New Banksy

PaulStat · 28 Aug 2008 at 19:33

I know some of you love him, some of you hate him. I'm the former, anyway this has popped up within the last couple of days on the side of the highbury vaults in Bristol

Greenlizard0 · 28 Aug 2008 at 19:36

Heh that's pretty cool! Good old Banksy!

Edit - it appears it isn't.

Dinomania · 28 Aug 2008 at 19:39

It's not a Banksy, I'm afraid.... Hang on and I'll return with proof...

Dinomania · 28 Aug 2008 at 19:41

Here we are: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7556019.stm

"A new mural by artist Nick Walker has appeared on the outside wall of the Highbury Vaults pub in Bristol.

The tagged stencilled work shows Rapunzel with her hair let down like a rope to allow a hooded youth to climb up to her window.

[...]

Nick Walker has been working in Bristol for more than 20 years and is a contemporary of Banksy."

Tom0 · 28 Aug 2008 at 19:42

You can tell its not Banksy the paint on the M is running.

Edit: How rude of me, it's still great.

revolutionrock · 28 Aug 2008 at 19:43

Banksy is a ****

qqg3 · 28 Aug 2008 at 19:43

Couldn't be a Bansky, he hasn't signed it, he signs all of his work somewhere around it.

Greenlizard0 · 28 Aug 2008 at 19:48

More information on Nick Walker.

PaulStat · 28 Aug 2008 at 19:50

Damn, I haven't seen it myself had a text from my friend with the above picture. At the time I did think I can't see his signature but thought perhaps the shot wasn't wide enough

AtreuS · 28 Aug 2008 at 19:53

I agree that as a piece of art it has its merits, but surely just because its "art" does that mean people should suddently not see it as graffiti?

Its a criminal act and just because its been done by a famous name its suddenly not criminal but art? :confused:

At least any kids caught in the act of spraypainting a wall can use this an excuse "its art innit!" hehe

Greenlizard0 · 28 Aug 2008 at 19:54

I suppose it's a case of whether the owner would have consented to it before hand. Not sure on that, though he does appear to like it.

AtreuS · 28 Aug 2008 at 19:56

Greenlizard0 said:
I suppose it's a case of whether the owner would have consented to it before hand. Not sure on that, though he does appear to like it.

Yes i suppose if the owner doesnt see it as anything wrong then thats ok.

I just fail to see how "criminal vandalism" becomes "uncomissioned work" so easily.

Bah maybe im just an old fart

Dinomania · 28 Aug 2008 at 19:56

The staff at the Vaults are all fairly dudey, I'd be surprised if they scrubbed it off!

Good pub, good beers, nice place

Tefal · 28 Aug 2008 at 19:59

AtreuS said:
I agree that as a piece of art it has its merits, but surely just because its "art" does that mean people should suddently not see it as graffiti?

Its a criminal act and just because its been done by a famous name its suddenly not criminal but art?

At least any kids caught in the act of spraypainting a wall can use this an excuse "its art innit!" hehe

iirc to be protected it has to be of "artistic merit" but I'm not sure if thats graffiti or Swedish copyright law

PaulStat · 28 Aug 2008 at 19:59

sara said:
The staff at the Vaults are all fairly dudey, I'd be surprised if they scrubbed it off!

Good pub, good beers, nice place

indeed, I hope it never changes, has that oldy worldy pub feel. Very few of those around these days

Azagoth · 28 Aug 2008 at 20:03

skeeny said:
Banksy is a ****

What a nice, mature and constructive post! :rolleyes:

AJUK · 28 Aug 2008 at 20:16

Great, all we need is another arrogant **** like Banksy vandalising buildings. When are these ******* going to grow up. :rolleyes:

MikeHunt79 · 28 Aug 2008 at 20:25

Not bad!

Beansprout · 28 Aug 2008 at 20:28

I walked past there a week or so ago and wondered if it was a Bansky. Thought it was a little small and not prominent enough to be a Bansky

Tee Hee Johnson · 28 Aug 2008 at 20:30

Im not a fan of that one to be honest