
Banksy artwork vandalized in New York - krisrak
http://blog.gramfeed.com/post/64245347783/banksy-artwork-vandalized-in-new-york
======
sp332
So? That's what happens to street art. If he wanted them to be permanent, he
would have put them in a museum or something.

~~~
JonnieCache
_> If he wanted them to be permanent, he would have put them in a museum or
something._

He's already done that:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkUbYBo5xgs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkUbYBo5xgs)

Unless that was what you were obliquely referring to. In which case, sorry.

~~~
sp332
It was pretty oblique :) I mean, there's a difference between those and the
ones he puts on the street. It's not like he expects the street art to be
treated well.

------
loumf
The October 12, 2013 one is Cooper Union student activism to make it look like
Peter Cooper. They added a confessor painting of the Cooper Union president in
the next "window"

[http://studentactivism.net/2013/10/13/new-banksy-street-
art-...](http://studentactivism.net/2013/10/13/new-banksy-street-art-
transformed-into-free-cooper-union-student-protest-propaganda/)

------
casca
This happens in London too, although usually it takes a little longer. Banky's
"residence" in New York is clearly not being as appreciated by the local
street artists as he was intending.

~~~
nilved
You can tell easily that none of this was done by "local street artists." It's
an example of the difference between vandalism and art.

~~~
mhurron
'Local street artists' are still vandals, as is Bansky. The difference is if
you like the vandalism or not.

~~~
krisrak
I guess so, both are vandalism, but banksy's vandalism is preferred one if
there was a choice

------
kylelibra
Bystanders beat the guy up after he vandalized it and then they tried their
best to restore it:
[http://gothamist.com/2013/10/17/banksy_bed_stuy.php#photo-1](http://gothamist.com/2013/10/17/banksy_bed_stuy.php#photo-1)

------
russelluresti
I'm a huge fan of Banksy, but this article is so weird for me to read.
Banksy's work is being called "art" and that it's being "vandalized" \- but
that's what Banksy's work is; it's vandalism.

Do people really think Banksy wants people out there removing chunks of walls
or doors that he tags and putting them in museums or selling them to private
owners for thousands of dollars?

------
practicalpants
I have a suspicion Banksy is the one behind the vandalism too. The vandalism
has been so consistent, and it would be in line with his MO.

~~~
cmsimike
Interesting thought. I'd disagree only because I saw a video[0] where NY
residents are not only threatening to destroy these art installs but charging
people that want to experience it.

[0] [http://whatyouwrite.com/2013/10/11/east-new-york-
residents-c...](http://whatyouwrite.com/2013/10/11/east-new-york-residents-
charging-people-to-view-banksyny-piece/)

~~~
potatolicious
Can you blame them? This is East New York we're talking about - one of the
poorest, most violent neighborhoods in the country. This isn't Midtown
Manhattan or Greenwich Village - this is a neighborhood that is usually
discussed only in terms of fear and derision.

And now that Banksy has "blessed" it with one of his pieces, suddenly people
who scoffed at the idea of ever stepping foot in ENY are arriving in droves.

Think about that for a second: people who look down on you, who do everything
they can to "contain" the effects of your neighborhood, are now tourists. Not
only are they tourists, they are tourists visiting in worship of a figure who
has appropriated one of the primary cultural elements of poor urban areas and
made it aesthetically and thematically palatable to the wealthy.

I'd be pissed too.

------
startupfounder
In the eyes of the New York City Government what Banksy is doing is
vandalism[1]:

"§ 10-117. Defacement of property, possession, sale and display of aerosol
spray paint cans, [and] broad tipped markers and etching acid prohibited in
certain instances."

Graffiti is a Sand Mandala[2], it is art and it is beautiful because of it's
guaranteed impermanence. If Banksy's vandalism wasn't vandalized or taken down
or painted over it wouldn't be as powerful as it is. It is a symbiotic
relationship like a flower and a bee.

To learn about NYC graffiti history watch Style Wars[3] a 1982 documentary on
the NYC scene.

[1][http://www.nyc.gov/html/nograffiti/html/legislation.html](http://www.nyc.gov/html/nograffiti/html/legislation.html)
[2][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_mandala](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_mandala)
[3][http://vimeo.com/14911708](http://vimeo.com/14911708)

~~~
jack-r-abbit
> _Graffiti is a Sand Mandala_

Not exactly. The difference is that graffiti can not just be swept up or blown
away with a leaf blower like sand. At a minimum, it must be painted over.
Sometimes this results in large patches of mismatched colors on a wall. In
more extreme cases, it is not possible to just paint over it so it must be
scrubbed off.

------
celticninja
the vandals who spray directly over it because it is a banksy are just butt
hurt idiots, but it is interesting to see the cacophony of graffitti that
springs up around his work, almost as if taggers think, "oh we can paint
here".

no imaination in tagging, never has been never will be. its the equivalent of
a dog pissing on a lamppost.

~~~
epa
Unfortunately street art is not respected by graffiti artists. Especially from
an outsider of the city.

~~~
joezydeco
Seems pretty clear that most of these walls are just being reclaimed by the
taggers that hit it in the first place.

They have no idea who Banksy is, which is awesome.

~~~
clavalle
Oh, they know. They just don't respect him.

~~~
joezydeco
Even better!

------
jamesbritt
Interesting that this is called "vandalism" and not "art".

~~~
Yver
It's about the intention. Banksy's intention was to create art. The other
guy's intention was to destroy.

You can see art in destruction if you want, but the guy's intention clearly
was to vandalize.

Same reason why Jackson Pollock's pieces sell for millions and I couldn't sell
the stain in my garage for a dollar. Even though one could see art in that
stain (just like one can see art in nature) having a car with a leaky exhaust
doesn't make me an artist.

~~~
clavalle
Destruction is a huge part of street art. No one expects their piece to be
permanent. There is a loose code as to when it is acceptable to go over
someones piece and a good one can stand for a long time but it won't be there
unsullied forever.

These throw ups are making a real statement and it is this:

Banksy is no longer a street artist. He's chosen to give that up by selling
out and his work is worth less than a shitty throw up to those in the scene.

------
qwerta
'Artist' sprays wall he does not own. Then some 'vandal' have boldness to
destroy it. In one case the 'vandal' was owner of the building who cleaned up
the mess :-)

------
krisrak
Finally there was security guard posted today for Banksy's art

------
VeejayRampay
At least walls are finally alive. We're being wall-painting cave-dwellers
again. And that's a good thing, especially when NYC has become such a
controlled environment.

------
aaronem
The biter, bit.

