> That's not in context to the article since most (all?) of the examples to be protected were illegal attacking property rights.
I don't see how my comment is out of context. If the property owner wants to have the vandalism removed, I view that as solely his prerogative whether the vandal was Banksy or anyone else.
> This is the mainstream I'm talking about, I feel like you only support the team after they win the final. (Banksy)
I don't understand this retort. I don't support vandalism (i.e., defacing someone's property without consent) at all, whether by Banksy or anyone else. It seems like you're trying to make a distinction between Uncool Mainstream Posers and True Aficianados of Street Art, but I don't see how that distinction is relevant. As far as I can tell, the only pertinent factor is whether or not the property owner consents. Maybe this isn't the argument you meant to make, in which case perhaps you could clarify?
My point is that the way to settle the "illegal graffiti art over illegal street art" ethical argument is to defer to the owner of the property--he alone can legitimize one, both, or neither artist. Legitimacy doesn't depend on some strange need to assess which "scene" is more authentic or otherwise meritorious.
And I can't tell if I've made myself sufficiently clear, I have no special affinity or animosity for Banksy or any other modern artist.
The owner decides what stays and goes. It is theirs.
It's just complicated since the first person attacked their property. The second also, so the third, and the third might be the one they like the best, not the forth.
The doco I link is fun. It's a not bad Friday night viewing.
I don't see how my comment is out of context. If the property owner wants to have the vandalism removed, I view that as solely his prerogative whether the vandal was Banksy or anyone else.
> This is the mainstream I'm talking about, I feel like you only support the team after they win the final. (Banksy)
I don't understand this retort. I don't support vandalism (i.e., defacing someone's property without consent) at all, whether by Banksy or anyone else. It seems like you're trying to make a distinction between Uncool Mainstream Posers and True Aficianados of Street Art, but I don't see how that distinction is relevant. As far as I can tell, the only pertinent factor is whether or not the property owner consents. Maybe this isn't the argument you meant to make, in which case perhaps you could clarify?