Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Banksy was back! (well, kind of...)
As I was passing Whymark Avenue on Saturday morning it appeared that Banksy was back! On closer inspection this quite remarkable replica was fashioned from polystyrene (even the back had been rendered to look like it had been ripped out of breezeblocks). I guess it didn't last long though. Apparently there had been two of them earlier in the day, so now two people in the area have their very own Banksy replicas. Either that, or an auction house has picked them up and is preparing to flog them off to the highest bidder...
Tags for Forum Posts: banksy, street art
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
They'd be far more appreciated at Will Gompertz's house. Anyone got his email address?
-
Permalink Reply by cara howard on
-
I saw the piece on the Beeb, it seems as though Sincura have been equivalent of a 'conduct of sale' that lets them try and get better than what was offered by a willing buyer in the States, if they do, it will be sold, if not, the original buyer will get to keep it.
What I don't understand is why Sincura? They are not an auction house, they are a lifestyle company who organise events in night clubs among other things. It's all a bit odd.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
This is interesting from the New York Times:
The sellers, Bloomberg reported, were Robert Alan Davis and Leslie Steven Gilbert, the proprieters of Wood Green Investments, which owns the building on which the work appeared. Because a piece of graffiti becomes the property of the owners of the wall on which it is drawn, Mr. Davis and Mr. Gilbert were free to dispose of it as they saw fit – which explains the contention by both Fine Art Auctions Miami and the Sincura Group that they had no problem with the work’s provenance.
I wonder how many of us would at least be tempted if the work had turned up on a building we owned?
-
Permalink Reply by Colinloves on
-
At last we have their names. Great :)
Now, lets abuse them, like they have abused out community.
They have kept their names secret for ONE good reason. They know what they done is, bang out of order.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Guest on
-
I think to be fair (and I really do not feel like being so generous to these guys), Hugh is right, at $1.1m, who would not rip it out and flog it? There has to be a better way of 'sharing' the benefits though?!
I still reckon I would be gutted if I were the creator of something like this and some pinkey ring Muppet were to be $1.1m better off as a result though....
-
-
"I still reckon I would be gutted if I were the creator of something like this ...." [add] . . . and I stencilled it on the wall of Justin Guest's house without his permission and the bloke came home, chipped it off and sold it for a vast amount of dosh.
Gutted? Really? “If you've been playing poker for half an hour and you still don't know who the patsy is, you're the patsy.” ― Warren Buffett.
This poker variation is called Art Dealing. The other players around the table - including Banksy and his pals - are professionals. They've been at it for a long while.
P.S. I've read the Wikipedia page, Justin, but still don't understand why the owners of Poundland are "pinky ring Muppets".
-
-
Because the owners of Poundland are not the ones who own the building and selling the Banksy Alan. That would be the domain of the owners of the relevant Investment company, I believe Wood Green Investments was mentioned.
-
-
I loved that turn of phrase - I took it to refer to the traditionally upper class habit of wearing the family ring on their little finger. Was I close?
-
-
Spot on.
-
-
I accept your correction about the building owners, Justin. Though it doesn't affect the basic point I wanted to make.
The "creator" is Banksy. (Though maybe it's "workshop of" Banksy.) Who didn't "gift" his artwork to the people of Haringey or Wood Green. He sprayed a stencil on the side of someone's building. The owners sold part of the wall. As they still own the building, they sold their cake and are still eating it.
We all know why "a Banksy" can fetch $1m. It's not because the "piece" was technically brilliant or offered some amazing new insights. Nor because its heart-stopping loveliness could only be viewed for a few seconds at a time - wearing dark glasses - without blinding spectators and turning them to stone.
It's "worth" a million dollars because Banksy is notorious. He's a sort of art bandit. His carefully constructed image and supposed anonymity are a flamboyant story which sells commercial media. And maintains the value of his "pieces". The Wood Green Banksy installed in its new home may be an "investment" safeguarded in a bank vault. Or perhaps it'll be on view in a shrine where lucky visitors will take - or buy - photos or perhaps T-shirts or souvenir mugs.
The "mugs" will also include us. HoL readers; Lynne Featherstone MP; Cllrs Claire Kober and Alan Strickland. And every other patsy who has taken their unscripted but useful part in this fandango. (Me too.)
Of course, Banksy could have gifted some of his art to Wood Green. He could've put two fingers up to the national and local establishment. And instead run his own auction raising $1m to fund say, a youth club, or a Citizens Advice Bureau. But that wouldn't have fitted the romantic outlaw image, would it? It wouldn't have been reported in the international media.
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
