by wkandinsky
Banksy, the anonymous graffiti artist spreading provoking visuals on walls worldwide. The artist who placed a shredder in a framed piece at an auction, thought to be an anti-capitalist stunt. Where, ironically, the destruction has made the piece even more valuable. Unlike so called art-fair-art, his artworks are not made to be sold or state funded. On the contrary, the murals are illegal. Floating between being vandalized in public and being sold in private, Banksy’s art is an interesting one.
In 2013 his artwork “No Ball Games” was cut out of a wall in Tottenham in order to be sold at auction. The locals expressed disappointment and felt that a “community landmark” had been removed. In general, people in neighbourhoods with a Banksy often protect the murals from theft and vandalism. The idea is that the artwork should remain in its original location.
But because many of these neighbourhoods are predominantly poor, temptation for property owners to monetize them can be big. But most importantly it means that the security measures needed in order to protect the murals might end up too costly for the community. Wouldn’t it then be a noble thing of art dealers to eternalize his artwork through removing and restoring them?
On the one side, it might be the case. It’s in the investors interest that the artworks remain intact. On the other side, the murals are often a direct comment on the historical and political situation in that designated area. And should perhaps be seen in correlation with it. In other words not in a gallery, stripped from its cultural meaning. Or in an elitist’ home, whose beliefs is antithetical to Banksy.
The challenge around Banksy is his methods. Because of its intrinsic value his graffiti its often overlooked as a crime. In a market where price serves as a proxy for quality, the “valuation device” around Banksy does not necessarily concern the controversial content. The hype might as well come from the idea of this ubiquitous person defying the law.
So is it immoral by art dealers to take something made illegally by a criminal? Unlike most artists Banksy makes his art on property he’s not allowed to. So although let’s say he owns the paint, someone else owns its “canvas”. In that respect nobody fully owns it. If the artist doesn’t claim it, the property owner needs to monetize it, and law enforcement needs it destroyed – who really has the right to choose whether to monetize it or not?
It’s hard to say. The murals can be considered a gift to the communities but might end up short-lived through vandalism. However removing them to sell at auction defeats their point. Surely investors have means to restore them in their original location. But in an art market where elitism seems to be economic rather than cultural, it’s clear who has the power. And this case is starting to look more like a game of first come, first serve.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/banksy-artwork-selfdestructs-moments-after-being-sold-at-sothebys-for-1million-a3955111.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-23461396
Making sense of art and design industries 