Sorry Banksy

[Tonsko]

I think that you're just at loggerheads with a modern artform, Impasse. You've got in your head that all graffiti is bad because, well let's be honest, most of it is pretty poor, and that it's on 'someone else's wall' - which is kind of the point of it.

In the 70s and 80s, graffiti seemed mostly to be tagging. That is, spraying your 'tag' anywhere and everywhere you could. It's annoying and makes the place look scruffy.

Contrast with the full on wall sized artistic pieces that brighten up our cities. No comparison.

Would you object to it if were on a 'permissible' wall, as some councils put up now?

https://flic.kr/p/4SjxYL
https://flic.kr/p/4BHxHZ

Don't you think they add something to the piece of wall that they are painted onto?

Edited by Tonsko on Thursday 2nd October 14:02

[JuniorD]

MrCarPark said:

dandarez said:

I like the bit in that paper which says:

...while a more 'Exotic' bird looks on' (at the pigeon's 'Go back to Africa' banners).

It's a bloody Swallow! (Hirundo Rustica)

While they are widespread, West and South African Swallows are non-migratory

Indeed. The irony of the piece is that the swallows we see in Britain are British, having been born and raised here.

So while the pigeons are showing their ignorance - despite being smart enough to make banners - perhaps there is another meaning to it.

Perhaps Banksy has had enough of public sector pensioners taking their pensions and living abroad, and only coming back to Britain to rub everyone's noses in it about how bloody wonderful living abroad is.

Or perhaps not.

Excellent analysis.

Also one banner reads "Keep Off Our Worms", which is another misguided display of ignorance by the pigeons (or rather Rock Doves) as Swallows generally restrict their diet to flying insects. Similarly, Rock Doves probably don't rely on worms for sustenance either. In that way, "Keep Off Our Worms" is almost analogous of "keep away from our jobs". Given it's October, I suspect the Swallow was heading off away.

[Impasse]

Tonsko said:

I think that you're just at loggerheads with a modern artform, Impasse. You've got in your head that all graffiti is bad because, well let's be honest, most of it is pretty poor, and that it's on 'someone else's wall' - which is kind of the point of it.

In the 70s and 80s, graffiti seemed mostly to be tagging. That is, spraying your 'tag' anywhere and everywhere you could. It's annoying and makes the place look scruffy.

Contrast with the full on wall sized artistic pieces that brighten up our cities. No comparison.

Would you object to it if were on a 'permissible' wall, as some councils put up now?

https://flic.kr/p/4SjxYL
https://flic.kr/p/4BHxHZ

Don't you think they add something to the piece of wall that they are painted onto?

Edited by Tonsko on Thursday 2nd October 14:02

I have no issue with commissioned or invited art. But spray painting my wall with undergraduate level political or social statements is vandalism.

[Mr_B]

FredClogs said:

Because racism.

You can't put a price on shushing up the racist nature of UKIP supporters.

Not unlike Banksy, an inability to talk on the subject, but straight to racist. Genius.

[FredClogs]

Mr_B said:

FredClogs said:

Because racism.

You can't put a price on shushing up the racist nature of UKIP supporters.

Not unlike Banksy, an inability to talk on the subject, but straight to racist. Genius.

I'm more than able to talk on the subject, except on these forums because several racists stool pigeons had me modded off the UKIP thread, ironically for some straight talking spade calling. Apparently your average pigeon doesn't like it up 'em.

[irocfan]

FredClogs said:

Mr_B said:

FredClogs said:

Because racism.

You can't put a price on shushing up the racist nature of UKIP supporters.

Not unlike Banksy, an inability to talk on the subject, but straight to racist. Genius.

I'm more than able to talk on the subject, except on these forums because several racists stool pigeons had me modded off the UKIP thread, ironically for some straight talking spade calling. Apparently your average pigeon doesn't like it up 'em.

no you were hoiked off because you were being an argumentative tit - which seems to be your default mode once certain subject crop up HTH

[Galsia]

Correct decision by the council IMO.

[Mr_B]

FredClogs said:

Mr_B said:

FredClogs said:

Because racism.

You can't put a price on shushing up the racist nature of UKIP supporters.

Not unlike Banksy, an inability to talk on the subject, but straight to racist. Genius.

I'm more than able to talk on the subject, except on these forums because several racists stool pigeons had me modded off the UKIP thread, ironically for some straight talking spade calling. Apparently your average pigeon doesn't like it up 'em.

Your default position is calling racist simply on the belief that what any who doesn't agree with you must be so. If you are unable to identify racist policies or statements, but then just call it anyway, don't be surprised if you get kicked off the thread/site.

[Ayahuasca]

What is Banksy's real name?

[petemurphy]

Galsia said:

Correct decision by the council IMO.

what rather than selling it and getting 400k for the taxpayer off some mug?

[Martin4x4]

irocfan said:

and you haven't answered my question either...

Because it is irrelevant!

[Westy Pre-Lit]

zcacogp said:

Westy Pre-Lit said:

Just shows you the mentality of those that can't see who he is actually taking the piss out of.

Genuine Q: What is it he is taking the piss out of?


Oli.

If you have to ask......

petemurphy said:

Galsia said:

Correct decision by the council IMO.

what rather than selling it and getting 400k for the taxpayer off some mug?

Exactly, they could have probably built a whole new complex had the carefully removed the plaster on which it was sprayed, now they're just left with a dirty paint patch.....bloody brilliant

I wonder why they work for the council.

[Martin4x4]

Impasse said:

Martin4x4 said:

No, you are ignorning the definition of the word _damage_. Were is the the loss of utility, function or value? That is what you have to prove first.

But your white car can still be used even if it has a knob painted on the bonnet in black spray paint, yet I think most sane people would agree the car has been damaged. If it has marked the wall then it has damaged the wall.

I don't know why some think this form of vandalism is acceptable just because it was supposedly done by (or on behalf of) an individual(s) who has/have reached notoriety in the newspapers. I'd be out there with the jetwash or paint roller the very next morning to rid my property of such childish unfunny representations of someone else's political views.

I don't own a white car but if I did and Banksy choose to Graffiti it I would be very pleased thank you very much.

However that is irreleval to the question. What is relevant is that you have not established the Banksy _is_ 'Criminal Damage'. You have failed at the first hurdle to establish a loss of utility, function or value.

We do however seem to have reached the core of you objection, which is entirely political, you object to the message and are therefore quiet prepared to ignore the facts.

[Martin4x4]

FredClogs said:

petemurphy said:

if it was a banksy worth 400k why hadnt the council sold it to raise cash? or why hadnt anyone nicked it?

Because racism.

You can't put a price on shushing up the racist nature of UKIP supporters.

Actually we can, the racist UKIP supporters have cost the council rate payers around £400k. Ouch, hope that goes down well.

[Halb]

jshell said:

You'd hate where I live in Stavanger, Norway then.

Graffiti can be very beautiful, this so called criminal damage was certainly more beautiful than the horrible 'jiz-stain' that now exists on the wall.

[irocfan]

Martin4x4 said:

irocfan said:

and you haven't answered my question either...

Because it is irrelevant!

it's totally relevant, you were arguing that graffiti wasn't criminal - I was asking your opinion on the graffiti shown

[irocfan]

Martin4x4 said:

FredClogs said:

petemurphy said:

if it was a banksy worth 400k why hadnt the council sold it to raise cash? or why hadnt anyone nicked it?

Because racism.

You can't put a price on shushing up the racist nature of UKIP supporters.

Actually we can, the racist UKIP supporters have cost the council rate payers around £400k. Ouch, hope that goes down well.

and quite how do you figure that one out?

[FredClogs]

irocfan said:

Martin4x4 said:

FredClogs said:

petemurphy said:

if it was a banksy worth 400k why hadnt the council sold it to raise cash? or why hadnt anyone nicked it?

Because racism.

You can't put a price on shushing up the racist nature of UKIP supporters.

Actually we can, the racist UKIP supporters have cost the council rate payers around £400k. Ouch, hope that goes down well.

and quite how do you figure that one out?

He's saying the knee jerk response of those UKIP stool pigeons to censor, distract or remove the conversation away from what it really is cost the council the £400k that the painting was possibly worth.

[TTwiggy]

Ayahuasca said:

What is Banksy's real name?

Front runner is a chap called Robin Gunningham.

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

[irocfan]

FredClogs said:

irocfan said:

Martin4x4 said:

FredClogs said:

petemurphy said:

if it was a banksy worth 400k why hadnt the council sold it to raise cash? or why hadnt anyone nicked it?

Because racism.

You can't put a price on shushing up the racist nature of UKIP supporters.

Actually we can, the racist UKIP supporters have cost the council rate payers around £400k. Ouch, hope that goes down well.

and quite how do you figure that one out?

He's saying the knee jerk response of those UKIP stool pigeons to censor, distract or remove the conversation away from what it really is cost the council the £400k that the painting was possibly worth.

so you're saying that UKIP requested that the vandalism be removed? Where did you get that information?