Bristol Museum • Paint Pot Angel Poster • WITHDRAWN

[met]

Jan 10, 2018 18:00:06 GMT 1 rosac said:

But what is the meaning behind the art ?

Jan 11, 2018 9:15:58 GMT 1 rosac said:

but why has the frikin angel got a pot of pint paint on its bonce?

Jan 12, 2018 11:33:54 GMT 1 rosac said:

any more thoughts on the image?

It may be a commentary on the dangers of:

(i) intolerance towards minority groups and marginalised individuals; or

(ii) social apathy in the face of intolerance expressed by others (which can quickly escalate to incitement to violence, and to violence itself).


Specifically in this case, there's a slippery slope we go down when we trivialise angelophobia and acts which, if directed towards humans, would constitute hate crimes.

We must remain vigilant. And we must keep fighting the nefarious ideas of angelophobes. The latter include rationalists, who brazenly deny the actual existence of supernatural beings (not just angels, but also fairies, pixies, and even god, for Christ's sake) — thus denying their very right to exist.


The famous poem by the German Lutheran pastor, Martin Niemöller, comes to mind:


First they came for the Angels, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an Angel.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

____________


In other words, if someone looks hard enough, they can project and come up with just about any meaning that suits them.

____________


But note as well that your questions seem based on a premise, that the art has a particular meaning.

This isn't necessarily the case. Perhaps it was never intended to have meaning. [Which, to be clear, is different from suggesting that no thought went into the work.]

For me, the sculpture is purely a visual gag — amusing because it's a crude act of disrespect (or, rather, a representation of such an act) against the kind statue often held in reverence.

I would class the work in the same category as a piece of turf placed on the head of Churchill's statue in Parliament Square in 2000. Or googly eyes being added to a (faux) Rembrandt self-portrait. Additional humour is offered by the context of the museum setting, which formalises and elevates what would otherwise be broadly dismissed as wanton vandalism.

____________


Despite the above, I did enjoy reading the interpretation given by Gurn.

Now, whether the paint-can "halo" was Banksy's intent at the time of creation, or purely a happy accident, is anyone's guess.

Jan 11, 2018 9:31:34 GMT 1 Gurn said:

Jan 11, 2018 9:15:58 GMT 1 rosac said:

but why has the frikin angel got a pot of pint paint on its bonce?

The bottom of the paint pot appears to represent a halo, suggesting that goodness can be a result of subversion....that's my take.

[Happy Shopper]

As Met says, it might not have a deep meaning.
There was a lot of pink paint splashes in the branding of the museum show (if I remember right)... so it may have just been set up to look like one of Banksy's pink paint tins had fallen on one of the museum's statues.

[Warm Gun]

I very much doubt that there is any hidden meaning behind this piece, it's just a cool looking bit of mock vandalism.

[Lroy]

Jan 12, 2018 19:00:12 GMT 1 Warm Gun said:

I very much doubt that there is any hidden meaning behind this piece, it's just a cool looking bit of mock vandalism.

For me, as said before, this makes me think to a Groucho Marx farce ...

I even found a quote ...

“ Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water! And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now, uh... now you tell me what you know.”

[Warm Gun]

Jan 12, 2018 19:19:29 GMT 1 Lroy said:

Jan 12, 2018 19:00:12 GMT 1 Warm Gun said:

I very much doubt that there is any hidden meaning behind this piece, it's just a cool looking bit of mock vandalism.

For me, as said before, this makes me think to a Groucho Marx farce ...

I even found a quote ...

“ Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water! And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now, uh... now you tell me what you know.”

Agreed, it's just a humorous piece. I'd imagine that the most fun was actually had by the person making it.

[Lroy]

Jan 12, 2018 17:15:19 GMT 1 silvermyn said:

Some poor bugger in Bristol is going to be rolling up Banksy posters and shoving them in tubes for months to come... Stay strong my friend!

love your comment ;D
Posters are posters ! As sandwiches are made with bread butter and ham ( cheese is an option , pickles and/or salad too )

I remember when I worked in the RAH of London, in another century :
Every Sunday when there was spectacles with Queen Mum as spectator or not, I made since 7am in the caves around the edifice, tons of sandwiches 🥪 , taking the butter with a spatula in a Gargantuan marmite !
Hopefully, the Selecter were playing “ on my Radio “ ...

[skAcid]

Great tune Lroy

[Lroy]

Jan 12, 2018 19:32:51 GMT 1 skAcid said:

Great tune Lroy

Yeps ! Thanks ! I was really a fan of ska after all pink and derivatives, all UK was dancing and screaming Gangster by the Specials !
I saw all of the bands, London was a madness, lol, wow ! these years, golden ones !!! You could go in each place full of skinheads, rude boys and every girls and boys of the planet , with long hairs or not, I never saw any fight !
I still like a lot reggae and ska, because its awesome music and people !
Peace.

[Howard Johnson]

Jan 12, 2018 18:18:11 GMT 1 met said:

Jan 10, 2018 17:01:25 GMT 1 Coach said:

Would he have to if the piece is part of the museum’s collection?

Yes, Banksy will have had to give his approval. [Or Pest Control, if Banksy assigned his rights to the company.]

As referred to here by Dive Jedi , ownership of an artwork is distinct from ownership of the copyright to the artwork.

_________

In this case, there is also two separate copyrights involved:

(i) that of the artist who created the sculpture; and

(ii) that of the photographer who took the photo of the sculpture.


The museum will have secured permission from both in order to reproduce and sell the image.

I dont have anything useful to add except for my respect for your comprehensive and correct analysis. Copyright exists in anything that has 1. Original expression and 2. Is fixed in a tangible medium of expression.

You don't own the copyright to any of the art you physically own. In fact you dont even own the right to display that art publicly (display rights are one of the "bundle" of copyrights along with distribution, reproduction, derivatives, ect), but some of these very rarely enforced.  

for the sake of argument, if Mr. B. wanted to make a stink (and WCP would be the better target), he could claim that the posters also violate his publicity rights (do these exist in the UK?) and trademark rights by unfairly trading on the goodwill of his namesake.

Pigs will fly before banksy sues. The first question at deposition would be, "whats your full name and address"
 

[Deleted]

Jan 12, 2018 19:46:07 GMT 1 Howard Johnson said:

Jan 12, 2018 18:18:11 GMT 1 met said:

Yes, Banksy will have had to give his approval. [Or Pest Control, if Banksy assigned his rights to the company.]

As referred to here by Dive Jedi , ownership of an artwork is distinct from ownership of the copyright to the artwork.

_________

In this case, there is also two separate copyrights involved:

(i) that of the artist who created the sculpture; and

(ii) that of the photographer who took the photo of the sculpture.


The museum will have secured permission from both in order to reproduce and sell the image.

I dont have anything useful to add except for my respect for your comprehensive and correct analysis. Copyright exists in anything that has 1. Original expression and 2. Is fixed in a tangible medium of expression.

You don't own the copyright to any of the art you physically own. In fact you dont even own the right to display that art publicly (display rights are one of the "bundle" of copyrights along with distribution, reproduction, derivatives, ect), but some of these very rarely enforced.  

for the sake of argument, if Mr. B. wanted to make a stink (and WCP would be the better target), he could claim that the posters also violate his publicity rights (do these exist in the UK?) and trademark rights by unfairly trading on the goodwill of his namesake.

Pigs will fly before banksy sues. The first question at deposition would be, "whats your full name and address"
 

Banksy
Bankyview
Banksyland
B4N-K5Y

[Uncle Buck]

Would have really liked one of these if anyone has an extra for a reasonable price please. Or could swap for a Banksy sticker - I have a few doubles. Thanks

[Inknart]

Jan 12, 2018 22:50:13 GMT 1 Uncle Buck said:

Would have really liked one of these if anyone has a extra for a reasonable price please. Or could swap for a Banksy sticker - I have a few doubles. Thanks

I really think these will be restocked. Be patient. These go to a good cause and help fund the museum. They will sell them forever i'm sure.

[Happy Go Lucky Chap]

Missed out on these, so a shout out if anyone wants to help out a fellow forum member I will gift you something nice in return :-)

[Deleted]

Jan 12, 2018 23:00:59 GMT 1 Happy Go Lucky Chap said:

Missed out on these, so a shout out if anyone wants to help out a fellow forum member I will gift you something nice in return :-)

Go on then, as I bought a few of these. Pm me your address etc. That’s as long as you don’t live in some Madagascan village that requires it to be sent via a sherpa.

[Geezer Mate]

The postcards seem a bit more scarce 

[ed]

I'll swap one for a soup cans. Hell, I'll swap all three I bought for a soup cans

[rosac]

Jan 12, 2018 18:48:56 GMT 1 met said:

Jan 10, 2018 18:00:06 GMT 1 rosac said:

But what is the meaning behind the art ?

Jan 11, 2018 9:15:58 GMT 1 rosac said:

but why has the frikin angel got a pot of pint paint on its bonce?

Jan 12, 2018 11:33:54 GMT 1 rosac said:

any more thoughts on the image?

It may be a commentary on the dangers of:

(i) intolerance towards minority groups and marginalised individuals; or

(ii) social apathy in the face of intolerance expressed by others (which can quickly escalate to incitement to violence, and to violence itself).


Specifically in this case, there's a slippery slope we go down when we trivialise angelophobia and acts which, if directed towards humans, would constitute hate crimes.

We must remain vigilant. And we must keep fighting the nefarious ideas of angelophobes. The latter include rationalists, who brazenly deny the actual existence of supernatural beings (not just angels, but also fairies, pixies, and even god, for Christ's sake) — thus denying their very right to exist.


The famous poem by the German Lutheran pastor, Martin Niemöller, comes to mind:


First they came for the Angels, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an Angel.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

____________


In other words, if someone looks hard enough, they can project and come up with just about any meaning that suits them.

____________


But note as well that your questions seem based on a premise, that the art has a particular meaning.

This isn't necessarily the case. Perhaps it was never intended to have meaning. [Which, to be clear, is different from suggesting that no thought went into the work.]

For me, the sculpture is purely a visual gag — amusing because it's a crude act of disrespect (or, rather, a representation of such an act) against the kind statue often held in reverence.

I would class the work in the same category as a piece of turf placed on the head of Churchill's statue in Parliament Square in 2000. Or googly eyes being added to a (faux) Rembrandt self-portrait. Additional humour is offered by the context of the museum setting, which formalises and elevates what would otherwise be broadly dismissed as wanton vandalism.

____________


Despite the above, I did enjoy reading the interpretation given by Gurn.

Now, whether the paint-can "halo" was Banksy's intent at the time of creation, or purely a happy accident, is anyone's guess.

Jan 11, 2018 9:31:34 GMT 1 Gurn said:

The bottom of the paint pot appears to represent a halo, suggesting that goodness can be a result of subversion....that's my take.

Yeah visual gag for me. Just wondered if I was missing something and wether anyone actually cared. :-)

[chevyav53]

Jan 12, 2018 18:48:56 GMT 1 met said:

Jan 10, 2018 18:00:06 GMT 1 rosac said:

But what is the meaning behind the art ?

Jan 11, 2018 9:15:58 GMT 1 rosac said:

but why has the frikin angel got a pot of pint paint on its bonce?

Jan 12, 2018 11:33:54 GMT 1 rosac said:

any more thoughts on the image?

It may be a commentary on the dangers of:

(i) intolerance towards minority groups and marginalised individuals; or

(ii) social apathy in the face of intolerance expressed by others (which can quickly escalate to incitement to violence, and to violence itself).


Specifically in this case, there's a slippery slope we go down when we trivialise angelophobia and acts which, if directed towards humans, would constitute hate crimes.

We must remain vigilant. And we must keep fighting the nefarious ideas of angelophobes. The latter include rationalists, who brazenly deny the actual existence of supernatural beings (not just angels, but also fairies, pixies, and even god, for Christ's sake) — thus denying their very right to exist.


The famous poem by the German Lutheran pastor, Martin Niemöller, comes to mind:


First they came for the Angels, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an Angel.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

____________


In other words, if someone looks hard enough, they can project and come up with just about any meaning that suits them.

____________


But note as well that your questions seem based on a premise, that the art has a particular meaning.

This isn't necessarily the case. Perhaps it was never intended to have meaning. [Which, to be clear, is different from suggesting that no thought went into the work.]

For me, the sculpture is purely a visual gag — amusing because it's a crude act of disrespect (or, rather, a representation of such an act) against the kind statue often held in reverence.

I would class the work in the same category as a piece of turf placed on the head of Churchill's statue in Parliament Square in 2000. Or googly eyes being added to a (faux) Rembrandt self-portrait. Additional humour is offered by the context of the museum setting, which formalises and elevates what would otherwise be broadly dismissed as wanton vandalism.

____________


Despite the above, I did enjoy reading the interpretation given by Gurn .

Now, whether the paint-can "halo" was Banksy's intent at the time of creation, or purely a happy accident, is anyone's guess.

Jan 11, 2018 9:31:34 GMT 1 Gurn said:

The bottom of the paint pot appears to represent a halo, suggesting that goodness can be a result of subversion....that's my take.

Or.... it could be a simple protest of traditional art by a graffiti artist and everyone wants to find some deeper meaning in it?

Interesting points of view
  

[met]

Jan 12, 2018 19:46:07 GMT 1 Howard Johnson said:

Jan 12, 2018 18:18:11 GMT 1 met said:

Yes, Banksy will have had to give his approval. [Or Pest Control, if Banksy assigned his rights to the company.]

As referred to here by Dive Jedi, ownership of an artwork is distinct from ownership of the copyright to the artwork.

_________

In this case, there is also two separate copyrights involved:

(i) that of the artist who created the sculpture; and

(ii) that of the photographer who took the photo of the sculpture.


The museum will have secured permission from both in order to reproduce and sell the image.

I dont have anything useful to add except for my respect for your comprehensive and correct analysis. Copyright exists in anything that has 1. Original expression and 2. Is fixed in a tangible medium of expression.

You don't own the copyright to any of the art you physically own. In fact you dont even own the right to display that art publicly (display rights are one of the "bundle" of copyrights along with distribution, reproduction, derivatives, ect), but some of these very rarely enforced.

for the sake of argument, if Mr. B. wanted to make a stink (and WCP would be the better target), he could claim that the posters also violate his publicity rights (do these exist in the UK?) and trademark rights by unfairly trading on the goodwill of his namesake.

Pigs will fly before banksy sues. The first question at deposition would be, "whats your full name and address"

If an unhappy situation arose regarding copyright, Banksy himself would not have to sue. As alluded to above, he could assign his rights to a controlled company, and that company (acting solely through a director or other authorised representative) could then initiate proceedings.

And so, while the likelihood of suing may be negligible, I don't believe it's zero. It would depend on the individual circumstances. I suspect the main causes for reticence would lie elsewhere. Here's a couple of possible reasons for choosing to not enforce intellectual property rights:

1. Lawsuits are very time-consuming, costly and emotionally draining. As a rule of thumb, they're best avoided. A busy artist would have to ask themselves how much of their time, financial resources and energy they'd be prepared to sacrifice to legal battles and paperwork. What negative impact could such distractions have on their artistic output, on the opportunities made available to them, and on their private lives?

2. Public perception is crucial for artists and their careers. Now, what is the potential cost to someone with a graffiti background if they (or the company they own) are seen to be litigious? When money doesn't appear to be a primary motivator for the artist, could any benefit achievable as a plaintiff in court outweigh the reputational risk that artist incurs by taking someone to court in the first place?

[Happy Go Lucky Chap]

Jan 12, 2018 23:04:16 GMT 1 @letisss said:

Jan 12, 2018 23:00:59 GMT 1 Happy Go Lucky Chap said:

Missed out on these, so a shout out if anyone wants to help out a fellow forum member I will gift you something nice in return :-)

Go on then, as I bought a few of these. Pm me your address etc. That’s as long as you don’t live in some Madagascan village that requires it to be sent via a sherpa.

You sir, are a gentleman.  Your kindness shall be rewarded 

[floubi]

I totally missed it too (

[deltaboy]

Does anyone have a spare I can snag?

[Howard Johnson]

Anyone got pics of the new poster? Thanks!

[k2]

Jan 13, 2018 1:07:13 GMT 1 Howard Johnson said:

Anyone got pics of the new poster? Thanks!

Not a good picture, but here's a blurry screengrab from the BBC clip about the print sales. 

[Dive Jedi]

Jan 11, 2018 22:34:31 GMT 1 Inknart said:

Jan 11, 2018 12:43:35 GMT 1 Dive Jedi said:

Owners of an original are NOT allowed to reproduce the image, museums included.
Copyright always remains with the artist or photographer. Unless otherwise agreed.

So Banksy must have agreed with this release

Not true, just look at Medicom. I believe Banksy iterated before he would never go after someone for using or copyrighting his work.

Not true ?
Because you believe Banksy said something.....

Even if this would be true (which is plausible) an institution like a museum would never reproduce an artwork without prior consent of the artist. They would be liable and would not take that risk. Especially if that museum needs to publish 5 quid posters to raise funds.

They might risk having the statue removed or not get any new work as well.......
Banksy might not sue about copyrights, but that doesn't mean you can't p!ss him of.

[Dive Jedi]

Jan 12, 2018 23:04:16 GMT 1 @letisss said:

Jan 12, 2018 23:00:59 GMT 1 Happy Go Lucky Chap said:

Missed out on these, so a shout out if anyone wants to help out a fellow forum member I will gift you something nice in return :-)

Go on then, as I bought a few of these. Pm me your address etc. That’s as long as you don’t live in some Madagascan village that requires it to be sent via a sherpa.

Yeah, it would be extremely expensive to send a Sherpa to Madagascar !    

[Dive Jedi]

Jan 13, 2018 1:21:04 GMT 1 k2 said:

Jan 13, 2018 1:07:13 GMT 1 Howard Johnson said:

Anyone got pics of the new poster? Thanks!

Not a good picture, but here's a blurry screengrab from the BBC clip about the print sales. 

Pretty sure this is the Greeting Card and not the Poster.....

[Dive Jedi]

Jan 12, 2018 23:56:27 GMT 1 met said:

Jan 12, 2018 19:46:07 GMT 1 Howard Johnson said:

I dont have anything useful to add except for my respect for your comprehensive and correct analysis. Copyright exists in anything that has 1. Original expression and 2. Is fixed in a tangible medium of expression.

You don't own the copyright to any of the art you physically own. In fact you dont even own the right to display that art publicly (display rights are one of the "bundle" of copyrights along with distribution, reproduction, derivatives, ect), but some of these very rarely enforced.

for the sake of argument, if Mr. B. wanted to make a stink (and WCP would be the better target), he could claim that the posters also violate his publicity rights (do these exist in the UK?) and trademark rights by unfairly trading on the goodwill of his namesake.

Pigs will fly before banksy sues. The first question at deposition would be, "whats your full name and address"

If an unhappy situation arose regarding copyright, Banksy himself would not have to sue. As alluded to above, he could assign his rights to a controlled company, and that company (acting solely through a director or other authorised representative) could then initiate proceedings.

And so, while the likelihood of suing may be negligible, I don't believe it's zero. It would depend on the individual circumstances. I suspect the main causes for reticence would lie elsewhere. Here's a couple of possible reasons for choosing to not enforce intellectual property rights:

1. Lawsuits are very time-consuming, costly and emotionally draining. As a rule of thumb, they're best avoided. A busy artist would have to ask themselves how much of their time, financial resources and energy they'd be prepared to sacrifice to legal battles and paperwork. What negative impact could such distractions have on their artistic output, on the opportunities made available to them, and on their private lives?

2. Public perception is crucial for artists and their careers. Now, what is the potential cost to someone with a graffiti background if they (or the company they own) are seen to be litigious? When money doesn't appear to be a primary motivator for the artist, could any benefit achievable as a plaintiff in court outweigh the reputational risk that artist incurs by taking someone to court in the first place?

I agree with this.
Although there might be a point of "enough is enough", even for Banksy.
Let's say H&M would decide to print Banksy T-shirts he might sue and donate to charity.

If his image would be used for a wrongful (is that a word?) cause (Trump 2020 for instance) 
he might sue as well.

As for a museum that displays his art; they would never print without permission.

[Carl Cashman]

Jan 13, 2018 5:04:46 GMT 1 Dive Jedi said:

Jan 13, 2018 1:21:04 GMT 1 k2 said:

Not a good picture, but here's a blurry screengrab from the BBC clip about the print sales. 

Pretty sure this is the Greeting Card and not the Poster.....

Not my image

[crashwilliams]

Jan 13, 2018 7:22:18 GMT 1 Carl Cashman said:

Jan 13, 2018 5:04:46 GMT 1 Dive Jedi said:

Pretty sure this is the Greeting Card and not the Poster.....

Not my image

Ha, that picture is by my mate Vodka Dave he picked up from the museum last week.