You're right and all, and I more or less agree, but it's still private property we're talking about, isn't it? If I don't want someone to stick gold onto my property, I shouldn't have to put up with it. It just so happens that most people are OK with free money, though.
That said, I was under the impression that he asked permission first, at least recently?
Even if he does ask for permission, the whole cult-of-some-guy-who-sprays-crap-on-other-people's-property is only serving to encourage other vandals who consider themselves "artists".
If he gets permission before each and every one of his "artworks" then he should come out and be explicit about it so that copycats don't get inspired. And if he doesn't, he should be thrown in prison, and the various city governments and other property owners who have been "blessed" by his work should subpoena (or whatever) the Simpsons producers in order to find out who exactly this asshole is.
edit: I wonder how many of the people who defend this guy are not property-owners themselves.
You've demonstrated perfectly the old-grandpa 'get off my lawn position'. However dismissing him as just some guy who sprays crap on other people's property probably just indicates you aren't aware of the social / political messaging he engages in.
"Any advert in public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours…You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head…They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs." - Banksy in Wall And Piece
However dismissing him as just some guy who sprays crap on other people's property probably just indicates you aren't aware of the social / political messaging he engages in.
It's easy to say that the law should not be enforced against Banksy because he is engaged in worthy social/political messaging, but consider: what if the government can't be trusted to decide what is politically legitimate and artistically worthy? I know, I know, crazy talk, but it's an interesting thought experiment, right?
You and I might think Banksy is great and different, but it's a legitimate point that "some guy who sprays crap on other people's property" doesn't recognize that he is, in fact, different from Banksy. He thinks he's Banksy, just like every gay-bashing, church-bombing white power thug thinks he's Batman, cleaning up scum off the streets. And who are we to say they're wrong? Even worse, who are the cops that we trust them to make the distinction? The difference between Batman and a white power vigilante is politics; the difference between Banksy and a paint-huffing teenage dipshit is political and artistic understanding, as well as aesthetics. Tolerating Banksy means selective law enforcement based on someone's political and artistic sensibility. In the United States we have a long history of the cops being on the wrong side of these kinds of distinctions, and I hope every other country recognizes the same thing in their history.
Personally, I hope Banksy stays ahead of the cops, but I also hope they're trying in earnest to bust him when he does something illegal.
The quote you snipped there was just making the point that throwing Banksy in to the same category as your pedestrian vandal is a mischaracterization.
You make some good points. The artistic / social / political value of an act is subjective - yes. However I never actually said the law shouldn't be enforced against Banksy. Like you I'd expect the police to take on people wilfully damaging private property.
It's a filter that ensures only the very committed will produce works as bold as Banksy, and whether I like or loathe their messages, I expect they're worthy of a pause for thought by society. Which is what Banksy is trying to achieve.
Keep in mind graffiti has been a problem since forever (didn't Herodotus record some citizen outrage in Athens?), and is mostly banal. So admitting that in our times there is a very interesting character who is engaged in something a little more high-minded than tagging or 'spraying crap' isn't a cause for too much philosophical hand-wringing.
However dismissing him as just some guy who sprays crap on other people's property probably just indicates you aren't aware of the social / political messaging he engages in.
No, I think that just serves to make it worse.
Any advert in public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours…You can do whatever you like with it.
That's a ridiculous position to hold. By that logic, if I see your face in a public place then I have the right to rearrange your face as I see fit.
I think you're wilfully missing the point, so I'm picking straw man.
Anyway, I agree with your sentiments about those who disrespect private property, but only to a point. The endless messy 'tagging' on small businesses in urban areas is egotistical, mindless, territorial pissing. I agree.
My beef with your previous comments is that you're throwing Banksy into that category, when any basic investigation of his activities clearly demonstrates he's a subversive with a very deliberate set of social and political messages.
That quote is extreme (and not the full quote - sorry), but Banksy clearly makes the point that we live in a world where we are constantly bombarded by banal, manipulative, consumerist messaging, and he feels that individuals with messages should not be given any lesser right to societal messaging, even if it means currently breaking the law to do this.
Sure there's fertile ground to do a "By that logic, if everyone...". Boring.
Living in East London I'd say the urban culture was massively enhanced by Banksy pieces lurking everywhere, and felt far more intelligent than a Singaporean, Truman-show, world of perfect polished billboards making everyone feel inadequate if they don't buy that product. meh.
Editing in the suggestion that those who don't share your reactionary and tone-deaf views on this subject are likely not property owners doesn't really do much improve your reply.
I think he asks permission when it suits him. Given his profile as an artist, I'd imagine he mostly wants to work on projects of the sort of scale that require permission from an organisation of some sort. I don't think he has an objection to tagging the streets of London still, but his most high-profile works now would be impossible without permission.
That said, I was under the impression that he asked permission first, at least recently?