Sorry Banksy

[Yertis]

TTwiggy said:

Impasse - with the greatest of respect, you're starting to make a bit of a tit of yourself. You don't like banksy, that's fine, art is subjective, but in trying to force this point you're starting to sound rather ridiculous. The fact is that if you woke up tomorrow and had a banksy on your wall you'd be better off than you were when you went to sleep. There's really no room for argument there.

I agree with Impasse. Much as I like Banksy's ideas and surreal juxtapositions (hence the aforementioned phone call), I don't like the way his 'work' has legitimised an apparently unending flood of frankly crap imitations.

It's also incorrect to state that waking up with a Banksy on your wall would make you richer. This would only be so if you were able to liquidate the new asset – it's highly likely that you'd be unable to do that. I've often wondered whether painting over, or removing, a Banksy is actually a creative act in its own right, the reaction to said act being as bonkers as the unqualified admiration his each new work attracts.

That said I'm about to renovate a property in central Bristol, so if I ever arrive to find his Banksiness has decided to renew our brief acquaintance I'll let you know how I deal with it.

[V8Ford]

Impasse said:

What makes you think I have any need or desire for any more money? I already have more than plenty. That's very assumptive. Almost as assumptive as expecting me to enjoy a piece of vandalism just because others do.
I place a greater value on being left alone and not having my life interfered with than can be measured in such simplistic monetary terms.

So you can 100% tell me you'll never end up in dire straits, or couldn't use the money one day for health care, or help out a family member, or donate to a charity?

[Impasse]

TTwiggy said:

Impasse - with the greatest of respect, you're starting to make a bit of a tit of yourself. You don't like banksy, that's fine, art is subjective, but in trying to force this point you're starting to sound rather ridiculous. The fact is that if you woke up tomorrow and had a banksy on your wall you'd be better off than you were when you went to sleep. There's really no room for argument there.

Better off how? Not by any measure which is important to me. It doesn't affect you in any way because it's not your wall. And that forms the basis of my argument.

And why is me arguing my corner any different to being told I simply must accept this vandalism as art? Surely that's just forcing me into a point of view which meets with yours?

[TTwiggy]

Impasse said:

Better off how? Not by any measure which is important to me. It doesn't affect you in any way because it's not your wall. And that forms the basis of my argument.

And why is me arguing my corner any different to being told I simply must accept this vandalism as art? Surely that's just forcing me into a point of view which meets with yours?

I'm not forcing you into any point of view. As I said, you don't like banksy and that's fine with me. What's rather ridiculous is your continuing assertion that effectively being given several grands worth of artwork wouldn't leave you in a better position than you started in (regardless of the fact that you apparently have more money than Bill Gates). It's like complaining that someone has given you a sack of £50 notes but the sack is dirty and has left a stain on the kitchen floor.

[turbobloke]

TTwiggy said:

Impasse said:

Better off how? Not by any measure which is important to me. It doesn't affect you in any way because it's not your wall. And that forms the basis of my argument.

And why is me arguing my corner any different to being told I simply must accept this vandalism as art? Surely that's just forcing me into a point of view which meets with yours?

I'm not forcing you into any point of view. As I said, you don't like banksy and that's fine with me. What's rather ridiculous is your continuing assertion that effectively being given several grands worth of artwork wouldn't leave you in a better position than you started in (regardless of the fact that you apparently have more money than Bill Gates). It's like complaining that someone has given you a sack of £50 notes but the sack is dirty and has left a stain on the kitchen floor.

Depending on the art, big sack big stain.

Cheltenham Banksy looks set for London art gallery for alleged £1million price tag

The Banksy in question appears to be in situ, albeit under secure cover, so who knows what deals have or haven't been done but from later reports it'll be six figures minimum and not at the low end of that range.

[Impasse]

TTwiggy said:

I'm not forcing you into any point of view. As I said, you don't like banksy and that's fine with me. What's rather ridiculous is your continuing assertion that effectively being given several grands worth of artwork wouldn't leave you in a better position than you started in (regardless of the fact that you apparently have more money than Bill Gates). It's like complaining that someone has given you a sack of £50 notes but the sack is dirty and has left a stain on the kitchen floor.

Some people have different priorities than others. Some place a greater importance on being left alone than the prospect of a few extra unneeded numbers in a bank account. Why is it so difficult to accept that not everyone is fixated on money?

All this continued assertion that the vandalism can easily be converted into cash really detracts from the claims that it's edgy commentary art. The perceived commercialism is extremely conventional and serves to prove there's nothing particularly groundbreaking here. "It must be good because it's worth some dosh. " How very Rick from the Young Ones.

I'll say again. It's my wall. I like it how it is. Please leave it alone.

[TTwiggy]

Impasse said:

Some people have different priorities than others. Some place a greater importance on being left alone than the prospect of a few extra unneeded numbers in a bank account. Why is it so difficult to accept that not everyone is fixated on money?

All this continued assertion that the vandalism can easily be converted into cash really detracts from the claims that it's edgy commentary art. The perceived commercialism is extremely conventional and serves to prove there's nothing particularly groundbreaking here. "It must be good because it's worth some dosh. " How very Rick from the Young Ones.

I'll say again. It's my wall. I like it how it is. Please leave it alone.

Ok. I really don't have the energy or inclination to continue this argument. Personally, I think you've manoeuvred yourself into a silly position over this but you've got too much riding on it to back down and admit you're being a bit silly. I suspect you know this.

It's not just about money - however one of the inescapable aspects of art, in all it's forms, is that it inevitably comes with a monetary value.

[Impasse]

TTwiggy said:

Ok. I really don't have the energy or inclination to continue this argument. Personally, I think you've manoeuvred yourself into a silly position over this but you've got too much riding on it to back down and admit you're being a bit silly. I suspect you know this.

It's not just about money - however one of the inescapable aspects of art, in all it's forms, is that it inevitably comes with a monetary value.

I think you'll find my attitude to money is an oft repeated but oft misunderstood and ridiculed mantra on here. I don't particularly care, but I do wish some would occasionally look outside of their own perception of the world and at least attempt to accept that not everyone is fixated with the stuff.

As for art, well it's subjective. This isn't art. It's childish cartoons and the canvas choice means it's vandalism. However, some seem to put it on a par with the greats. In the same way they did about Emin's bed and Duchamp's urinal. The one thing that they have in common is that they all would be vastly improved with a bottle of bleach.

[TTwiggy]

Impasse said:

I think you'll find my attitude to money is an oft repeated but oft misunderstood and ridiculed mantra on here. I don't particularly care, but I do wish some would occasionally look outside of their own perception of the world and at least attempt to accept that not everyone is fixated with the stuff.

As for art, well it's subjective. This isn't art. It's childish cartoons and the canvas choice means it's vandalism. However, some seem to put it on a par with the greats. In the same way they did about Emin's bed and Duchamp's urinal. The one thing that they have in common is that they all would be vastly improved with a bottle of bleach.

So, on one hand you agree that art is subjective, but then you dismiss anything that doesn't fit your aesthetic. You're a character.

P.S fixated with money? Not at all. But I do accept the simple truth that under our current system it's better to have more of it than you need than less of it. Hence, if I were to come by a valuable piece of art by accident I'd be willing to sacrifice a whitewashed wall for it.

Edited by TTwiggy on Thursday 2nd October 22:53

Edited by TTwiggy on Thursday 2nd October 22:58

[Halb]

TTwiggy said:

Ok. I really don't have the energy or inclination to continue this argument. Personally, I think you've manoeuvred yourself into a silly position over this but you've got too much riding on it to back down and admit you're being a bit silly. I suspect you know this.
It's not just about money - however one of the inescapable aspects of art, in all it's forms, is that it inevitably comes with a monetary value.

It happens too much on PH to be surprised.

[Impasse]

TTwiggy said:

So, on one hand you agree that art is subjective, but then you dismiss anything that doesn't fit your aesthetic. You're a character.

P.S fixated with money? Not at all. But I do accept the simple truth that under our current system it's better to have more of it than you need than less of it. Hence, if I were to come by a valuable piece of art by accident I'd be willing to sacrifice a whitewashed wall for it.

Defending one's point of view is hardly being dismissive. Yet many on this thread seem preoccupied in attempting to belittle my stance of wanting my wall to be left how I like it. Why must I put up with what I perceive to be vandalism just to appease a baying mob?


And just there are the two significant differences between us on this subject.

I already have more than I need, yet the fervour for these examples of graffiti seems to revolve solely around their potential monetary worth.
I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice a wall of mine just so that this individual/organisation can spray paint over their cardboard templates. If they can afford tins of paint and a ladder, they can afford a sheet of hardboard and leave my wall alone. Because it's mine and not theirs to do with as they wish.

[TTwiggy]

Impasse said:

Defending one's point of view is hardly being dismissive. Yet many on this thread seem preoccupied in attempting to belittle my stance of wanting my wall to be left how I like it. Why must I put up with what I perceive to be vandalism just to appease a baying mob?


And just there are the two significant differences between us on this subject.

I already have more than I need, yet the fervour for these examples of graffiti seems to revolve solely around their potential monetary worth.
I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice a wall of mine just so that this individual/organisation can spray paint over their cardboard templates. If they can afford tins of paint and a ladder, they can afford a sheet of hardboard and leave my wall alone. Because it's mine and not theirs to do with as they wish.

Don't worry poppet, nobody has touched your wall.

[Impasse]

Yeah, but you looked at it funny...

[davepoth]

Impasse said:

I already have more than I need, yet the fervour for these examples of graffiti seems to revolve solely around their potential monetary worth.
I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice a wall of mine just so that this individual/organisation can spray paint over their cardboard templates. If they can afford tins of paint and a ladder, they can afford a sheet of hardboard and leave my wall alone. Because it's mine and not theirs to do with as they wish.

I bet you moan about the condition of the teeth in any horses you are given, don't you?

[Kawasicki]

Do some people not realise this was a dig at racists? Seriously?

[TTwiggy]

Kawasicki said:

Do some people not realise this was a dig at racists? Seriously?

No, I think we get that. It's just that impasse has caused an... er... there's a word for it...

Also, we can't go down the race route as it will just turn the thread into another interminable Ukip circle jerk.

[Petrus1983]

TTwiggy said:

Other possibles are Damien Hurst or that 'he' is actually an art collective.

No and no... But he is good friends with Hirst, hence the Hirst vs Banksy early on at the Serpentine.

[TTwiggy]

Petrus1983 said:

No and no... But he is good friends with Hirst, hence the Hirst vs Banksy early on at the Serpentine.

As I said in the part you didn't quote, he's almost certainly Robin Gunningham. Some of his work might be by other people however. It's not exactly hard to copy after all.

[Petrus1983]

TTwiggy said:

As I said in the part you didn't quote, he's almost certainly Robin Gunningham. Some of his work might be by other people however. It's not exactly hard to copy after all.

Apologies, I wasn't trying to prove you wrong, just answering those specific aspects His work is fairly easy to replicate (even the prints/canvas originals), but it's quite well known when he does 'original' works.

[irocfan]

soooo when Banksy does it it's ok 'cause it's art innit - when some methhead does exactly the same picture (because as was said on here it ain't exactly hard to do) it's not.... how does that work again?

I'll agree a 'Banksy' may well be worth an insane amount of money (emphasis on insane) but IMO he's just a glorified vandal