• Jerkface (any/all)
    link
    fedilink
    English
    55
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    except that it’s literally a crime to vandalize public spaces to impose your ideas, aesthetics, and art on the public. Are you in actual denial or what is happening here?

    this is not a comment on my opinion of Banksy’s artistic value. But a major component of their art is the simple fact that it IS a crime. If you take that away, it loses most of its meaning.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      476 months ago

      Cool…so it’s ok for businesses to force their ideas, aesthetics, and art on the public because…money?

      • Jerkface (any/all)
        link
        fedilink
        English
        19
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        You should be able to form your arguments about the merits of Banksy’s work and whether or not they commit crimes without pulling in emotional and irrelevant facts like, “I don’t like everything I can see advertized (typically on private property) from public.”

        Look, their whole shtick is that their art is criminal. That’s their fucking gimmick. I don’t know why people are pushing back so hard on this.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          196 months ago

          I’m guessing by the downvotes there some people here that don’t understand what banksy does exactly. Although they do occasionally use some canvas and frames, most of their work is graffiti.

        • jwiggler
          link
          fedilink
          English
          246 months ago

          You’re not wrong that it’s illegal or that that is part of Banksy’s “gimmick”. I agree with you that, legally, what they do is vandalism.

          But I’d guess you’re getting pushback because you seem to be defending private property, which Banksy and perhaps their more politically-knowledgeable fans, likely view as unjust on the whole.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          7
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          The point isnt that it is illegal to do, but the criticism expressed towards many societal issues and capitalism. The fact that it is often done clandestinely is more an indication for a desire for his personal privacy and/or safety I would guess, albeit I admit that it meshes well with the anti system message.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            5
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            It seems hypocritical from my standpoint. He can use private property as much as he wants for his art, but no one can infringe on his god given copyright? He can’t have it both ways, either they are both in the wrong or neither of them are.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              96 months ago

              The problem is this isn’t a person using his art, it’s a company using it to make more money. So in this case he can have it both ways.

            • jwiggler
              link
              fedilink
              English
              7
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              I don’t necessarily agree with the person you responded to, and I could be wrong here but I don’t really think Banksy is actually invoking their copyrights, just using it as an idea to criticize private property in general. Similar to how your own “god given copyright” is in itself a criticism. It’s more like, “look our property laws that are meant to protect the art-maker mean nothing to big companies. Why should the property laws that are meant protect big companies mean anything to us?”

              I get how you could see it as hypocritical, but I think fundamentally Banksy probably isn’t advocating for stronger copyright laws here…

              • ddh
                link
                fedilink
                English
                2
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                This it it. Banksy’s not demanding money there. What’s noted is that Guess has decided to join in and therefore its property is publicly up for grabs.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        296 months ago

        I think it’s more ownership and permission than money (although unfortunately they often overlap). You’re allowed to paint your own house, but not somebody else’s unless you have permission to do so.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          56 months ago

          Exactly. You can get a permit to place artwork on public property, but there’s a significant amount of red tape there. You can even be commissioned to place artwork on public property, but that’s pretty niche.

          If you don’t want to deal with that, place your artwork on private property and display it publicly from there.