The article's photo of the art barricaded from public view with two security people standing guard in front of it speaks even louder than the original artwork.
And then, further down in the article, the picture of a whole structure built to block the view of the piece, with a locked door. Satire writing itself!
I think that's where I'm at too (as a lifelong fan of actual street art), but that leaves the question of why Banksy is privileged the way he is, for his trite brand of sub-tour-poster stencil work, most of which would be too on-the-nose for a Rage Against The Machine reissue cover.
Half this cost is related to security to actively stop people looking at the art work. If it's not acceptable for banksy to cost tax payers £50k to remove the graffiti, why is acceptable for the powers that be to waste another £50k on security to stop anyone seeing it?
And if that ruins the character of the building, why is the fence acceptable?
That's true, though it's worth noting that Banksy's pest control – the people who certify that an artwork is legitimate – will always identify anything not meant to be sold as a fake, so resale is a lot more limited than anything meant for galleries and auctions.
In the sense that they are the enforcement mechanism of the law it's true that they can probably just ignore the law to a point, but it's no use pretending that there isn't a legal stricture here.
(I'm a policy opponent of historic preservation, which is a major impediment to housing reform, but even I don't pretend that it simply doesn't exist.)
The Banksy cost-benefit and clean-protect loops are part of my favorite modern civic dialogs. I like it when the BBC takes the obvious side of the establishment because it is honest.
It costs only 150k? Pay the man. Its public art. Its art, and a damn sight better than the advertisements, wait... are you comparing art to ads? Get the ads to pay for the art? This article is merely government propiganda. Oh Charles... wake up! Knight Banksy noe..
Original art by Banksy is reportedly valued at millions of £ or $ [0]
The BBC says "Banksy works cost public almost £150k" because "The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) says it has spent £50,000 trying to remove paint from the wall of the Grade II-listed building in Carey Street."
Therefore, the title is incorrect. The cost to the public is much more than £150k. The Ministry's damage to this freely-contributed artwork has probably already cost the public a few million £, not just £150k
Have you considered that the public may be gaining something from the conversations and awareness that arise from the performance of this art? I invite you to move away from evaluating a piece of art simply in terms of the monetary cost to the tax payer.
The government has appropriated Banksy's artworks (e.g. the police sentry box), and could sell them. If the sale of those artworks exceeds the cost of cleaning others, then the government has netted a profit, which takes the monetary argument off the table.
The article's photo of the art barricaded from public view with two security people standing guard in front of it speaks even louder than the original artwork.
And then, further down in the article, the picture of a whole structure built to block the view of the piece, with a locked door. Satire writing itself!
It’s street art/graffiti. If someone wants to tag over it let them. Protecting this stuff with tax payer money is just stupid.
I think that's where I'm at too (as a lifelong fan of actual street art), but that leaves the question of why Banksy is privileged the way he is, for his trite brand of sub-tour-poster stencil work, most of which would be too on-the-nose for a Rage Against The Machine reissue cover.
Well, prosecute him for vandalism then to recoup the costs?
They could do nothing and just let the art exist for free.
Not free, at the cost of the beauty of the vandalized area
Half this cost is related to security to actively stop people looking at the art work. If it's not acceptable for banksy to cost tax payers £50k to remove the graffiti, why is acceptable for the powers that be to waste another £50k on security to stop anyone seeing it?
And if that ruins the character of the building, why is the fence acceptable?
Probably to stop people rocking up and cutting them out of the buildings
That's true, though it's worth noting that Banksy's pest control – the people who certify that an artwork is legitimate – will always identify anything not meant to be sold as a fake, so resale is a lot more limited than anything meant for galleries and auctions.
They can't. It's a listed building. They're legally obligated to remove it.
Absolutely not. There is no enforcement mechanism to punish them if they chose not to enforce the listed building rules.
In the sense that they are the enforcement mechanism of the law it's true that they can probably just ignore the law to a point, but it's no use pretending that there isn't a legal stricture here.
(I'm a policy opponent of historic preservation, which is a major impediment to housing reform, but even I don't pretend that it simply doesn't exist.)
Let them apply austerity measures then.
The Banksy cost-benefit and clean-protect loops are part of my favorite modern civic dialogs. I like it when the BBC takes the obvious side of the establishment because it is honest.
It costs only 150k? Pay the man. Its public art. Its art, and a damn sight better than the advertisements, wait... are you comparing art to ads? Get the ads to pay for the art? This article is merely government propiganda. Oh Charles... wake up! Knight Banksy noe..
Technically this is vandalism of a govt building.
If they're so concerned about cost, why not do what you'd do with any other vandal with a spray paint can...
Immediately paint over it with grey paint to neutralize the "blight", then efficiently do a deeper clean / removal / repair the facade.
Seems like they gave the Banksy very special treatment of fence, guards, etc. and now are paying for the side effects of that.
And the value of nothing.
why don't they just sell the works to recoup the costs?
how much does graffiti cost the public in general?
They can't; they're obligated by law to preserve the original structure the graffiti is painted on.
Now do how much tourist money his works have brought in.
A rounding error to support the arts.
"Think of the money!" This mentality needs to go extinct. Along with billionaires.
And well worth it. Too bad they defaced it.
Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy said: ""Our courts are a national symbol of justice and the rule of law."
It seems like someone doesn't get the symbolism of the Banksy piece.
Uh, no, the piece isn't subtle. They simply disagree with it.
Original art by Banksy is reportedly valued at millions of £ or $ [0]
The BBC says "Banksy works cost public almost £150k" because "The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) says it has spent £50,000 trying to remove paint from the wall of the Grade II-listed building in Carey Street."
Therefore, the title is incorrect. The cost to the public is much more than £150k. The Ministry's damage to this freely-contributed artwork has probably already cost the public a few million £, not just £150k
[0] https://www.dawsonsauctions.co.uk/news-item/how-much-is-an-o...
Have you considered that the public may be gaining something from the conversations and awareness that arise from the performance of this art? I invite you to move away from evaluating a piece of art simply in terms of the monetary cost to the tax payer.
Of course the poster has considered it, and disagrees with the message!
The government has appropriated Banksy's artworks (e.g. the police sentry box), and could sell them. If the sale of those artworks exceeds the cost of cleaning others, then the government has netted a profit, which takes the monetary argument off the table.
you mean... as opposed to removing the bricks with the art on them to auction off and replacing them with new bricks?