A recent Banksy incident in Detroit raised several questions about street art and ownership.
Discovered just last weekend on a crumbling factory wall, it took only a few days for artists from the 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios (a grassroots group) to excavate the 7-by-8-foot, 1,500-pound cinder block wall with a masonry saw and forklift, and move the piece to their grounds near the foot of the Ambassador Bridge in southwest Detroit. The move, itself a guerrilla act on top of Banksy’s initial guerrilla act, has sparked an intense debate about the nature of graffiti art, including complicated questions of meaning, legality, value and ownership.
Some say the work should be protected and preserved at all costs. Others say that no one had a right to move it — and that the power and meaning of graffiti art is so intrinsic to its location that to relocate it is to kill it. The gallery defends its action by pointing out that the artwork would have been destroyed soon along with the building. Others respond that Banksy may have intended for that to happen. And then there’s the context, which plays into the painting it's meaning. Some argue that while Banksy broke laws against trespassing and vandalism, the gallery is guilty of theft. The property owner hasn’t said anything about it yet.
Discovered just last weekend on a crumbling factory wall, it took only a few days for artists from the 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios (a grassroots group) to excavate the 7-by-8-foot, 1,500-pound cinder block wall with a masonry saw and forklift, and move the piece to their grounds near the foot of the Ambassador Bridge in southwest Detroit. The move, itself a guerrilla act on top of Banksy’s initial guerrilla act, has sparked an intense debate about the nature of graffiti art, including complicated questions of meaning, legality, value and ownership.Some say the work should be protected and preserved at all costs. Others say that no one had a right to move it — and that the power and meaning of graffiti art is so intrinsic to its location that to relocate it is to kill it. The gallery defends its action by pointing out that the artwork would have been destroyed soon along with the building. Others respond that Banksy may have intended for that to happen. And then there’s the context, which plays into the painting it's meaning. Some argue that while Banksy broke laws against trespassing and vandalism, the gallery is guilty of theft. The property owner hasn’t said anything about it yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment