Law.

Transport for London, whose workers white-washed the mural near the Old Street tube station earlier this month, was unapologetic, saying its policy was to remove all graffiti that created an atmosphere of "neglect and social decay".

"We recognise that there are those who view Banksy's work as legitimate art, but sadly our graffiti removal teams are staffed by professional cleaners not professional art critics," it said in a statement.

Genius....sheer genius...

didn't someone get jailtime for criminal damage last time one of banksy's images was erased? the kissing policemen it was i believe.

a l l
a r t
i s
t e m p o
r a r y

Regardless of our opinion of his work it's still grafitti and not legal. The company was well within its' rights to paint over it.

didn't someone get jailtime for criminal damage last time one of banksy's images was erased? the kissing policemen it was i believe.
Banksy should be the one getting jailtime. For fraud. Half a million dollars? Whoever's paying that is either a fucking idiot or is part of an elaborate joke.

Banksy's work, while art in the technical sense, is not more valuable because it's graffiti. It is essentially worthless. Frankly, anyone who thinks the person who thought up this (http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/files/2006/09/elephbanksy372.jpg) is an artist needs their head examining.

Banksy should be the one getting jailtime. For fraud. Half a million dollars? Whoever's paying that is either a fucking idiot or is part of an elaborate joke.

Banksy's work, while art in the technical sense, is not more valuable because it's graffiti. It is essentially worthless. Frankly, anyone who thinks the person who thought up this (http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/files/2006/09/elephbanksy372.jpg) is an artist needs their head examining.

well, art, more than anything else, is worth whatever someone will pay for it. although i am puzzled as to how something that was spraypainted on a tube-station wall can be valued at 250 grand, it's not like anyone can pay that money and take away the wall to put in their living room. his 'installations' certainly aren't his best stuff, i think his stuff he did on that wall in israel/palestine is the best he's done. i suppose the difference with the kissing policemen was that the wall was part of a private building that wished for the painting to remain even though they didn't commision it. graffiti essentially belongs to the owner of the wall on which it was painted so in this case there are obviously no grounds for prosecution

Banksy should be the one getting jailtime. For fraud. Half a million dollars? Whoever's paying that is either a fucking idiot or is part of an elaborate joke.

Banksy's work, while art in the technical sense, is not more valuable because it's graffiti. It is essentially worthless. Frankly, anyone who thinks the person who thought up this (http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/files/2006/09/elephbanksy372.jpg) is an artist needs their head examining.

Well, if Tracey Ermin and that other eejit are artists...why the fuck not Banksy? At least he makes a good point a lot of the time.

Regardless of our opinion of his work it's still grafitti and not legal. The company was well within its' rights to paint over it.

Yep, doesnt make them any less thick for doing it though....

Banksy should be the one getting jailtime. For fraud. Half a million dollars? Whoever's paying that is either a fucking idiot or is part of an elaborate joke.

Banksy's work, while art in the technical sense, is not more valuable because it's graffiti. It is essentially worthless. Frankly, anyone who thinks the person who thought up this (http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/files/2006/09/elephbanksy372.jpg) is an artist needs their head examining.

So for art to be valid it has to stay within certain forms?

As for money....hey...why punish Banksy for other peoples obvious stupidity.

$140,000,000 for a Jackson Pollock????

Yep, doesnt make them any less thick for doing it though....

They should have sold the wall, they would have made a fortune. And it's not like Bansky has any rights to graffitti.

Well, if Tracey Ermin and that other eejit are artists...why the fuck not Banksy? At least he makes a good point a lot of the time.
What 'good points' does he make? That you can get away with vandalism and animal cruelty if you call it art? :rolleyes:

Yep, doesnt make them any less thick for doing it though....
It doesn't make them 'thick'. Part of a council's job is removing graffiti. Banksy's work is graffiti. There is no way around that, it most definitely is graffiti whether it's art or not. Just because it's supposedly worth thousands of pounds doesn't mean they were thick to remove it. It's not as if anyone was going to buy it.

animal cruelty?

Frankly, anyone who thinks the person who thought up this (http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/files/2006/09/elephbanksy372.jpg) is an artist needs their head examining.
what's wrong with that? It could conceivably be considered a political statement, as well as an art piece.

They (the council) have the right to remove graffiti, whether it is considered good art or not. It's what they are elected to do. I think there are cases where they could do with a bit more discretion (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6543943.stm), however, and perhaps this is a case where they could do the same.

Yep, doesnt make them any less thick for doing it though....

Why? Their idea of art might consist of nicely painted white walls.

To call people think for having different opinions on what constitutes art displays a misunderstanding on the whole point of art.

animal cruelty?
Painting an elephant from head to toe?

Eh, 'Art' has always been a world of sillyness. Though perhaps moreso now than ever.

I don't see why Banksy's stuff should be treated any differently to any other graffiti. Criminal damage is criminal damage. If I spray painted like that I'd get in a lot of trouble. If he wants his work to stay up, he should have put it in a gallery. The world isn't your canvas.

Painting an elephant from head to toe?

Did the elephant stress? Did it rampage or show displeasure at being used?

They should have sold the wall, they would have made a fortune. And it's not like Bansky has any rights to graffitti.

Yep. Or taken it down and rehoused it and charged a fee to see it. But no, that would be using the oul noggin, wouldn't?


What 'good points' does he make? That you can get away with vandalism and animal cruelty if you call it art?

Sad day when I'm the one defending art...Anyhoo....

Heres one (http://www.woostercollective.com/2006/09/breaking_the_story_disneyland_doesnt_wan.html)

etc
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4748063.stm

etc
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5310416.stm


Just because it's supposedly worth thousands of pounds doesn't mean they were thick to remove it.

O no, not at all. For fucks sake. Any of Ermins stuff I've seen, I can only describe as "shite". Would I torch it/bin it/make the bed? No, I would not.

Great, a white wall - which is an invitation for less skilled grafiti artists to paint stuff on it.

Why? Their idea of art might consist of nicely painted white walls.

To call people think for having different opinions on what constitutes art displays a misunderstanding on the whole point of art.

Like I already said, the fact that they didn't consider to be art is not the point. Some - a great number in fact - did. Thus by removing what they didnt consdider to be art they are in fact becoming cultural vandals in their own right. I'm not calling them thick for not liking it. I'm calling them thick for destroying it.

O no, not at all. For fucks sake. Any of Ermins stuff I've seen, I can only describe as "shite". Would I torch it/bin it/make the bed? No, I would not.
I've yet to meet anyone who thinks Ermin's stuff is good.
for good reason too: It is utter shit made by a very untalented hack.

Who buys it, and why is it so expensive?

one of the great mysteries of our ages indeed...


I wish someone would make a life-size sculpture of Ermin out of feces. It would be a suitable tribute to her life as an artist.

Like I already said, the fact that they didn't consider to be art is not the point. Some - a great number in fact - did. Thus by removing what they didnt consdider to be art they are in fact becoming cultural vandals in their own right. I'm not calling them thick for not liking it. I'm calling them thick for destroying it.

So if a good number of people considered the way your living room was decorated to be artistic then you couldn't redecorate it without being a cultural vandal?

Like I already said, the fact that they didn't consider to be art is not the point. Some - a great number in fact - did. Thus by removing what they didnt consdider to be art they are in fact becoming cultural vandals in their own right. I'm not calling them thick for not liking it. I'm calling them thick for destroying it.
it's a grey area imo.
While I like Banksy's work I don't appreciate his apparent arrogance that's implied in it. He feels he's such a good graffiti artist that he can go around painting on private property without permission and that owners of said property will be everso grateful for his daubings. Further, his work is so significant and impressive that owners of said private property lose their inherent property rights in being able to do what they want with it.
If he wants to paint on someone's private property without permission, fine. But there shouldn't be any complaints if the owner decides to paint over it. It is their place and their right, after all.

Yep. Or taken it down and rehoused it and charged a fee to see it. But no, that would be using the oul noggin, wouldn't?
Who pays for that? It would be a costly construction prject to take a building wall down and house it elsewhere. And what if the owners don't want all the inconvenience of it?


Sad day when I'm the one defending art...Anyhoo....

Heres one (http://www.woostercollective.com/2006/09/breaking_the_story_disneyland_doesnt_wan.html)

etc
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4748063.stm

etc
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5310416.stm

Doesn't change anything. If he wants to make a point he can find a legal way to do it.

O no, not at all. For fucks sake. Any of Ermins stuff I've seen, I can only describe as "shite". Would I torch it/bin it/make the bed? No, I would not.
The difference with Emin's stuff is that is wasn't created by vandalising somebody else's property. If a gallery's willing to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds to house a load of crap it's their right to. Quite different from graffiti.

How is grafitti art so different than the murals of Diego Rivera (http://www.diegorivera.com/murals/index.php)? They didn't start out as sanctioned works...

I like art that speaks to the people. It doesn't make it 'low', it doesn't make it 'crass' or any less a piece of art. The fact that graffiti art is seen as a sign of urban decay instead of urban revitalisation is astounding...

From what I've seen of his work, it's very thought provoking. But I can't imagine he would expect those challenges to go unanswered. They paint over this one...as someone else has said, cultural vandalism. Still, he can do another...all this does is draw more attention to his work anyway.

Grafiti is grafiti is grafiti. It's basically destruction of property. What's art in the artist's eye could be seen as destructive in another's. I like making art. I use this crazy invention called paper. It's a real crazy invention. You can actually make art on it. And it's really cheap. And it doesn't ugly up someone else's property. It's disposable too, so if you get tired of it, you can throw it away or even make things with it.

To whoever thinks that grafiti is art: how would you like it if I spraypainted your property without your permission? Would you like that? Would give it that "bad side of the tracks" look.

So if a good number of people considered the way your living room was decorated to be artistic then you couldn't redecorate it without being a cultural vandal?

In the extreme, yes. Versailles being an example. There is such a thing as listed houses you know.....

Grafiti is grafiti is grafiti. It's basically destruction of property. What's art in the artist's eye could be seen as destructive in another's. I like making art. I use this crazy invention called paper. It's a real crazy invention. You can actually make art on it. And it's really cheap. And it doesn't ugly up someone else's property. It's disposable too, so if you get tired of it, you can throw it away or even make things with it.

To whoever thinks that grafiti is art: how would you like it if I spraypainted your property without your permission? Would you like that? Would give it that "bad side of the tracks" look.


Have you actually the picture of the piece we're talking about?

How is grafitti art so different than the murals of Diego Rivera (http://www.diegorivera.com/murals/index.php)? They didn't start out as sanctioned works...

I like art that speaks to the people. It doesn't make it 'low', it doesn't make it 'crass' or any less a piece of art. The fact that graffiti art is seen as a sign of urban decay instead of urban revitalisation is astounding...

Maybe that's because a lot of grafiti is made by gang members. Yeah. Gang members. Those kids that shoot people and rob and do drugs. Their turf is like Baghdad, but on a smaller scale and with fewer bombs, but possibly more bullets. Grafiti could be taken as a sign of gang activity. Nobody wants to live near armed, violent kids. Would you want to live in a place where a kid could gun you down for anything? You could wake up robbed and dead. It's basic human nature. When law and order break down in an area, people wind up dead. It's like Lord of the Flies, but less islandy.

Is your house covered in grafiti "art"? Would you want your house covered with "art"? I wouldn't want my house covered with grafiti, which is why I oppose grafiti. It's often ugly. It's often tacky. It's illegal.

it's a grey area imo.
While I like Banksy's work I don't appreciate his apparent arrogance that's implied in it. He feels he's such a good graffiti artist that he can go around painting on private property without permission and that owners of said property will be everso grateful for his daubings. Further, his work is so significant and impressive that owners of said private property lose their inherent property rights in being able to do what they want with it.
If he wants to paint on someone's private property without permission, fine. But there shouldn't be any complaints if the owner decides to paint over it. It is their place and their right, after all.

Not saying its not their right, it just strikes me as rather stupid to destroy something considered art for reasons already outlined - be they "moral" or purely mercenary.

Grafiti is grafiti is grafiti. It's basically destruction of property. What's art in the artist's eye could be seen as destructive in another's. I like making art. I use this crazy invention called paper. It's a real crazy invention. You can actually make art on it. And it's really cheap. And it doesn't ugly up someone else's property. It's disposable too, so if you get tired of it, you can throw it away or even make things with it.

To whoever thinks that grafiti is art: how would you like it if I spraypainted your property without your permission? Would you like that? Would give it that "bad side of the tracks" look.

Based on this I think your sig needs a re-write.

it's a grey area imo.
While I like Banksy's work I don't appreciate his apparent arrogance that's implied in it. He feels he's such a good graffiti artist that he can go around painting on private property without permission and that owners of said property will be everso grateful for his daubings.


I don't think that is a matter of thinking he is 'that good'. I think it is a matter of thinking he has something to say through his art which is important enough to transgress traditional boundaries.


Further, his work is so significant and impressive that owners of said private property lose their inherent property rights in being able to do what they want with it.
If he wants to paint on someone's private property without permission, fine. But there shouldn't be any complaints if the owner decides to paint over it. It is their place and their right, after all.

Did Banksy complain? If other people want to complain about destruction of his work... he can hardly be held accountable for their opinions.

Maybe that's because a lot of grafiti is made by gang members. Yeah. Gang members. Those kids that shoot people and rob and do drugs. Their turf is like Baghdad, but on a smaller scale and with fewer bombs, but possibly more bullets. Grafiti could be taken as a sign of gang activity. Nobody wants to live near armed, violent kids. Would you want to live in a place where a kid could gun you down for anything? You could wake up robbed and dead. It's basic human nature. When law and order break down in an area, people wind up dead. It's like Lord of the Flies, but less islandy.

Is your house covered in grafiti "art"? Would you want your house covered with "art"? I wouldn't want my house covered with grafiti, which is why I oppose grafiti. It's often ugly. It's often tacky. It's illegal.

Again, have you actually looked at what we're on about? Because I seriously fucking doubt it. Either that or you're taking the piss.

Maybe that's because a lot of grafiti is made by gang members. Yeah. Gang members. Those kids that shoot people and rob and do drugs. Sorry...is this particular individual a gang member that shoots and robs people?

A lot of books are written by people with substance abuse problems. Let's boycott books!

A lot of music is made by people who are sexually promiscuous...let's ban music!

A lot of hairdressers are gay...don't support salons!

Graffiti is a medium.



Is your house covered in grafiti "art"? Would you want your house covered with "art"? I wouldn't want my house covered with grafiti, which is why I oppose grafiti. It's often ugly. It's often tacky. It's illegal.

Often ugly, often tacky doesn't mean ALWAYS. Have you seen this guy's work? It's amazing.

Should he get permission if he wants it kept up? Absolutely. The fact that he doesn't is a sign that the process, that 'illegality' of which you speak, (which is not inherently linked with gang violence, no matter how much you want the association to be iron clad) is important to him, and to the subject matter of his art. Which is why I'm not going to mourn the loss of it...even the painting over of his art is a statement adding to his own.

In the extreme, yes. Versailles being an example. There is such a thing as listed houses you know.....

Which you still have control over. You can decorate them yourself within certain guidelines, Banksy is doing it without permission on other peoples property and you have to accept if the work is overpainted.

Incidentally, I think the transitory nature of grafitti is one of the things that makes it resonate so much with youth across the world. Feelings of alienation being expressed and then disappearing as though swallowed up by an uncaring world and all that.

I don't think that is a matter of thinking he is 'that good'. I think it is a matter of thinking he has something to say through his art which is important enough to transgress traditional boundaries.
Which surely is a sign of arrogance: He thinks his work is more important than that person's legal rights.

Did Banksy complain? If other people want to complain about destruction of his work... he can hardly be held accountable for their opinions.
Did I say Banksy complained? nope. I said "there shouldn't be any complaints if the owner decides to paint over it" - meaning no-one - Banksy, the public or whoever should bitch about it.
This painting over is surely one aspect of Banksy's work: His stuff isn't meant to be permanent.

I like art that speaks to the people. It doesn't make it 'low', it doesn't make it 'crass' or any less a piece of art. The fact that graffiti art is seen as a sign of urban decay instead of urban revitalisation is astounding...

Face it, the overwhelming majority of graffiti "art" is crudely-spraypainted swearwords and anarchy symbols. Not even a tiny minority of the "artists" have the skills Banksy does.

From what I've seen of his work, it's very thought provoking. But I can't imagine he would expect those challenges to go unanswered. They paint over this one...as someone else has said, cultural vandalism. Still, he can do another...all this does is draw more attention to his work anyway.

Before this thread I'd never heard of him, but I looked him up and agree that it's pretty good.
But he still painted it on somebody else's wall. Sometimes the owner decides it should stay (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/5193552.stm), and sometimes, like this, they don't. If he'd wanted to be sure that it'd stay there he should have asked permission first, or painted it on his own wall. He didn't, so we have to assume he's indifferent to its permanence.

"He knew the job was dangerous before he took it", as they say ;)

it's a grey area imo.
While I like Banksy's work I don't appreciate his apparent arrogance that's implied in it. He feels he's such a good graffiti artist that he can go around painting on private property without permission and that owners of said property will be everso grateful for his daubings. Further, his work is so significant and impressive that owners of said private property lose their inherent property rights in being able to do what they want with it.
If he wants to paint on someone's private property without permission, fine. But there shouldn't be any complaints if the owner decides to paint over it. It is their place and their right, after all.
i don't know of any instance of banksy complaining of his work being painted over by the owners of the walls. complains have certainly been heard from his fans but not from the man himself that i am aware of.

Which surely is a sign of arrogance: He thinks his work is more important than that person's legal rights.


No - he thinks his MESSAGE is more important than the other people's 'rights'. And, on a number of occassions, I've agreed.

The Iconoclast archetype is one of the most important roles to be filled in a society.


Did I say Banksy complained? nope. I said "there shouldn't be any complaints if the owner decides to paint over it" - meaning no-one - Banksy, the public or whoever should bitch about it.
This painting over is surely one aspect of Banksy's work: His stuff isn't meant to be permanent.

If you aren't including it as part of a run-on sentence, then I'm misreading it. It looks to me like that line is part of the same 'arrogance' comment. As far as I'm aware, Banksy hasn't complained about the removal of his work... but, if his work IS important, perhaps it should be protected, in some form, regardless.

If he'd wanted to be sure that it'd stay there he should have asked permission first, or painted it on his own wall. He didn't, so we have to assume he's indifferent to its permanence.

"He knew the job was dangerous before he took it", as they say ;)

I'm not saying any different.

There are a lot of incredible urban artists out there, and yeah, a lot of shit....kids tagging with no skill for kicks. I like the impermanence of the art.

As for Demented Hamsters saying 'no one should complain', oh give me a break. If it's on a public building and people LIKE it, then damn rights they should give voice to their appreciation. Why on earth would you suggest otherwise? They aren't necessarily going to get their way...but 'don't complain' as though it's unconscionable? Hardly.

No - he thinks his MESSAGE is more important than the other people's 'rights'. And, on a number of occassions, I've agreed.
considering his work is his message, then you're just being picknicky arguing semantics.
Again, it's arrogance on his part if he feels his work - or message if that'll make you feel better - is more important than someone else's legal rights.

His work on the Palestinian wall (someone linked it earlier) showed that he can be arrogant. He claimed it was all a protest against Israel and to show his support for the Palestinians. Funnily enough, many of the very people he was claiming to be in solidarity with didn't approve, as they viewed it as an attempt to beautify something they hated. Didn't stop him from finishing his works though.


If he doesn't care either way whether it's destroyed, then we the public shouldn't get all up in arms and castigate the owners for doing nothing more than cleaning their property.

art is in the eye of the beholder after all. Just because you or I think the work looks good doesn't mean the property owner does - and it doesn't mean they should be forced into accommodating our tastes.

considering his work is his message, then you're just being picknicky arguing semantics.
Again, it's arrogance on his part if he feels his work - or message if that'll make you feel better - is more important than someone else's legal rights.

His work on the Palestinian wall (someone linked it earlier) showed that he can be arrogant. He claimed it was all a protest against Israel and to show his support for the Palestinians. Funnily enough, many of the very people he was claiming to be in solidarity with didn't approve, as they viewed it as an attempt to beautify something they hated. Didn't stop him from finishing his works though.


If he doesn't care either way whether it's destroyed, then we the public shouldn't get all up in arms and castigate the owners for doing nothing more than cleaning their property.

art is in the eye of the beholder after all. Just because you or I think the work looks good doesn't mean the property owner does - and it doesn't mean they should be forced into accommodating our tastes.

but in this case the property that is being cleaned up is public property. as members of the public we therefore have every right to complain if we wish the work to remain.

If I painted something you thought garish and hideous on your building but the majority of the public said they liked it, would you then be happy to keep it there and maintain it at your own expense for years?

it's obviously a different matter when it is on private property.

As for Demented Hamsters saying 'no one should complain', oh give me a break. If it's on a public building and people LIKE it, then damn rights they should give voice to their appreciation. Why on earth would you suggest otherwise? They aren't necessarily going to get their way...but 'don't complain' as though it's unconscionable? Hardly.
If I painted something you thought garish and hideous on your building but the majority of the public said they liked it, would you then be happy to keep it there and maintain it at your own expense for years?

banksy is an absolute legend, butit grafetti so of course its gonna get white washed....plus how exactly can u value a painting on a wall??? its not like you can buy it!

Yep. Or taken it down and rehoused it and charged a fee to see it. But no, that would be using the oul noggin, wouldn't?



Sad day when I'm the one defending art...Anyhoo....

Heres one (http://www.woostercollective.com/2006/09/breaking_the_story_disneyland_doesnt_wan.html)


A good point, poor execution. As much as I loathe disney, I don't agree with the tactic. Trespassing and such.


etc
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4748063.stm

Good point? Perhaps. Execution? Once again, idiotic. Destruction of government property and all, not to mention this is not even his country. Mildly surprised he wasn't arrested.


etc
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5310416.stm

Same as above, only in this case, it's theft.

So, basically, he's a criminal, who thinks that he is above the law, and doesn't like the fact that some people are don't want him to damage their property.

Great.

Anyway, if he did this on public property, the public should have a choice on whether to keep it or not.

If done on private property(which apparently he has done before), the ONLY person who has any say is the property owner. I like art just as much as the next, but quite frankly if someone doesn't want it on their own property(be it a house or a business building), he/she has every right to remove it. Likewise, if the public doesn't want an artpiece in on public property, the same holds true.

Not saying that in this particular case it isn't wanted.

1 - My genius comment was aimed at the spokesperson for Transport for London . One of the best and clearly spoken press statements in a fair while.

2 - Breaking the law. Well if people did not break the law we would not have women voting, universal education, and labour laws to name a few.

So to you who bleat oh my god think of the law you can blow it out of yer arse coz all you are interested in is the status quo. That my friends makes life far far too boring.

3 - Vandalism. Yes. Indeed. Vandalism. What utter bollocks. I am happier to see a crap tag than some drab building exterior or wall. Our cities are drab and boring when it comes to colours...I could say that as historically our towns were rather colourful I could contend that actually 'modern' construction/development is cultural vandalism.

If I painted something you thought garish and hideous on your building but the majority of the public said they liked it, would you then be happy to keep it there and maintain it at your own expense for years?

PUBLIC property being the operative words. Not private private property.

PUBLIC property being the operative words. Not private private property.
Public property also being a misnomer: it is owned by the government, and it was government officials who decided it needed to go. Therefore, it went.
And, if we're ignoring the legal and practical aspects of this and opting for a cultural standpoint, then haven't the repainters done the world a favor by creating controversy and news coverage around a man whose work apparently relies on it?

1 - My genius comment was aimed at the spokesperson for Transport for London . One of the best and clearly spoken press statements in a fair while.

2 - Breaking the law. Well if people did not break the law we would not have women voting, universal education, and labour laws to name a few.

So to you who bleat oh my god think of the law you can blow it out of yer arse coz all you are interested in is the status quo. That my friends makes life far far too boring.

3 - Vandalism. Yes. Indeed. Vandalism. What utter bollocks. I am happier to see a crap tag than some drab building exterior or wall. Our cities are drab and boring when it comes to colours...I could say that as historically our towns were rather colourful I could contend that actually 'modern' construction/development is cultural vandalism.

1. no comment

2. You have a point, but doing something illegal doesn't always mean doing something right. Sure, woman suffrage did come a bit late, but you can't always equate breaking unjust laws with breaking other laws. Murder and robbery are both illegal. Drunk driving is illegal, as is going 100 miles per hour in a school zone. Cheating the IRS and not paying your taxes is illegal and, believe it or not, hurts everyone because roads and schools are paid for by tax dollars.

3. What you see as art could be trash in someone else's eyes. Painting art on walls is okay with me as long as it is done with permission by whoever owns said wall, whether it be the government or a family or a corporate ceo or whatever. Banksy has engaged in graffiti and vandalism illegally for a while now. I would know. I did my research.

As for ugly tags, I'm against them. Maybe it's because I became paranoid after the police came to several specific houses in my neighborhood often. 3 or 4 houses that often had police cars parked outside. I suspect drugs, domestic violence, and/or gang activity to be a cause. I don't like gangs. They drive property values WAY down (who wants to live near armed and dangerous hooligans? They turned this apartment complex I used to live in from a picturesque complex complete with trees and green grass and park benches into a cheap place to live, complete with grafiti, broken windows, and police cars. I don't like grafiti. Grafiti turns walls from bland to just plain ugly.

Good point? Perhaps. Execution? Once again, idiotic. Destruction of government property and all, not to mention this is not even his country. Mildly surprised he wasn't arrested.


Only shame is that it wasnt actually destruction in the literal sense.

Victimless crimes there all three, lets face it.

but sadly our graffiti removal teams are staffed by professional cleaners not professional art critics
"Our high school drop out painters couldn't tell art from scribbling on a wall.