Love Banksy!

It's statement art to me. He's drawing them for a reason. I really want to know who he is.

He's a sneaky one!

Vandalism. Put your work on canvas, hooligan. Graffiti is for idiot high schoolers, not for artists.

Totally agree with Shopaholichunny and totally disagree with foxie. I think Banksy is really good at shocking people with visual political statements in places they weren't expecting them, which is why painting in public places is effective and, for me, totally acceptable. I think this one's about consumerism, but why it's directed towards Tesco, I don't know.

He's still the man who messed with Paris Hilton's album cover, so hats off for that stunt! That was a statement that needed to be made, and he made it well.

http://gossip.elliottback.com/2006/07/10/paris-hiltons-album-cover/

"I think Banksy is really good at shocking people with visual political statements in places they weren't expecting them, which is why painting in public places is effective and, for me, totally acceptable." - So if you walked out side your house and found that your car had been spray painted over it would be ok because it is a statement?

His work is amazingly beautiful and powerful, but I have problems with the violation of other people's property. It's too bad he can't seem to make his statements without doing so.

I just think statements can be made without having to violate someone else's property (personal, business or public (yes, public, because if he damages it my taxes are going to pay for the clean-up.)

I dont see why it has to be either or. Why cant it be both? Art can be illegal and still be considered art, just ask Sally Mann!

Banksy is Brilliant! How great for someone to raise awareness of issues through art!

3M, so true. I think Bansky's work is interesting, but he doesn't have the right to put it on property that he doesn't own. Since he does seem to have so much support, I'm wondering if he could find individuals who support him and own buildings, etc. on highly visible streets and paint there. Then his message would get across, but these people would allow him to use their property as a medium.

I think he is an amazing artist, but I don't agree with vandalism. Just because it is beautiful does not make it right. That leaves it open for people with no talent to vandalize whatever they want. You can't discriminate on criminals based on talent.

Good point Cine as usual!

lilkimbo: Exactly what I was thinking. I'm sure he could find support (heck he could even find support and keep it on the low so no one knows that he was "allowed" to do it.) but I just don't think it's right to vandalize anyone else's property.

Cine: Great point, it does open the doors for others.

I don't find this vandalism in any way.

I'm making a list, if you find someone has created a graffiti masterpiece on your house or car, you'll know who it is.

M3 please don't come to my house! LOL

I wonder if all of the fans on this thread would find illegal graffiti as favorable if it were in the name of a statement they did not support... pro-life graffiti perhaps? I doubt it.

Vandalism: willful or malicious destruction, injury, or disfigurement of any public or private property, real or personal, without consent of owner or persons having custody or control.

You may not think it is vandalism, but it is. This is not opinion but fact.

And foxie, how true that is. It is all fine and good as long as it is in the realm of Liberal Politics and policy.

But why cant it be both? Oh well, maybe it is up to the owner of the building to decide whether it stays or goes.

I think it's cool.

j2, it can be both, if the artist gets permission. Then it is legal, and not vandalism.

Why bring that into it Foxie? And I disagree, when an artist makes a statement, any statement, I'm willing to pay attention as long as I find it to be a thoughtfully, intelligently and masterfully executed piece.

Whether or not I agree with the sentiment, or for that matter the method of execution, I accept that it's the artist's right to express themselves as they see fit and my right to assess the piece based on my own criteria. I would never evaluate a piece based on whether I agree with the message or not.

And frankly, I would appreciate the art even if I disagreed with the message. Not all of us are closed minded.

"I accept that it's the artist's right to express themselves as they see fit"

Even when it is distruction of private property? What about the owners rights?

I love grafiti, and I would be pretty stoked if it happened to my house, it's interesting and provoking. I don't have a car, but back when I did I made alterations like this myself.

"Whether or not I agree with the sentiment, or for that matter the method of execution..."

I agree that this is vandalism, however, I also think that it is art.

I don't have the answer for how the owner of the property should be feeling, or for how Banksy can express himself in a way that doesn't involve vandalism when that's an integral part of what he does, all I can do is give my opinion on the piece, and I like it.

Kiki, I actually really like the piece. I think he is really talented, I just don't like art at the expense of others property, and I think it leaves the doors wide open to less appealing "art".

Then we agree wholeheartedly cine_lover, and I'm certainly not someone who considers all graffiti to be art, but like I said, the vandalism aspect is an integral part of his approach so I think you just accept that that's what he does... or you don't?

Maybe it's vandalism, but I don't see too much wrong with it. To me, this is the same as say, flyers or posters.

I sought out a few of his pieces while in Vienna, Austria. He is an incredible artist who draws attention to social and political issues through his creations. Love him!!!

"To me, this is the same as say, flyers or posters."

Yeah, but it doesn't take as much effort, expense, and chemicals to remove flyers and posters from one's property as it does to remove paint.

Cool.

I believe it would be silly to get so worked up over an act of civil disobedience. There are many worse things people can do in protest than create beautiful works of art. How are these things hurting you, effecting your life, or causing trouble? If anything it is a way for an individual to express his or her personal beliefs.

If someone gave Banksy a set place to work and display art, it would not have gotten so much attention, and even negative attention is good attention in the art world.

He's not dealing drugs to your children.

It may be artistic, but it's still vandalism. There is a beautiful Macadonian Church up the street from our house. Last summer, a bunch of taggers nailed one wall of it. They were eventually identified and arrested. Is what they did any different from what he's doing? I don't think so.

It's artistic to everyone except the people whose property he altered without their permission. Like Trixie said, it may be artistic, but it is still vandalism.

Honestly, no matter how beautiful his work is--and much of it is truly astonishing--I can't have much respect for someone who doesn't have respect for others.

Ok, I see what everyone is saying about someone else's property and such, but think about it. Is that a shop it's painted on? I can understand a church being upset about grafitti, but this shop now has its picture on the internet being viewed all over the world. People might even go to said shop just to see the painting. They might even buy something. See where I'm going here? I don't think it should be an issue unless the person whose property it's on complains. I don't know if that's the case here, though.

Princess, that's ridiculous. Only AFTER someone complains is it an invasion of their property? Maybe if he didn't think it would be offensive, he could have gotten permission. Perhaps the graffiti would draw some extra customers, but more likely is that the graffiti is lowering the value of realty in the area. No one wants graffiti tags all over their neighborhood... even if it DOES look nice.
Kiki- I bring it up because it's completely relavent. We need to all look at this in an objective manner, and when you agree with the agenda it's not exactly objective.

I disagree, actually. I think art like this perks up a community. Makes it unique. Maybe he should get permission, but I would love to have this show up on the wall of my corner shop. That's just me. I like it.

How lovely that *you* disagree. Most people don't. That's why it brings down the value of the area, and that's my point. Yes, he should get permission, but he doesn't because he probably couldn't. It's a lame invasion of personal space, and I honestly can't believe so many of you are so accepting of it.

It's cool that you would like it, Princesskitty, but does that invalidate the rights of the property owners who might not like it?

I was just saying that I doubt the shop owner is hating the publicity.

Its the disobedient nature of Banksy's work that makes them such potent symbols for our time. Future historians will be able to tell a lot about the current socio-political climate from this kind of dissident art.
If more people put this kind of time and energy into improving their environment then the world would be a much better place.
Incidentally, these days if he painted on your house or car it'd be worth a lot more than it was the previous day. I don't see anyone complaining about having "a Banksy" on the side of their house.
Sign of the times...

Saying that something is a sign of the times doesn't excuse it. Racism, crime, and teenage pregnancies are all signs of the time, too. This would fall into the category of crime, I believe.
Aren't you all the same people who hate PETA because of the "immature" way they do things? How is this any different? It isn't. He should spread his message through a less thuggy, high-schooly way. The lack of logic in here makes me want to rip out my hair.