Banksy mural defaced

A long time ago, I was in Burma. My friends and I were working for the local government. They were trying to buy the loyalty of tribal leaders by bribing them with precious stones. But their caravans were being raided in a forest north of Rangoon by a bandit. So, we went looking for the stones. But in six months, we never met anybody who traded with him. One day, I saw a child playing with a ruby the size of a tangerine. The bandit had been throwing them away.....

He thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to chuck white paint over something people like, because some men are just useless ***** who need a slap.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lytham_fy8 said:
A long time ago, I was in Burma. My friends and I were working for the local government. They were trying to buy the loyalty of tribal leaders by bribing them with precious stones. But their caravans were being raided in a forest north of Rangoon by a bandit. So, we went looking for the stones. But in six months, we never met anybody who traded with him. One day, I saw a child playing with a ruby the size of a tangerine. The bandit had been throwing them away.....

He thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to chuck white paint over something people like, because some men are just useless cunts who need a slap.
Click to expand...
Not many people know that.
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
A long time ago, I was in Burma. My friends and I were working for the local government. They were trying to buy the loyalty of tribal leaders by bribing them with precious stones. But their caravans were being raided in a forest north of Rangoon by a bandit. So, we went looking for the stones. But in six months, we never met anybody who traded with him. One day, I saw a child playing with a ruby the size of a tangerine. The bandit had been throwing them away.....

He thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to chuck white paint over something people like, because some men are just useless cunts who need a slap.
Click to expand...
I was looking for a moral to your story but haven't quite made it.
 
Banksy puts paint on a random wall and it’s accepted as bona fide genius Art but someone else puts some paint on his paint and it’s vandalism?….it might be Art too, it might add to the Art for some…..whose opinion is correct?…..closed minds make for bad Art
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
A long time ago, I was in Burma. My friends and I were working for the local government. They were trying to buy the loyalty of tribal leaders by bribing them with precious stones. But their caravans were being raided in a forest north of Rangoon by a bandit. So, we went looking for the stones. But in six months, we never met anybody who traded with him. One day, I saw a child playing with a ruby the size of a tangerine. The bandit had been throwing them away.....

He thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to chuck white paint over something people like, because some men are just useless ***** who need a slap.
Click to expand...
Ode to Batman.
 
Bloodtangerine said:
Banksy puts paint on a random wall and it’s accepted as bona fide genius Art but someone else puts some paint on his paint and it’s vandalism?….it might be Art too, it might add to the Art for some…..whose opinion is correct?…..closed minds make for bad Art
Click to expand...

Yep, fair point, and is vandalising a Van Gogh art? Can destruction be an act of creation?

Personally I would challenge the term "accepted as bona fide genius", Blood.

He is a talented and amusing graphic designer with a flair for self-promotion but as art his work lacks any real insightful depth or complexity.

It is impactful but pretty shallow, and it is the `Scarlet Pimpernel of counter culture` schtick which makes him interesting rather than the quality of the work. He isn`t even a particularly good free style graffiti artist and often uses pre-designed stencils (probably for speed as well).

As a lot of his stuff only exists as photos and was painted over by council workers pretty much straight away, I don`t suppose the vandalism will bother him too much. He`s already made his point and got his publicity.

And I agree we should try to keep an open mind on art, and life...
 
tangysider said:
I remember the days people were trying to hunt him down as a graffiti vandal.
I looked at his work back them and thought he had serious talent and his "graffiti" was uplifting.
I on the other hand find impressionist art crap and boring.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I still regard his efforts as vandalism unless he has the property owner's approval

If he tried daubing paint on my property he'd be wearing it
 
Bloodtangerine said:
Banksy puts paint on a random wall and it’s accepted as bona fide genius Art but someone else puts some paint on his paint and it’s vandalism?….it might be Art too, it might add to the Art for some…..whose opinion is correct?…..closed minds make for bad Art
Click to expand...
if Banksy did the white paint, would it count as art and then be protected.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
Perhaps, because the thread then developed into agreement with me!
Click to expand...
I sort of get it. Graffiti like spaying bus shelters bridges & public buildings etc doesn’t wash with me. I suppose with Banksy it’s now become a kind of cult legend thing & has been accepted for just that. Fine lines or margins. Sorry about the puns 😬
 
spudgun said:
Yep, fair point, and is vandalising a Van Gogh art? Can destruction be an act of creation?

Personally I would challenge the term "accepted as bona fide genius", Blood.

He is a talented and amusing graphic designer with a flair for self-promotion but as art his work lacks any real insightful depth or complexity.

It is impactful but pretty shallow, and it is the `Scarlet Pimpernel of counter culture` schtick which makes him interesting rather than the quality of the work. He isn`t even a particularly good free style graffiti artist and often uses pre-designed stencils (probably for speed as well).

As a lot of his stuff only exists as photos and was painted over by council workers pretty much straight away, I don`t suppose the vandalism will bother him too much. He`s already made his point and got his publicity.

And I agree we should try to keep an open mind on art, and life...
Click to expand...
the KLF thought so, Banksy himself destroyed a work of art immediately after it sold at auction so he thinks destruction is artistic.
 
Bloodtangerine said:
Banksy puts paint on a random wall and it’s accepted as bona fide genius Art but someone else puts some paint on his paint and it’s vandalism?….it might be Art too, it might add to the Art for some…..whose opinion is correct?…..closed minds make for bad Art
Click to expand...

Indeed I saw the article with a guy who painted a very clever Mary Poppins rising up with her umbrella on the side of his property. Not big but very well painted. He was told by the same council it must be covered up yet the Banksy one is lauded over by the same people.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
the KLF thought so, Banksy himself destroyed a work of art immediately after it sold at auction so he thinks destruction is artistic.
Click to expand...

Yep, I suppose what I was getting at is the question of whether the destruction of someone else`s art is an act of creative art in itself. The KLF destroyed their own money in an act of performance art, and Banksy shredded his own painting...
 
Last edited:
spudgun said:
Yep, I suppose what I was getting at is the question of whether the destruction of someone else`s art is an act of creative art in itself. The KLF destroyed their own money in an act of performance art, and Banksy shredded his own painting...
Click to expand...
Technically banksy's work had just been sold therefore it was owned by someone else, the argument might be made that they owned the destruction legitimising the act of destruction as art. Seemingly the only real critical indicator of art in the present day is financial value, of the work, or fame of the artist.
 
Last edited:
April13th1970 said:
Sorry but I still regard his efforts as vandalism unless he has the property owner's approval

If he tried daubing paint on my property he'd be wearing it
Click to expand...
It would quadruple the value of your home, let him do it, sell it and move where you want to.
The point I am making is he is a very talented artist, would be happy for him to paint all the trams to reflect Blackpool colourful past and present
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top