Transit workers in London, England, have painted over a famous mural by the artist Banksy. The estimated value of the mural was over half a million dollars (it featured John Travolta and Samuel L Jackson from the film Pulp Fiction, amended to show them clutching bananas instead of guns).
Transport for London, the city’s transit agency, defended their action, saying that covering the mural would make the area safer and more attractive. They added that “our graffiti removal teams are staffed by professional cleaners not professional art critics.”
A local businessman, by contrast, noted that the mural enhanced the area’s appearance and attracted visitors. He added “There is no way it could have been mistaken for graffiti. Whoever destroyed it is an idiot.”
photo by the photo factory
14 comments
Good to know not only our city is run by the incompetant.
I was curious and looked up the picture:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thephotofactory/3699650/
Old Street is a very Parkdalian part of London — unlike the super-clean, super-slick central city.
Curious as to how it’s worth 1/2 million though — how is something painted on an outdoor wall appraised? Maybe they’re just comparing it to similar, more commodifyable pieces Banksy has done.
People have stolen and sold Banksy’s work before, so I suspect the price is for the entire brick face.
Like, if the building were being demolished, that wall would be worth 500 grand, just as you might value a painting that was created on a ceramic tile.
Does anyone else remember the grafitti removal team in France that destroyed million year old cave paintings?
It’s graffiti. It might be more labour intensive than someone’s name scrawled with a marker, but it’s graffiti. Who owns the wall? Banksy? No. That means there was no mutual consent to paint the mural, which means it is graffiti.
Imagine someone snuck into your house and tattooed something on your forehead while you were asleep. Your property was violated and you would be furious. The same goes for private property. If Banksy (or any other graffiti “artist”) REALLY felt that the world needed to see a tracing of a ten year old movie still, he could have paid for a billboard and pasted it up. But no, Banksy doesn’t respect property rights and (like a child) believes everything belongs to him. The medium is the message. Stop being enchanted by the image and think about the act.
Blackandgreen, I think “the medium is the message” doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Ha ha ha. Well said ‘thickslab’. Reminds me of Woody Allen correcting the guy in ‘Annie Hall’. Too bad McLuhan is no longer with us to post.
Sit down, Blackandgreen. Oh, you are sitting? Well then lie down. And go to sleep, for a very, very long time.
Thickslab, I believe my understanding “the medium is the message†is correct.
A clear definititon of “the medium is the message†is provided in an essay by Mark Federman. Here is the link: http://individual.utoronto.ca/markfederman/article_mediumisthemessage.htm
The medium is an idea or “anything from which a change emergesâ€Â. The message is more complicated. Mr. Federman says:
“McLuhan tells us that a “message” is, “the change of scale or pace or pattern” that a new invention or innovation “introduces into human affairs.”… A McLuhan message always tells us to look beyond the obvious and seek the non-obvious changes or effects that are enabled, enhanced, accelerated or extended by the new thing.â€Â
What are the changes or effects that a mural painted, without permission, on someone else’s property, intended to convey? What change in attitude does the author want the audience to come away with? Graffiti is used to express territorial dominance, that the object or area “belongs†to the author. Banksy’s website has a manifesto that tells the tale of recently liberated prison camp survivors enjoying the act of putting on lipstick as much as food, soap etc., The author seems to be saying that his work is the “lipstick†that reclaims feelings humanity and individuality by it’s addition to the urban fabric.
My belief is that these feelings are rendered illegitimate by the fact that the author is reclaiming his individuality at the expense of the individuality of someone else (the property owner). His actions express his contempt for the owners of the property, thus perpetuating the cycle of dehumanizing behaviour that he claims his images combat. He is self-serving. I am saying that we should look beneath the surface of the images and at the changes that take place due to their prevalence. That was my purpose in repeating “the medium is the messageâ€Â. A positive response to labour-intensive graffiti will legitimize acts of vandalism. By undermining private property, we are undermining our own freedom
The people least short of protection in this world are property owners, ‘Blackandgreen’.
Someone removed my last post. What the…? Was it offensive to suggest the law protects those with porperty? Has it come to that?
what are you talking about Aidan?
Blackandgreen is right about the “medium is the message thing”.
I mean, you can chose to disagree about whether or not that message is a good or bad, but if you knew anything at all about graffiti you’d know that it’s not so much about the actual tag spraypainted on the wall as it is about the act of spraypainting the tag on the wall in the first place.
It’s about the get in, get up and get out.
Granted, with graffiti there is an understanding that the work is inherantly ephemeral. It’s not meant to last. It’s meant to be tagged over, pasted on top of, layered and layered and layered upon and eventually destroyed, whether by time, the encrouchment of additional works, the demolition of the site, or, the painting over of a wall, just like it is here.
In other words, someone who appreciates graffiti, and understands it’s history might not see just a destroyed work of importance, but also an opportunity for new work.
It’s not just street art, it’s illegal, but that’s what makes it important, if precarious.