Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Another Banksy removed for sale by Sincura
I may be last to the party with this, but another local Banksy piece has been ripped from it's wall to be sold by the Sincura group - in Tottenham.
News item on BBC
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by dont want to give name on
-
nice yellow colours its art...to me its art, maybe not to you? its subjective isnt it?
that's not what they are saying on the sinucura groups website that the guardian article links to, that pamish mentions...they are impying that all profits go to the kids charity...
the irony is that banksy started as a public schoolboy in bristol doing paintings with spray cans that kids do for fun
the sort of paintings that the leader of haringey council and mp lynne featherstone get removed
so if you are the authorities and you are crushing kids art then you have got to crush banksy, because if you are crushing the kids talent coming through u have got to crush them when they are older, unless you are a hypocrit
otherwise why not help artists who are kids and not just the few artist who get recognised by the media?
unless there are popular votes in it for you perhaps
on banksys website he makes a few comments ...
-
-
dwtgn* When did you stop taking your meds ? (only joking)
-
-
was van gogh off his meds when he cut off his own ear?
just asking?
-
-
Yes dwtgn* Van gogh was 'off his meds' when he killed himself. Like me others are worried that you are in need of proffesional help. We'd hate anything really bad to happen to you
-
-
John says:
The whole point about the Banksies is that they are meant to be transitory. Not perhaps as ephemeral as yesterday's cartoon in your favourite paper, but their impact depends on their surprise value. They're fun but not great art. They can surprise you only once.
i dont agree with jons comment
If Banksy is good art then his impact would not depend on surprise value.
It would be there to be stood in front of time after time to appreciate
They are fun but not great art ;;; agreed
-
-
I think that Ms Howard's views are held by the majority of the British public. That's what the media tells us. Whether that is righ or wrong?
I think that the great British public likes Banksy's fun populist art work.
My views are the views of a minority, but we do respect diversity of opinion in London, because Harringay is not a village where minority voices will be silenced. We don't shut down minority voices that reflect diversity in London. We do listen to all opinions.
It is a discussion about art. So all opinions are welcome. Or are they?
-
Permalink Reply by cara howard on
-
I don't recall airing any views, I simply shared the link, so please don't think to comment on my behalf. It's a matter of local public interest which is why I posted it.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
Many artists have used others to do the work for them. Hirst and Warhol are good examples. But even before that an artist would use students to paint the backgrounds. A number of the great Flemish painters did this. It's who had the original idea that is important, not who executed it.
-
-
ok, i take your point but everytime a banksy appears on a wall his PR people tell the media etc that a new banksy has appeared. Giving the impression that it was Banksy who wheatpasted up his stencil. But it wasn't it was his paid workers who put it up. It just seems dishonest that Banksy tricks the public into thinking that it's him going out under the cover of darkness when it isn't and hasn't been for years.They don't tell you this on the frequently asked questions section of banksy's website.
Also the Sinucura group say that this Banksy was vandalised many times which is partly why they are taking the banksy down. So they are saying that Banksy stencils attract graffiti taggers to the area to do vandalism. So why is Ms Featherstone and Cllr Kober promoting that then? As its very annoying for the public to have to keep reporting graffiti to the council. It's just the hypocrisy of it really that annoys me.
Some banksy art is quite good I think and very popular because it is fun.
Also banksy is a bit of a rip off of blek le rat from Paris. It's just a straight copy really.
Why doesn't he just say I copied blek le rat its totally unoriginal some of my stuff and i didnt even do it. I suppose it helps he banksy account to keep pretending.
Now that people vandalise or remove his artwork i dont know why he doesnnt just put up his artwork and then make no comment as to whether its his or not if he is really interested in art and not just his banksy account
-
-
I think that Cllr Kober and Lynne Featherstone think that if art is popular like Banksy art, then it has value. But if art is not popular then it does not have value and can be removed. This is to misunderstand what art is all about?
What I mean is, Banksy was a graffiti tagger and the council removes such art as it is unpopular, but leaves Banksy paintings and doesnt remove them when they are on publicly owned walls.
It seems to me this idea that if something is popular then it has value is a logically weak argument.
Because in Nazi Germany Hitler was popular but the majority of people now won't argue that he had positive value.
So just because something is popular does not make it of value. But by removing alot of art and leaving Banksy art untouched the authorities seem to be implying that if something is popular then it is valuable. But other developing artists who maybe unpopular have their works removed.
Are the council and Ms Featherstone campaigning to protect Bambi art for example. As she is a sort of female Banksy in streetart.
I am not suggesting that graffiti tags should be left on publicly owned walls, but I am saying that if councils such as Islington or Haringey council remove one kind of art then they have to remove banksy art on publicly owned walls
It's just a philosophical argument really as I don't follow the authorities logic.
-
Permalink Reply by Abi on
-
Well, it isn't logic. And I'm very glad they are being illogical in cases such as this. Art itself is not logical, is it - and that's the fundamental point here. We decide one thing is pleasing to the eye and another thing is ugly, and by and large there's a degree of public agreement on that.
Can you imagine if some idiotic, overly literal law was passed proclaiming that all graffiti was "art" and needed protecting? On the contrary, I'm delighted that in some areas of life decisions are made on aesthetic judgement rather than done on the basis of some kind of logical formula. What you seem to be advocating is the opposite of that law, as far as I can tell.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
