Discussion
V8Ford said:
You're missing a trick then. You could sell your new arty wall, build a nice clean new one and still have a wad of cash in your back pocket.
Or, he/they could leave my wall alone and I wouldn't have to go through such a rigmarole just to be back in the same position I was before my wall was vandalised.davepoth said:
By spraying the wall, Banksy increased the value of the wall by at least £100k. That would be enough to cover the cost of replacing the bricks removed. As pointed out above, it's only damage if the utility or value of the item is reduced, and neither occurred.
Incidentally, that is really what Banksy's "art" is these days; not the paintings themselves, but society's reaction to it.
Then why not just leave my wall alone and donate this £100k to the local art college? Incidentally, that is really what Banksy's "art" is these days; not the paintings themselves, but society's reaction to it.
If you're of the opinion that this uninvited and unwanted graffiti changes the value of a wall, then surely you should be open to the idea that values can go down as well as up. I don't want this graffiti on my wall and in my eye it severely reduces the value of my wall. I will forgo seeking compensation for this, but I would like the perpetrator to fund the restorative costs of returning my wall to its previous state.
Impasse said:
Then why not just leave my wall alone and donate this £100k to the local art college?
If you're of the opinion that this uninvited and unwanted graffiti changes the value of a wall, then surely you should be open to the idea that values can go down as well as up. I don't want this graffiti on my wall and in my eye it severely reduces the value of my wall. I will forgo seeking compensation for this, but I would like the perpetrator to fund the restorative costs of returning my wall to its previous state.
What would you think if he nailed £20K's worth of £50 notes to your wall?If you're of the opinion that this uninvited and unwanted graffiti changes the value of a wall, then surely you should be open to the idea that values can go down as well as up. I don't want this graffiti on my wall and in my eye it severely reduces the value of my wall. I will forgo seeking compensation for this, but I would like the perpetrator to fund the restorative costs of returning my wall to its previous state.
Impasse said:
Then why not just leave my wall alone and donate this £100k to the local art college?
If you're of the opinion that this uninvited and unwanted graffiti changes the value of a wall, then surely you should be open to the idea that values can go down as well as up. I don't want this graffiti on my wall and in my eye it severely reduces the value of my wall. I will forgo seeking compensation for this, but I would like the perpetrator to fund the restorative costs of returning my wall to its previous state.
Your eye is wrong. The "perpetrator" just gave you an artwork worth more than the building, let alone the wall. We've seen that no criminal damage has occurred, and as far as I can tell there is no cause for action in a civil claim either since the "perpetrator" has left the claimant in a significantly improved financial position. If you want the wall back to its original condition you have two options.If you're of the opinion that this uninvited and unwanted graffiti changes the value of a wall, then surely you should be open to the idea that values can go down as well as up. I don't want this graffiti on my wall and in my eye it severely reduces the value of my wall. I will forgo seeking compensation for this, but I would like the perpetrator to fund the restorative costs of returning my wall to its previous state.
1)Arrange for the art to be removed, sell it at auction, reinstate the wall, and buy a Bentley.
2)Paint over it in a fit of pique, and have the whole country laugh at you.
davepoth said:
Your eye is wrong. The "perpetrator" just gave you an artwork worth more than the building, let alone the wall. We've seen that no criminal damage has occurred, and as far as I can tell there is no cause for action in a civil claim either since the "perpetrator" has left the claimant in a significantly improved financial position. If you want the wall back to its original condition you have two options.
1)Arrange for the art to be removed, sell it at auction, reinstate the wall, and buy a Bentley.
2)Paint over it in a fit of pique, and have the whole country laugh at you.
Gave it to me? How? For that to happen we'd need to establish the identity of the painter/vandal and to ascertain the nature of the gift, for fear of someone claiming I was guilty of theft by finding. My wall has been vandalized. Is that how vandals escape prosecution by claiming their scribblings are a gift? What rot.1)Arrange for the art to be removed, sell it at auction, reinstate the wall, and buy a Bentley.
2)Paint over it in a fit of pique, and have the whole country laugh at you.
Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I behold my wall is at its most pleasant when not defaced by childish scrawlings. And being my wall, there is no one who can insist I believe otherwise.
1) I have no wish to dismantle my wall and I shouldn't really have to point out that it's not for sale. I have no wish to arrange anything to do with my wall apart from a little annual maintenance. I have no wish to involve myself with any auction house or Bentley dealership. I don't think it's unreasonable that I just want my wall to be left alone. Because it's my wall.
2) Why would the country laugh at me? They'd probably be sympathetic that I've been put in this situation against my will and that the stress and restorative cost of these events could have been prevented if my wall had just been left alone. Because it's my wall.
Impasse said:
Gave it to me? How? For that to happen we'd need to establish the identity of the painter/vandal and to ascertain the nature of the gift, for fear of someone claiming I was guilty of theft by finding. My wall has been vandalized. Is that how vandals escape prosecution by claiming their scribblings are a gift? What rot.
No. The wall is your wall, and if someone else paints the wall, it's still your wall - and that includes the paint on it. Just by putting the paint on the wall the "vandal" has automatically given up any right to ownership they have.Impasse said:
Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I behold my wall is at its most pleasant when not defaced by childish scrawlings. And being my wall, there is no one who can insist I believe otherwise.
1) I have no wish to dismantle my wall and I shouldn't really have to point out that it's not for sale. I have no wish to arrange anything to do with my wall apart from a little annual maintenance. I have no wish to involve myself with any auction house or Bentley dealership. I don't think it's unreasonable that I just want my wall to be left alone. Because it's my wall.
If I give you a £20 note and you want to burn it, would you expect me to provide the match?1) I have no wish to dismantle my wall and I shouldn't really have to point out that it's not for sale. I have no wish to arrange anything to do with my wall apart from a little annual maintenance. I have no wish to involve myself with any auction house or Bentley dealership. I don't think it's unreasonable that I just want my wall to be left alone. Because it's my wall.
Impasse said:
2) Why would the country laugh at me? They'd probably be sympathetic that I've been put in this situation against my will and that the stress and restorative cost of these events could have been prevented if my wall had just been left alone. Because it's my wall.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...We all laughed. Oh how we laughed. What we have here is a case whereby someone perceives an injury or damage where none has occurred. Typically accompanied by a photograph like this:
You'll note that the comments are not exactly agreeing with the couple.
Impasse said:
Or, he/they could leave my wall alone and I wouldn't have to go through such a rigmarole just to be back in the same position I was before my wall was vandalised.
Except you wouldn't be in the same position, you would also have a large amount of money that you didn't have previously?davepoth said:
No. The wall is your wall, and if someone else paints the wall, it's still your wall - and that includes the paint on it. Just by putting the paint on the wall the "vandal" has automatically given up any right to ownership they have.
If I give you a £20 note and you want to burn it, would you expect me to provide the match?
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...
We all laughed. Oh how we laughed. What we have here is a case whereby someone perceives an injury or damage where none has occurred. Typically accompanied by a photograph like this:
You'll note that the comments are not exactly agreeing with the couple.
So we agree? It's definitely my wall. So please leave it the fIf I give you a £20 note and you want to burn it, would you expect me to provide the match?
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greate...
We all laughed. Oh how we laughed. What we have here is a case whereby someone perceives an injury or damage where none has occurred. Typically accompanied by a photograph like this:
You'll note that the comments are not exactly agreeing with the couple.
k alone! If I wanted to have an individual/organisation spray paint a childish, trying-too-hard social commentary on there I'd probably have asked someone to do it. Fact is, I haven't, so why shouldn't I be miffed if someone does take it upon themselves to deface what I perceive to be a wall in its best state for my requirements?As for your other two rather tenuous points, I'm not entirely clear how they are relevant to the potential vandalism of my wall and how I would have to stump up the restorative costs. Perhaps you could expand your thought process here?
V8Ford said:
Except you wouldn't be in the same position, you would also have a large amount of money that you didn't have previously?
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.
Ayahuasca said:
What is Banksy's real name?
Robin. I once spoke to him on the phone – before he was famous – about getting some artwork done. But he insisted on doing it straight onto our walls (for £800) which was no use to me. I should have kept the post-it with his number on, which would probably have paid off the mortgage.Trouble with Banks is that he gives vandalism a good name.
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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff