As some of you may be aware, the new piece of street art by guerilla graffiti-artist Banksy (image shown below) was recently taken (by crowbar) from it's public location after only a few hours on display.
The piece of art was removed not by the owner of the wall, but by a boy's club located next door (under the pretence of "protecting" the artwork). The boy's club are now demanding donations from people wishing to view the artwork, an have admitted planning to sell the piece for £100,000+. They are defending their actions with the excuse that without the money the artwork could provide, their boy's club will not have the funds to continue running.
Now I'm hardly impartial here, I live and study in Bristol and walk past a Banksy every time I walk into town. I'm even planning on having part of a Banksy piece tattoo'd onto my shoulder once I can afford it. However, I think that whatever their reasons the assumption that these people can simply walk up and steal a piece of public artwork just because they're short on funds themselves is despicable. They don't even own the wall that it was placed on - if they did, I'd still find it morally objectionable but at least they would have some sort of a right to it as the owners.
If having no money somehow gives you the right to go out and steal pieces of Bristol culture then I suppose I'm in luck - I might have to go and bag myself a flag from the SS Great Britain, and maybe I'll grab one of those Gromit statues while I'm at it.
As far as I'm concerned, if the Boy's Club is under threat of closure then they have no-one to blame but themselves. I am sure they are providing a hugely beneficial and admirable service to the community, but if they can't fashion that into a workable business model at least to keep themselves running then they've got no place in being there. The money from the painting won't last forever, and once that's gone what do they plan on doing next - steal another piece of public art to be flogged to a private owner?
I would have no issue if they took advantage of the piece as a tourist attraction and placed a "donations" box nearby. If anything that would allow people to show their appreciation of the piece in a more objective fashion. Taking the piece and forcing people to pay to view it though is, in my opinion, totally against everything that Banksy's art stands for. They might say that it's for a good cause, but they still had no right to do it.
BBC Article
/Rant over.
Discuss.
The piece of art was removed not by the owner of the wall, but by a boy's club located next door (under the pretence of "protecting" the artwork). The boy's club are now demanding donations from people wishing to view the artwork, an have admitted planning to sell the piece for £100,000+. They are defending their actions with the excuse that without the money the artwork could provide, their boy's club will not have the funds to continue running.
Now I'm hardly impartial here, I live and study in Bristol and walk past a Banksy every time I walk into town. I'm even planning on having part of a Banksy piece tattoo'd onto my shoulder once I can afford it. However, I think that whatever their reasons the assumption that these people can simply walk up and steal a piece of public artwork just because they're short on funds themselves is despicable. They don't even own the wall that it was placed on - if they did, I'd still find it morally objectionable but at least they would have some sort of a right to it as the owners.
If having no money somehow gives you the right to go out and steal pieces of Bristol culture then I suppose I'm in luck - I might have to go and bag myself a flag from the SS Great Britain, and maybe I'll grab one of those Gromit statues while I'm at it.
As far as I'm concerned, if the Boy's Club is under threat of closure then they have no-one to blame but themselves. I am sure they are providing a hugely beneficial and admirable service to the community, but if they can't fashion that into a workable business model at least to keep themselves running then they've got no place in being there. The money from the painting won't last forever, and once that's gone what do they plan on doing next - steal another piece of public art to be flogged to a private owner?
I would have no issue if they took advantage of the piece as a tourist attraction and placed a "donations" box nearby. If anything that would allow people to show their appreciation of the piece in a more objective fashion. Taking the piece and forcing people to pay to view it though is, in my opinion, totally against everything that Banksy's art stands for. They might say that it's for a good cause, but they still had no right to do it.
BBC Article
/Rant over.
Discuss.
