Original Banksy for sale - Bear and Bees

[japanthriller]

Sweet Toof ELECTRIFYING GUMS

Continuing their long-standing relationship, Sartorial will release another sterling print from Sweet Toof this Friday (17th February 2009). From an edition of 30 this new 6 colour screenprint will be available in two colours at a yet to be disclosed price

[Deleted]

someone has to explain to me how comparing museum pieces of many 100's of years in age to a piece done in the last 5 years works? Especially when it is well known exactly what Banksy thinks on this practice? No we don't need to wait till he's dead to wonder what he thinks and then do whatever we like - it's well documented now -

[japanthriller]

The young graffiti artist falls to his death in spaying up a massive derelict warehouse on shoreditch high street.

[richy00]

is japan thriller one of those clever spam bots??

[bullet]

Jul 23, 2009 16:59:32 GMT 1 japanthriller said:

The young graffiti artist falls to his death in spaying up a massive derelict warehouse on shoreditch high street.

wtf are you on

[wizzy]

I suspect Japanthriller / Kompany et al are friends of AF (or one and the same) the Sweet Toof King and are either spamming threads or not used to forums?.

[Billy Sport]

Jul 23, 2009 16:47:36 GMT 1 @max711 said:

Did someone say hypocrite?

Sept 11, 2007 17:10:40 GMT 1 trasbash said:

i cant even see the invader in question but i know of invaders that have been up and around the streets for literally years now. Every time i walk around london it gives me a little buzz to see a new one as well as any nice street art for that matter. Im no street art saint but ripping off pieces of STREET art off the wall and then bragging about the fact that you have done this is the action of a proper c@£t. If an artist plasters a piece of art to a wall, it is because he/she doesnt want it to be taken. The fact that invader sells invader kits on his site makes the matter even more disgusting. Rot in hell

that was before he got his new contact lenses

[richy00]

Jul 23, 2009 16:46:38 GMT 1 hero said:

richy....if you have 'no doubt its real' and your only going to keep it on your wall, and not sell it on at any point, then where is the need for a coa?

H

there isnt a need, but im saying the value is in the few hundreds not the few tens of thousands.. its cool. i would buy it.

[alsbabar]

Jul 23, 2009 14:57:43 GMT 1 @snausages said:

And why am I the only one to consider why maybe people shouldn't force their "art" on to the public and cause hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage that private citizens have to pay for each year? And why can't you see the contradiction and hypocrisy that happens when vandals who cause millions in damage every year get upset when someone sells one of their "works of art" that they don't even own anyway and call them criminals? I don't want to argue if either is right or wrong, I'm just saying you look like an elitist hypocrite if you think one is ok but the other is not.

Most street art that is done on public buildings, its the people who remove them for their own gain who cause the most damage. The Bee and Bears piece for instance, was done on what looks like local council gritting bin - so by the person removing the side of it, renders the bin useless, and has to be replaced, at the expense of its local citizens, so its not the artist that is causing the most damage in this instance, it is the person trying to profit - on a side note, do you think the person who is looking to sell this, will in any way shape or form, reimburse the council for the replacement bin? That is the biggest hypocrisy imo.

Everything has a price? I'm not the one obsessed about money in this thread, I do however think that the positive that comes out of this situation is that you have a historic piece that can and should be preserved. If you actually read what I was saying maybe you would have noticed "mr big bucks" didn't say a thing about how much this is worth nor did I imply it will be worth millions, etc. I did however say it is a historical piece and artifact (even if PC doesn't give it a blessing) and in that aspect more important than the majority of things you see on this forum every day.

Without authentication from Banksy/PC this piece can never be considered historic, nor would any museum take this piece on without the right paperwork to support it.

[snausages]

Jul 23, 2009 17:45:41 GMT 1 @alsbabar said:

Jul 23, 2009 14:57:43 GMT 1 @snausages said:

Most street art that is done on public buildings, its the people who remove them for their own gain who cause the most damage. The Bee and Bears piece for instance, was done on what looks like local council gritting bin - so by the person removing the side of it, renders the bin useless, and has to be replaced, at the expense of its local citizens, so its not the artist that is causing the most damage in this instance, it is the person trying to profit - on a side note, do you think the person who is looking to sell this, will in any way shape or form, reimburse the council for the replacement bin? That is the biggest hypocrisy imo.

We could go round in circle all day if you want alsbabar, but it's ridiculous to criticize the guy removing the side of the trash bin but not the thousands of guys who vandalize trash bins everyday causing countless people wasted hours and money removing it. Are those guys going to reimburse people? Much much more damage has been done by people with a so called "artistic purpose" than those who have removed a few pieces here and there. Which would have never happened if the artist in question hadn't left his "art" or personal advertisement there.

The hypocrisy is that you have an artist you think should be allowed to put up his name, art and message anywhere he wants. Yet he wants to retain control over it even though it was done illegally. He does not want you to buy art that he puts on the street and won't bless it, (because he has nothing to gain from it) yet he will bless works of art you buy through galleries where he does stand to gain thousands. The hypocrisy is that he wouldn't be able to sell a thing through his galleries if it wasn't for these illegal works which was basically free advertising for him.

Without authentication from Banksy/PC this piece can never be considered historic, nor would any museum take this piece on without the right paperwork to support it.

This is really just your opinion and my opinion backed up by example is it does have value. An unauthenticated piece sold for almost 20k usd several months ago without the coveted PC certificate. It was 99% chance real and great piece. Should someone have taken it? WOuld it be better if it was destroyed with the buyilding and sent to the dump? I don't know, but at least now it's preserved and I would love to have it on my wall no matter what the investment propsects are.

[skanky]

Intresting debate, and its easy to agree with points on both sides. I think the problem is that buying such things only encourages them to be stolen and deprives many more people of the enjoyment of seeing them in situ as the artist intended.

The contradiction for me comes that this piece is now preserved where as it may have been lost forever but maybe it was also the intention of the artist for it only to be temporary. I agree that the COA and value of such a piece are undoubtedly linked but also agree with Snausages that this is an important piece of Banksy's history and as such will always have a value wether we like it or not.

[Simococo]

I might not agree with everything you write snausages but I do appreciate the fact that you stimulate a good old fashioned debate with sound critique

[buffin]

Jul 23, 2009 18:11:51 GMT 1 @snausages said:

Jul 23, 2009 17:45:41 GMT 1 @alsbabar said:

We could go round in circle all day if you want alsbabar, but it's ridiculous to criticize the guy removing the side of the trash bin but not the thousands of guys who vandalize trash bins everyday causing countless people wasted hours and money removing it. Are those guys going to reimburse people? Much much more damage has been done by people with a so called "artistic purpose" than those who have removed a few pieces here and there. Which would have never happened if the artist in question hadn't left his "art" or personal advertisement there.

The hypocrisy is that you have an artist who thinks he should be allowed to put up his name, art and message anywhere he wants. Yet he wants to retain control over it even though it was done totally illegally. He does not want you to buy art that he puts on the street and won't bless it, (because he has nothing to gain from it) yet he will bless works of art you buy through galleries where he does stand to gain hundreds of thousands. The hypocrisy is that he wouldn't be able to sell a single thing through his galleries if it wasn't for the notoriety he gained by putting up all these illegal works-which is basically tantamount to free advertising. How happy would you be if corporations put up their "art" to promote their sales around the city without your permission? You wouldn't be very happy if you had to spend a couple hundred to have it eradicated would you?

Without authentication from Banksy/PC this piece can never be considered historic, nor would any museum take this piece on without the right paperwork to support it.

This is really just your opinion and my opinion backed up by example is it does have value. An unauthenticated piece sold for almost 20k usd several months ago without the coveted PC certificate. It was 99% chance real and great piece. Should someone have taken it? WOuld it be better if it was destroyed with the buyilding and sent to the dump? I don't know, but at least now it's preserved and I would love to have it on my wall no matter what the investment propsects are and whether or not Banksy wants it there.

You are twisting things around just to suit your argument. How can refusing to provide COAs for street pieces be an attempt to retain control over it? It is more a refusal to get involved, which is understandable in the situation and an obvious course of action. It is nothing to do with "nothing to gain" and the fact that you even suggest it makes me think that have an agenda here.

[lee3]

This thread is a tough skim as I can barely read some of it.

>>>The hypocrisy is that you have an artist who thinks he should be allowed to put up his name, art and message anywhere he wants.<<<<

I believe he's been rather blunt about where and why he places work over the past couple years and it certainly is not whereever he wants.

>>>Yet he wants to retain control over it even though it was done totally illegally. He does not want you to buy art that he puts on the street and won't bless it, (because he has nothing to gain from it) yet he will bless works of art you buy through galleries where he does stand to gain hundreds of thousands<<<

Come on now, you don't really believe that nonsense do you? You think PC has taken that stance because they are upset they can not profit from it? They would actually be entitled to artists resale rights on any sale that occurred and street pieces would have some big time premiums at auciton- so they are actually leaving (substantial) money on the table. I believe they have taken this stance so as to protect the public property and not have morons ripping down walls. One can easily remove paint if they wish, replacing walls is another matter entirely. Personally, I believe their stance had very little to do with money and far more to the democratic nature of the artist trying to keep some work available for free to the fans. Further, they are not as you say "retaining control" over the work. He puts it there and that is the end of it. They simply refuse to authenticate the work thereby rendering it worthless by comparison within the art world. I realize everyone is entitled to their own opinion but that is one helluva conspiracy theory and I certainly don't subscribe to it. Wouldn't they be charging admission to the Bristol Museum if they were half as motivated by money as this argument suggests?

[alsbabar]

Snausages - Firstly and importantly - the artists wishes are that he would rather the piece remained in situ for all to enjoy or not. It is not up to one person to remove it and try and profiteer from it. Unfortunately with regards to Banksy's works, its not just a few pieces is it - look at the pieces that were removed from Palestine, New Orleans, Liverpool, London, Berlin - these have all been offered up individually for sale.

My opinion on value is based on fact, fact based on statements from Banksy/PC, and while you have 1 example of a streetpiece that did sell for $20K without PC provenance, I can show you a long list of street pieces without provenance that hasnt. Also the piece you are referring to, I would hazard a guess, that person trying to sell it, wanted considerably more for it, but when realised it wouldnt get authentication offloaded it, I would also suspect the person who bought it, thought one day he/she will get authentication for it, thus making it a great investment/punt. Also and very importantly this piece isnt being preserved for all to see and enjoy, it is being sold to the highest bidder on this forum.

You obviously have a different view on people removing street pieces and then trying to sell it, perhaps you have vested interest in this or another piece, hence why you are arguing your case.

I am sure you have a counter argument, as we all know how eager you are always to get the last word in

[snausages]

Jul 23, 2009 18:14:07 GMT 1 skanky said:

Intresting debate, and its easy to agree with both sides. I think the problem is that buying such things only encourages them to be stolen and deprives many more people of the enjoyment of seeing them in situ as the artist intended.

The contradiction for me comes that this piece is now preserved where as it may have been lost forever but maybe it was also the intention of the artist for it only to be temporary. I agree that the COA and value of such a piece are undoubtedly linked but also agree with Snausages that this is an important piece of Banksy's history and as such will always have a value wether we like it or not.

What I don't want to encourage is people to go out and cut apart buildings. But what is done is done and I agree that we should look at the upside of this. It reminds me of that semi apocalyptic movie where some guy is carting around the slab of stone with kissing coppers on it. I think that would have been an amazing artifact if it could have been preserved, better on the street maybe, better that it could be preserved for generations to come who won't have the fortune of being able to see a real Banksy street piece live in the flesh, maybe that too.

But what's important to point out here is that Banksy has changed many of his tactics so that the pieces are done in a way where it would be very difficult to extract them anymore, at least in most instances—unless you are the actual property owner. And if you are then you can do whatever you want with it.

[rosstierney]

it's also very well known that banksy had/has helpers. how would you feel if you paid a substantial amount for this piece, only for pc to then break it to you that although it is a banksy cut the stencil, it wasn't actually sprayed by him?

[snausages]

Jul 23, 2009 18:28:07 GMT 1 buffin said:

You are twisting things around just to suit your argument. How can refusing to provide COAs for street pieces be an attempt to retain control over it? It is more a refusal to get involved, which is understandable in the situation and an obvious course of action. It is nothing to do with "nothing to gain" and the fact that you even suggest it makes me think that have an agenda here.

Everyone is twisting things around here Buffin. What's especially twisting is how a forum filled with "vandals" turns into upright citizens concerned for the well being of public property the second something is removed, yet they never whisper a word about how much damage is caused by peoples 'artistic intent'

>>>I believe he's been rather blunt about where and why he places work over the past couple years and it certainly is not whereever he wants. <<<
So where is it that? Where I want? Where the Queen wants? Whose giving him orders? Is it ok that Banksy gets a free pass but not others? Who decides what's 'art' anyway?

>>> Further, they are not as you say "retaining control" over the work. <<<
It's one thing to not issue a certificate but Banksy has publicly encouraged people not to bid on these, using his influence to control their market. I know about artist resale rights, but if people bid on these it would discourage people putting money in his proper gallery works. If he really wants to give art to the public without worry of this issue get a legitimate commission in a public place, protected by public law. Just don't spray the side of a building you don't own, without permission and try to control the fate of that wall. One or the other.

>>>we all know how eager you are always to get the last word in<<<
Thanks alsbabar, I'll get the last word in ebcause we all know how eager you are to get the first word in whenever someone mentions anything about a streetpiece, you're the first one to start throwing around insults.

[snausages]

Jul 23, 2009 18:48:18 GMT 1 @rosstierney said:

it's also very well known that banksy had/has helpers. how would you feel if you paid a substantial amount for this piece, only for pc to then break it to you that although it is a banksy cut the stencil, it wasn't actually sprayed by him?

Haha tell that to the guy who paid two mil for a jeff koons painting that was painted by his assitant ;D

[rosstierney]

Jul 23, 2009 18:56:27 GMT 1 @snausages said:

Jul 23, 2009 18:48:18 GMT 1 @rosstierney said:

it's also very well known that banksy had/has helpers. how would you feel if you paid a substantial amount for this piece, only for pc to then break it to you that although it is a banksy cut the stencil, it wasn't actually sprayed by him?

Haha tell that to the guy who paid two mil for a jeff koons painting that was painted by his assitant ;D

i knew you were going bring up koons or hirst but the difference is, their pieces are approved, signed & registered. big difference imo.

[alsbabar]

Jul 23, 2009 18:49:58 GMT 1 @snausages said:

Thanks alsbabar, I'll get the last word in ebcause we all know how eager you are to get the first word in whenever someone mentions anything about a streetpiece, you're the first one to start throwing around insults and words like jacks**t. .

saying it is "worth jacks**t" isnt insulting anyone, however calling someone a f**kwit cnut is!!!

I recall you mentioning you work in a gallery, dont suppose you have a Banksy streetpiece in there that you are trying to flog do you?

[They call me Stephen]

For this piece to be included in wall & piece is surely a sign of the artist approving the piece no?? Struggle to see a difference with the hirst/koons analogy...even your avatar could be called into question if we go down that route.

[snausages]

So you've never insulted anyone about street pieces? I doubt it but maybe I'm wrong and don't care enough to dig through your posts. But true your first post in this thread wasn't insulting against anyone exactly but it was extremely negative in tone.

Oh and by the way, yes, I have a gallery just teaming with Banksy street work. You've found me out!

[They call me Stephen]

Jul 23, 2009 19:15:06 GMT 1 @snausages said:

Oh and by the way, yes, I have a gallery just teaming with Banksy street work. You've found me out!

any prov on those snausages

[alsbabar]

Jul 23, 2009 19:15:06 GMT 1 @snausages said:

So you've never insulted anyone about street pieces? I doubt it but maybe I'm wrong and don't care enough to dig through your posts. But true your first post in this thread wasn't insulting against anyone exactly but it was extremely negative in tone.

Oh and by the way, yes, I have a gallery just teaming with Banksy street work. You've found me out!

Never said i didnt, and i will continue to, but in the context of this debate, you are making out that I was insulting people, when I haven't yet. As for my first post, its not likely to be positive in tone is it? What do you want me to do, stand up and applaud the chancer?

[snausages]

Don't expect you to applaud the chancer but your related posts are extremely negative in tone and everytime someone mentions a street piece you're all over them — maybe you're not directly insulting but there is very strong negativity that isn't really needed on this forum.

[alsbabar]

Jul 23, 2009 19:28:29 GMT 1 @snausages said:

Don't expect you to applaud the chancer but your related posts are extremely negative in tone and everytime someone mentions a street piece you're all over them — maybe you're not directly insulting but there is very strong negativity that isn't really needed on this forum.

Now am I supposed to feel enlightened by your statement, I tell you what form a f**king committee to have me removed or banned, till then I am going to keep getting on peoples cases about stolen street pieces - and I would like to think I am not alone in this issue.

I will also add, you have been the most insulting to people on this forum by stating "Yup a lot of fools around here", earlier in this thread.

[Deleted]

Jul 23, 2009 19:28:29 GMT 1 @snausages said:

Don't expect you to applaud the chancer but your related posts are extremely negative in tone and everytime someone mentions a street piece you're all over them — maybe you're not directly insulting but there is very strong negativity that isn't really needed on this forum.

righttttt just to point out - the negativety in this instance will be being a fan of Banksys work and adhering to the man's wishes regarding street pieces - and why they were placed on the streets in the first place

[snausages]

righttttt - I was filled with negativity... with the idea that another mans worthless junk could actually bring joy to others? That maybe it's not all bad if some street pieces are preserved for generations to come that won't have the luxury of seeing work on the street? If that's negative I'm sorry. - I respect it if you have another opinion, just don't hate me because I don't form my opinion solely based on what Banksy says. I disagree with him here but understand where he's coming from.

[minutewheel]

Note to self-

When writing any future posts, be sure to limits its content to no more than 3 lines. Anything more is F@CKIN' BORING.