Banksy, whatever it may or not be.
Banksy
Criminal damage of defacing a piece of road side furniture ?
The Man Taking It:
The man removing the so called art a theif, was he stealing art or a defaced road sign?
Was he make the junction safe and do a civic duty ?
Did he see a quick buck 😉
Is this so called art any different from other peoples work spraying or interfering on civic infrastructure.?
Would the Council destroy it or see a quick buck as well.
And villify all other sprays and hacks.?
Or is it all just a huge stunt. As usual;-)
Just don't get the whole banksy thing TBH.
Blows me away how there's graffiti everywhere but once it's confirmed as banksy graffiti its worth goes from nothing to tens of thousands. Only a matter of time before it got defaced or nicked but i was surprised at the speed and blatant nature
Since when was Banksy a politician?
Edit
Since when was the stop sign a politician?
Got to be up there with the least interesting Banksy ever.
It'd be great to see the behind the scenes of it working it's way up the food-chain. From the initial guy not even bothering to hide their identity, how much do we reckon he shifted it for? Got to move it quick because it's not just the Police who know who you are, anyone who fancies a few quid will be after it.
performance art following sign defacement art. well that would be my defence.
there is a dutch guy who defaces road signs properly.
If it was even possibly a portable £100,000 left lying about I'm not surprised
Do people still think it's Neil Buchanan from Art Attack?
Our own Home Office are ahead of the game here. They've produced a load of 'no drone' pin badges for some project or other. No idea who is meant to wear them them but I suspect its for policing airports or big events?
Quite a political sort that Banksy…
I love the second one
I find the whole 'Banksy' phenomenon far more interesting than the 'art' itself, which is derivative, clichéd and trite, in my opinion. I've known a number of graffiti artists, and every single one has been arrested, most many times. So the idea that someone as prolific and globally active as Banksy is still somehow anonymous, is highly unlikely to me. 'His' identity must be known to a number of people including the police and security services worldwide; you can't just come and go in places like Israel and the USA without there being records of your movements. It would be very, very easy for border agencies to go through passenger manifests etc and piece the puzzle together. Of course, people can and do use false passports, but these are actually very hard to obtain, and again unlikely for such a prolonged 'career'. Which opens up the possibility of multiple individuals acting as 'Banksy'. Of course, the vast sums of money generated by Banksy's work would discourage government agencies from being too vigilant or quick to apprehend such a criminal; lots of profit in such a mythical artist. It's quite ironic then that for all the political sentiment in Banksy's work, that it has enriched a lot of greedy people. Or perhaps that's the real message? Who knows. Someone does, and they're getting very rich off it all.
Banksy is one entity, there is also a team of folk behind the artwork and if you search his identity is known.
Blows me away how there’s graffiti everywhere but once it’s confirmed as banksy graffiti its worth goes from nothing to tens of thousands. Only a matter of time before it got defaced or nicked but i was surprised at the speed and blatant nature
what makes any artist “successful” is always subjective. In Banksy’s case the mystique around the artist undoubtedly contributes to it, but that in itself may be part of the statement the art is making.
There is lots of graffiti all over the place, but most of it says nothing - or does the exact opposite from Banksy -where it’s all about the “artist” and not the message.
If you like your art to make you pause and think, Banksy probably ticks that box better than your average graffiti. Indeed the fact you said this difference blows you away means he’s making you think even if not about the subject matter.
if you like your art to be a fine work of skill about using materials to represent a subject - Banksy is not the pinnacle of the art form, although they are definitely not at least capable end of the spectrum especially if you consider they “need” to turn up, execute the work and disappear without getting “caught” and outed by a media who would love to confirm their identity more than any neighbourhood watch would like to catch some Scrote tagging bus stops.
the money people will pay for art is obscene and could go a long way to sorting many of the ills in the the world Banksy highlights BUT often it is the local council and society itself which profits from that which makes it an even more interesting use of art. Banksy seems to have found a way to extract six figure sums from rich people with egos bigger than their brains and direct that to communities in need! Call it voluntary taxation!
Banksy is one entity, there is also a team of folk behind the artwork and if you search his identity is known.
The original 'Banksy' may well be one person, sure. And his identity isn't generally 'known'; there are various claims to that. As for the individual art pieces; the way they are spread globally suggests that it is a team, yes. So if that's the case, then it's more an art 'movement' than an artist. My point was that if it were indeed one individual, then given their prolific crimes worldwide, they'd have been apprehended a longtime ago.
As for the 'theft' of the stop sign; I'm wondering how that actually works legally. The stolen sign wasn't one put up by the local council or highways debt, so there's a possible offence in placing it in such a prominent public location (I'm sure there's some law relating to interfering with road signs). And for 'theft' to be prosecuted, wouldn't the 'rightful owner' of the piece therefore have to come forward at some stage? Kind of tricky, no?
The whole event of the stealing of the sign has in itself become a 'work'; perhaps that was planned from the very beginning?
the money people will pay for art is obscene
An excellent documentary to watch on this subject (for those who are interested) is 'The Price of Everything'.
As for the individual art pieces; the way they are spread globally suggests that it is a team, yes. So if that’s the case, then it’s more an art ‘movement’ than an artist.
Really not how it works. Name any 10 artists, and 9 of them will be or will have been creating their work with a team. Past and present. A movement is a group of artists creating under their own names, not a team working for an artist.
Banksy probably counted on someone stealing it, it draws attention to it's meaning the same as the council removing the freezer did with "Valentine's day massacre".
Just don’t get the whole banksy thing TBH.
You have to have an understanding of the current political issues that he highlights, sometimes surreally and sometimes on a very local level. Without that then lots of his work doesn't make sense. That's not a dig at you at all by the way, more a comment on society as a whole. Lots of people didn't 'get' the one he did in Port Talbot, "Season's Greetings", but anyone with any knowledge of the history of the town and the then current battle around the Low Emission speed limits surrounding the place plus the fight to keep the Steelworks open knew exactly what he was highlighting. The use of a child actively catching the snow in their mouth was very powerful in the argument for the battle between jobs in the town and the right of local kids to grow up in a clean environment. The work provoked conversation around the issues and that's very powerful.
I’ve known a number of graffiti artists, and every single one has been arrested, most many times. So the idea that someone as prolific and globally active as Banksy is still somehow anonymous, is highly unlikely to me.
He originated from the Bristol scene where graffiti artists have a plethora of legal sites to play at, plus there is virtually no policing of the illegal sites too. He stayed anonymous for a very long time and even now you have to hunt his name out as the community keeps it quiet.
He originated from the Bristol scene where graffiti artists have a plethora of legal sites to play at, plus there is virtually no policing of the illegal sites too. He stayed anonymous for a very long time and even now you have to hunt his name out as the community keeps it quiet.
Hmm. Your choice to believe that, but the idea that arrested individuals won't identify others in order to escape harsher punishment, is really quite naive.
Really not how it works. Name any 10 artists, and 9 of them will be or will have been creating their work with a team. Past and present. But carry on explaining the world to us, like we just popped out of the primordial soup.
I'm simply positing a theory, not making a claim. But please; do explain how it does work. Then come back and I'll explain how you completely misunderstood me.
Edit: I see you've now edited your post. But I'll leave your original post up, as it's that which I'm responding to. And thanks for explaining what an art 'movement' is. Most grateful.
I'm sure it might be relatively easy to research who he is, but I always think it would be a massive attack on Banksy's privacy and career to out his identity. Seems that Goldie doesn't agree with me though.
I like what he does/they do. I love the fact that the works comment both on social/political issues and the nature of Art (and the art market) itself. Even though he/they comes from an 'anti-establishment' culture, there's a lot of knowledge and understanding in there too.
My bet is that the whole thing with the sign is part of the work itself given the history of other previous Banksy works being 'stolen' and their ownership disputed.
He/They do some clever stuff, but in the last few years it's been a bit OTT, with art imitating itself by becoming so commercialised and publicised, it's pretty boring stuff now in the main compared to the past due to this, it's just frantic capitalism and profiteering you see now whenever Banksy does something, which is a bit sad compared to what he used to do.
Was it an actual stop sign that was graffiti'd or was the whole sign erected as part of the graffiti? If its the later, what was stolen from who? If its the former its still not quite clear...a defaced sign was stolen from local council.
Impressed by the blatant theft though, and no I don't think the theft was Staged.... just my view but I reckon if Staged the thief would have had a step ladder instead of falling off a Lime bike. Unless Banksy is now sponsored by Lime?
Had to have been staged for being robbed, not the robber themselves, they show a removable object, clearly showing where it's located and you expect it to stay for more than an hour 🤣
It's a bit like that pop up shop they did in New York or wherever, a bit of fun at the start, but when it's known, the profiteers come running. It's something i dislike more and more about this world the older i get, this whole limited runs of stuff that gets bought by profiteers and then sold for several times the value, without the actual item being of any real value, just perceived value that markets put on it due to popularity, coverage, etc.
That’s how all prices work, no?
but I always think it would be a massive attack on Banksy’s privacy and career to out his identity<br /><br />
I see what you did there, subtle indeed
That’s how all prices work, no?
Not usually, companies mainly sells product x for a cost that includes cost plus profit, i see this stuff as just secondary markets looking to make profit without having to actually make anything, just create a pyramid and get their money before it falls over.
It does appear to be a genuine stop sign, it has the accompanying stop road marking painted alongside and it would seem unlikely to paint that on the tarmac as well. Having said that the criteria for erecting a stop sign in the first place is primarily reduced visibility from a junction, and the one in question appears to have good visibility. So who knows??
I'm off now to read up on the highway code and wrap my Christmas present to myself, a pair of crotch knitted driving gloves and a lifetime membership of the advanced motorist association
bought by profiteers and then sold for several times the value, without the actual item being of any real value, just perceived value that markets put on it due to popularity, coverage, etc.
You sound an unlikely adherent to the marxist theory of value argee.
companies mainly sells product x for a cost that includes cost plus profit
Apologies, I meant prices for all art works. Something Banksy has commented on in their works a few times.
Surely the biggest clue to who he is, is in the second picture that jhj posted
It does appear to be a genuine stop sign, it has the accompanying stop road marking painted alongside and it would seem unlikely to paint that on the tarmac as well. Having said that the criteria for erecting a stop sign in the first place is primarily reduced visibility from a junction, and the one in question appears to have good visibility. So who knows??
Apparently a second person has been arrested in connection with its 'theft', as Southwark Council have reported it to police. Now this is very confusing; it's not an official sign as it doesn't meet legal requirements (the drones obscure the actual sign in some way, rendering it non-legal), and it wasn't placed there by Southwark Council, so who does it actually 'belong' to? The council can of course report it as a suspected theft, but why do they not seem interested in someone placing a sign there illegally in the first place? Do the council have a legal claim to it as it's been placed on their property? I have no idea. But I do suspect someone somewhere is seeing pound signs flashing before their eyes. So far, it's just costing all of us money on what is quite frankly wasted police time. Very interesting just how quickly they've acted on the report of theft of an artwork with a suggested value of hundreds of thousands of pounds.
crotch knitted driving gloves<br />
Are you Alan Partridge?
Stealing a stop sign, defaced or not, is criminal. And dangerous. If they’d replaced it with a plain replacement sign, I’d tip my hat to them… but leaving a junction unsigned… police matter for sure.
On a tangent… in France, you often come across street signs that have been made more interesting… with consent… and without effecting their visibility or clarity. Love them. I’ll look for some old photos…
Stealing a stop sign, defaced or not, is criminal. And dangerous. If they’d replaced it with a plain replacement sign, I’d tip my hat to them… but leaving a junction unsigned… police matter for sure.
But if it's not an actual legal sign, and wasn't placed there by any agency with the authority to do so, then it's surely not actually legitimate anyway. I'm not disputing that taking it is a criminal act; if it's not yours you can't take it. But it's not the actual sign for that junction, is it? So in what way is taking it 'dangerous'?
You know why a stop junction having its stop sign removed and being left without signage is dangerous. The signage is there for a good reason.
You know why a stop junction having its stop sign removed and being left without signage is dangerous. The signage is there for a good reason.
But the 'Banksy' version cannot be the original sign. Or was it, but it was 'defaced'? So isn't that in itself a crime? Removing an illegally placed sign wouldn't be an offence in itself.
I've just looked at other photos of the removal of the sign, and it appears that the drones were placed over the original sign. So ok, it's actual theft, but surely placing objects in front of the sign is an offence, no?
Edit: Seems it's an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988, to interfere with 'traffic equipment', in this case the road sign. So the act of attaching the drone artwork to it would fall under that act. Yet it seems that as this criminal act suddenly made this particular sign very valuable, that the crime itself is being ignored.
Maybe. But only one of these crimes makes the junction dangerous. Banksy’s work in no way confused road users as to the nature of junction. Removing the sign does.
Maybe. But only one of these crimes makes the junction dangerous. Banksy’s work in no way confused road users as to the nature of junction. Removing the sign does.
That's not the point. Defacing the sign is a criminal offence. It would also render it no longer meeting legal requirements for such equipment. So that itself 'endangers' road users. Maybe not to the same extent, but the point stands. Prosecuting for one offence and not the other, would be highly contentious. Like; why should 'Banksy' get away with committing crimes and not others?
The sign is real. Well according to Google Maps. But the white paint is barely visible.
I wonder if this will ever get to court.
The original crime of defacing a road sign, insitagated a further crime of stealing a damaged sign. Great work.
I have an original Bumpsy ;-).... One day I will be able to retire with it 🙂
I wonder if this will ever get to court.
I think it depends on whether or not the sign is returned safely. I'm not sure what charges could be brought other than interfering with traffic equipment and theft, but even with the clear case of theft, the thief would only be liable for the value of a standard stop sign, as any 'artwork' on it isn't there legally, and in any case would not alter the value of the sign for the purposes of such a case. If it were an officially sanctioned artwork, then that would be different. But then its legality as a traffic sign would be void. So then the council would be responsible for failing to place correct signage.
