Banksy asks 'Why?' over stolen mural - Polidicks

doesnt look like bansky, I imagine that wall will be smothered with graffiti soon

I don't think Banksy physically exists. I'm pretty sure he's a ghost. An Anarchist Ghost.

[QUOTE=Moustacheman;39692506]I don't think Banksy physically exists. I'm pretty sure he's a ghost. An Anarchist Ghost.[/QUOTE] Sounds like the name of a punk band.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;39691705]Also related: [IMG]http://puu.sh/27afB[/IMG][/QUOTE] It's depressing but not really surprising that some people actually think that advertising space that is approved by the property owner and for which the property owner receives payment is the same as unwanted tagging.

[QUOTE=latin_geek;39684878]because vandalism is [I]everything good ever[/I] as long as it's ~artistic~ (a couple stencils and a prop maybe sometimes) and ~deep and meaningful~ (has a meaning that everyone can easily get but still feels like some deep thought)[/QUOTE] hey just a heads up throwing tildes all over your post isn't clever and it doesn't serve to make your point about graffiti being inherently evil and worthless people like banksy because he makes creative visually attractive artwork that serves to deliver a political message

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;39688063]Legal or not, it's still a fucking dick move.[/QUOTE] the analogy was the building owner still owns the building, bansky's art doesn't make it public property and honestly the building owners could have been the ones to remove and sell it and it would be perfectly legal (albeit stupid) [QUOTE=catbarf;39692828]It's depressing but not really surprising that some people actually think that advertising space that is approved by the property owner and for which the property owner receives payment is the same as unwanted tagging.[/QUOTE] the point of the comic is that the legal stuff is a blight of its own

[QUOTE=catbarf;39692828]It's depressing but not really surprising that some people actually think that advertising space that is approved by the property owner and for which the property owner receives payment is the same as unwanted tagging.[/QUOTE] I think the point of it is that it's not like public advertising all of the fucking place is any more appealing to the eye than some graffiti. Of course its exaggerated but it's for the message.

[QUOTE=catbarf;39692828]It's depressing but not really surprising that some people actually think that advertising space that is approved by the property owner and for which the property owner receives payment is the same as unwanted tagging.[/QUOTE] that's not at all the point of the comic in any slight way at all [editline]23rd February 2013[/editline] the point is that people are forced to look at advertising and commercial/political symbolism and messages 24/7 whenever you're in public, so the idea that artistic graffiti is somehow ugly and a violation of your right to an attractive "clean" city is ridiculous

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39693066]that's not at all the point of the comic in any slight way at all [editline]23rd February 2013[/editline] the point is that people are forced to look at advertising and commercial/political symbolism and messages 24/7 whenever you're in public, so the idea that artistic graffiti is somehow ugly and a violation of your right to an attractive "clean" city is ridiculous[/QUOTE] Depends hugely on the grafitti in my opinion. Writing your initials with a marker is just stupid, actually putting effort into something in a public space isn't necessarily something I'd be against - most people just don't bother.

[QUOTE=smurfy;39692021][url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21562875]Another mural has now appeared there[/url] but it's unknown whether or not it is a Banksy [img]http://imgkk.com/i/3oqc.jpg[/img] BBC sucks at high res photos[/QUOTE] That wall's starting to look cluttered, it wouldn't surprise me if they painted it all over just leaving the mouse (or selling it..) [editline]23rd February 2013[/editline] Also higher res: [img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/02/23/article-2283475-18391F57000005DC-965_634x395.jpg[/img]

What an ugly fucking tag in the top right.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39693066]that's not at all the point of the comic in any slight way at all [editline]23rd February 2013[/editline] the point is that people are forced to look at advertising and commercial/political symbolism and messages 24/7 whenever you're in public, so the idea that artistic graffiti is somehow ugly and a violation of your right to an attractive "clean" city is ridiculous[/QUOTE] I get that. But I think most people are more concerned with unauthorized alteration of their property, especially when it carries a political message they may not agree with, than they are about the perceived eyesore of otherwise well-done art. The comic is comparing a tag to advertising in order to highlight the apparent absurdity of saying that tagging is bad yet advertising is okay, but that's really not the issue at all. I don't think anyone in this thread has said Banksy is bad because his art is poorly done, it's that he doesn't have permission to put it up in the first place, and so doesn't really have any say in what happens to it if the owner decides to remove or sell it. I guess what I meant in my previous post was it's depressing but not really surprising that some people actually think that advertising space that is approved by the property owner and for which the property owner receives payment is the same as unwanted tagging just because both are ugly.

[QUOTE=thisispain;39684009]because anti-establishment graffiti gets me hard im not being sarcastic[/QUOTE] I'm quite relieved I am not the only one.

[QUOTE=matt.ant;39693257]That wall's starting to look cluttered, it wouldn't surprise me if they painted it all over just leaving the mouse (or selling it..) [editline]23rd February 2013[/editline] Also higher res: [img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/02/23/article-2283475-18391F57000005DC-965_634x395.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] oh the nun isn't graffiti, it's a wheatpaste literally just using a basic home made starch glue to slather a giant print onto a surface. Pretty temporary stuff

Theory: BANKSY stole it himself! A PR stunt! (also: 9/11 was bush, aliens are among us) ..but seriously, this has garnered quite a bit of attention, right?

has someone put glass or something over the new rat one?

It's been withdrawn from sale [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21562875[/url]

[QUOTE=mac338;39680409]What if Banksy is a woman [editline]22nd February 2013[/editline] What a twist[/QUOTE] I've always thought of her as a woman Mainly because I learned about Banksy from a gmod community where one of the superadmins (a girl) used Banksy as her screen name She's currently named herself after Dolk

[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;39693387]What an ugly fucking tag in the top right.[/QUOTE] toy sees chance to get tag into media toy throws up an ugly scribble toy and friends rejoice

[QUOTE=Harry3;39694083]has someone put glass or something over the new rat one?[/QUOTE] They put plastic over it to stop people spraying over it, they did it with the old one

[QUOTE=matt.ant;39698758]They put plastic over it to stop people spraying over it, they did it with the old one[/QUOTE] Which doesn't seem to help, since there's this thick black line and a small person next to the rat on the latest pictures.

So does this mean the Banksy artwork will be returned to poundland?

Ignoring the graffiti/art on it, is it not still illegal to just take part of the building and sell it if you're not the owner?

You guys know that the author of that fake article that was posted was "Jimmy Rustlings"

[QUOTE=smurfy;39694107]It's been withdrawn from sale [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21562875[/url][/QUOTE] Also interesting to see that the local council is glad to see it withdrawn from sale, and praised the piece. Stretches the term 'vandalism' to a degree.