Banksy is an internationally renowned artist whose works are worth far more than that amount.
The situation is very clear: His works were removed because those in charge did not like their subject matter, as they criticize the officials’ actions.
On the one hand, this demonstrates the authorities’ inability to tolerate criticism; on the other hand, it reveals their irresponsibility: They are willing to spend such a large sum to silence criticism of their actions—if that were not the case, the works could just as easily have been removed from the affected buildings in a way that preserved them, so that they could even have been sold at a profit, provided there had been a willingness to reach an agreement with Banksy. This would have resulted in no financial loss. Or they could simply have been left where they were, which would certainly have been possible, especially since these are not just random graffiti but works of art—a fact about which there can be no doubt.
However, this was apparently not the desired outcome, as those in charge are clearly offended by the message of the works and wish to avoid having to justify their actions.
In short: The financial loss consists of the costs incurred by those responsible in order to censor a political artist. Therefore, it would only be fair that the public not foot the bill, but rather those who initiated this action.
Yes, it’s quite possible that Banksy anticipated this reaction, since it’s really anything but surprising—after all, it wouldn’t be his first “self-destructing work of art.”
Of course, it would be a true masterpiece if those responsible for the destruction of this “public property” were personally held accountable, but unfortunately that’s quite unlikely; nevertheless, the art lies in drawing attention to the state of free speech today and also to the fact that those responsible, unfortunately, always get away with it without any consequences.
on the other hand, it reveals their irresponsibility: They are willing to spend such a large sum to silence criticism of their actions
It’s even worse than that, they basically poured the public purse into their favourite contractors’ hands, all so they could then pin liability for that expense onto the artist who criticised them.
£50k to clean a small section of wall. Even with it being a listed building and even if they couldn’t figure out how to clean it off right away, that’s a ridiculous figure for what likely amounted to little more than 2 skilled workers over 3 days. Ten grand a day.
provided there had been a willingness to reach an agreement with Banksy
I dont know why that would be necessary. Yes its incredibly valuable art, but its still graffiti right? If some ned tags my wall with a swastika and “fok ya mom” i can still do whatever I want with that wall. Sell it if I want. I wouldn’t need to ask the kid.
Banksy is an internationally renowned artist whose works are worth far more than that amount.
The situation is very clear: His works were removed because those in charge did not like their subject matter, as they criticize the officials’ actions.
On the one hand, this demonstrates the authorities’ inability to tolerate criticism; on the other hand, it reveals their irresponsibility: They are willing to spend such a large sum to silence criticism of their actions—if that were not the case, the works could just as easily have been removed from the affected buildings in a way that preserved them, so that they could even have been sold at a profit, provided there had been a willingness to reach an agreement with Banksy. This would have resulted in no financial loss. Or they could simply have been left where they were, which would certainly have been possible, especially since these are not just random graffiti but works of art—a fact about which there can be no doubt.
However, this was apparently not the desired outcome, as those in charge are clearly offended by the message of the works and wish to avoid having to justify their actions.
In short: The financial loss consists of the costs incurred by those responsible in order to censor a political artist. Therefore, it would only be fair that the public not foot the bill, but rather those who initiated this action.
Indeed, the actions of authority to remove the art become part of the art.
Yes, it’s quite possible that Banksy anticipated this reaction, since it’s really anything but surprising—after all, it wouldn’t be his first “self-destructing work of art.”
Of course, it would be a true masterpiece if those responsible for the destruction of this “public property” were personally held accountable, but unfortunately that’s quite unlikely; nevertheless, the art lies in drawing attention to the state of free speech today and also to the fact that those responsible, unfortunately, always get away with it without any consequences.
In any case: Once again, very skillfully done.
It’s even worse than that, they basically poured the public purse into their favourite contractors’ hands, all so they could then pin liability for that expense onto the artist who criticised them.
£50k to clean a small section of wall. Even with it being a listed building and even if they couldn’t figure out how to clean it off right away, that’s a ridiculous figure for what likely amounted to little more than 2 skilled workers over 3 days. Ten grand a day.
I dont know why that would be necessary. Yes its incredibly valuable art, but its still graffiti right? If some ned tags my wall with a swastika and “fok ya mom” i can still do whatever I want with that wall. Sell it if I want. I wouldn’t need to ask the kid.