[philw]

Is it only my perception or has this become more acceptable? If a piece has very solid provenance from a solid gallery?

Thoughts?

[Whitefish]

Only thought that comes to mind at the moment

http://instagram.com/p/BKlCqNVglcd

[ed]

Their destiny is to be looked at by lots of people until there are too many tags and/or badly drawn c*cks all over it to see what's going on.
Or my fav, until the local council paints over it.

Street pieces should, errrr, stay on the street imo.

[Coach]

Jan 28, 2017 17:36:20 GMT 1 ed said:

Their destiny is to be looked at by lots of people until there are too many tags and/or badly drawn c*cks all over it to see what's going on.
Or my fav, until the local council paints over it.

Street pieces should, errrr, stay on the street imo.

That would be my view too.
Street pieces are for us all to enjoy, not just one wealthy owner.
There's a good reason PC won't authenticate them.

[Peter Bengtsen]

Jan 28, 2017 17:23:29 GMT 1 philw said:

Is it only my perception or has this become more acceptable? If a piece has very solid provenance from a solid gallery?

Thoughts?

I wrote a chapter about this a while back.

It can be freely downloaded here: www.academia.edu/20899358

[tartarus]

Dont buy them. It only encourages scammers like Lamberty to carry on with their crap practices.

Just as one example of the whole thing getting ridiculous, he has in his gallery (or did a while back when i looked) a bunch of fake Banksy street signs, obviously waiting to rip of some unsuspecting customer. Along with original street works from Invader and Clet Abraham and of course the big Mural Stik did with the kids in poland. All of which he claims to have got legitimately.

Supporting this will only lead to it being a desperate chase between the people wanting to see and photograph street art and the low life chancer's that are desperate to get it ripped out and for sale in some poncy bric-a-brac shop or gallery.

Better to be boycotting anyone involved in selling street works that artists havnt legitimised, otherwise we will be destroying this scene by our own hands.

Its also a total waste of your money as pieces like this will only irritate an artist so will never be submitted into their works in legitimate form. Would be better to just make it yourself.

[Schrödinger's Chat]

The extreme of what can happen when Banksy 's Street work and a bunch of chancers paths cross:

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/the-water-tank-the-banksy-prank-and-the-later-life-of-the-homeless-elephant-man-tachowa-covington-8735581.html%3Famp?client=ms-android-samsung

And then another chancer takes those events and turns it into a play.

[philw]

Agree with most of the thoughts here, but many of us are old school collectors with "old school" art values.

As banksy becomes more and more blue chip,will these values hold or will, in 10 years, this become a norm.

I know of one non-shady big time banksy dealer whom is now going into the street art realm. I guess that's what made me open my eyes and think for a second.

[Cornish Crayon]

Jan 28, 2017 20:16:36 GMT 1 philw said:

I know of one non-shady big time banksy dealer whom is now going into the street art realm. I guess that's what made me open my eyes and think for a second.

Do you totally understand what you have just said

.......... I'm not sure you do ...........!!??

[tartarus]

Jan 28, 2017 20:16:36 GMT 1 philw said:

Agree with most of the thoughts here, but many of us are old school collectors with "old school" art values.

As banksy becomes more and more blue chip,will these values hold or will, in 10 years, this become a norm.

I know of one non-shady big time banksy dealer whom is now going into the street art realm. I guess that's what made me open my eyes and think for a second.

no you dont. You know a shady art dealer that is out to profit from being a greedy disrespectfull piece of crap. Who is happy to remove the works from public display in order to line his pockets. The artists dont want it and the street art lovers dont want it. Its by and for the greedy bottom feeders with no interest in the scene or the art. 

[thugs]

Jan 28, 2017 19:53:44 GMT 1 tartarus said:

Dont buy them. It only encourages scammers like Lamberty to carry on with their crap practices.

Better to be boycotting anyone involved in selling street works that artists havnt legitimised, otherwise we will be destroying this scene by our own hands.

it's interesting that while sincura, lamberty et al are regularly lambasted (and rightly so) for their practice, people are more than happy to support the gallery and its owner who features in the below video about his taking of the ikea punk street piece, alongside fellow shîtehawks robin barton and keszler...

[Deleted]

Jan 28, 2017 18:25:43 GMT 1 Peter Bengtsen said:

Jan 28, 2017 17:23:29 GMT 1 philw said:

Is it only my perception or has this become more acceptable? If a piece has very solid provenance from a solid gallery?

Thoughts?

I wrote a chapter about this a while back.

It can be freely downloaded here: www.academia.edu/20899358

I disagree with your title, "Stealing from the public. The value of street art taken from the street."

 What exactly is stolen from "the public"?

  Did the public ask team Banksy to vandalise someones property like the house in Cheltenham etc ?

 Does the owner of a property have the right to decide what they do with their property and what they have on their wall?

  To me it makes no difference if a "Banksy" art is left on a wall buffed or tagged or some knocker turns up and says to the owner, oi loike dat der piccy on yer wall guv, oil get me guys to com an take it off yer woll and me guys will re do yer woll an tarmac yur drive fer yur an oil pay u a few good schmukkers fer de piccy so oi will guv so oi will.

   and what the knocker does with the piccy from the wall is his business and between him and the wall owner not Banksy PR company LA incorporated advertising inc. Nor the local councils nor a forum clique of flippers only miotivated by financial value of their Banksy stock who wouldn't give a fuck about the stuff on a wall if Banksy prints were not selling at auction for mega money etc.


     Banksy imposing his art on the public and the PR is the same as a company advertising any type of up market celebrity endorsed investment or promotion.

    Have you thought about exploring the reasons behind why someone like Banksy who "vandalises" property gets a get out of jail free card and also has their pseudo "vandalism" protected at taxpayers expense while other people who make similar "art" on walls and images just as releveant if not more to todays social structure can be prosecuted, fined and jailed?

   also the transition from an outsider graffiti? artist to a brand and global political propagandist as seen in teh Calais Steve Jobs propaganda?


  Plus from my viewpoint if it was OK for Banksy to vandalise Robbo's art he can't moan when after all his publicity seeking stunts which enabled him to make a lot of money and employ PR, management agents etc he can't complain if that has made his art a very good investment and it's arrogant to expect a property owner to play his game not what is beneficial to them.

[Peter Bengtsen]

Jan 29, 2017 15:00:01 GMT 1 @elviswarhol said:

Jan 28, 2017 18:25:43 GMT 1 Peter Bengtsen said:

I wrote a chapter about this a while back.

It can be freely downloaded here: www.academia.edu/20899358

I disagree with your title, "Stealing from the public. The value of street art taken from the street."

 What exactly is stolen from "the public"?

  Did the public ask team Banksy to vandalise someones property like the house in Cheltenham etc ?

 Does the owner of a property have the right to decide what they do with their property and what they have on their wall?

  To me it makes no difference if a "Banksy" art is left on a wall buffed or tagged or some knocker turns up and says to the owner, oi loike dat der piccy on yer wall guv, oil get me guys to com an take it off yer woll and me guys will re do yer woll an tarmac yur drive fer yur an oil pay u a few good schmukkers fer de piccy so oi will guv so oi will.

   and what the knocker does with the piccy from the wall is his business and between him and the wall owner not Banksy PR company LA incorporated advertising inc. Nor the local councils nor a forum clique of flippers only miotivated by financial value of their Banksy stock who wouldn't give a f**kabout the stuff on a wall if Banksy prints were not selling at auction for mega money etc.


     Banksy imposing his art on the public and the PR is the same as a company advertising any type of up market celebrity endorsed investment or promotion.

    Have you thought about exploring the reasons behind why someone like Banksy who "vandalises" property gets a get out of jail free card and also has their pseudo "vandalism" protected at taxpayers expense while other people who make similar "art" on walls and images just as releveant if not more to todays social structure can be prosecuted, fined and jailed?

   also the transition from an outsider graffiti? artist to a brand and global political propagandist as seen in teh Calais Steve Jobs propaganda?


  Plus from my viewpoint if it was OK for Banksy to vandalise Robbo's art he can't moan when after all his publicity seeking stunts which enabled him to make a lot of money and employ PR, management agents etc he can't complain if that has made his art a very good investment and it's arrogant to expect a property owner to play his game not what is beneficial to them.

Did you read the chapter or just the title?

[Deleted]

I read some of it, and noticed a lot of mention about prices for Banksy.

[Peter Bengtsen]

Jan 29, 2017 15:10:31 GMT 1 @elviswarhol said:

I read some of it, and noticed a lot of mention about prices for Banksy.

If you read the rest you may be able to work out why the chapter is titled as it is.