What is the difference between Banksy doing this artwork, which is applauded, and then the defacement of the said artwork, which is condemned?
Councils are quick enough to erect fencing around these artworks, even security guards I believe in some cases, yet they don't make the same effort to protect other buildings/objects from vandalism.
Double standards in my opinion.
He's famous and his art sells for huge sums, that's most of it.
Also re: defacement, I'd draw a distinction between people tagging or just defacing stuff for the sake of trolling (drawing a penis or writing "Karen Smith is a ****" etc..) vs graffiti artists trying to create some sort of street art.
Though even in the latter case, if unauthorised, local councils will typically paint over it. In fact they can get quite shirt in some areas where the street art has been commissioned by the property owner:
^^^^ This guy got some publicity by saying it was because of the Union Jack in the mural and some press stories claiming that was the reason for it's removal but really it was because the mural was in a conservation area... but there are Banksy artworks in conservation areas in London and they're just given a pass whether or not the owner of the property they were painted on gave permission for them or not... thus the artwork itself can in fact impact whether to not a given local authority decides to let it stay. I'd wager if he was able to afford to commission Banksy to draw a mural for his fish and chip shop (assuming Banksy even would take a commission) he'd not have had that issue.
Basically, it's a legal grey area that hasn't been tested in law yet between "Art" and "Graffiti" with relation to someone like Banksy who has elevated "Street art" into a mainstream art form.
I'm not sure it is, there's another clause there re: usefulness to the property owner and so if some property owner was really vexed by it and didn't need the money they could still complain (and indeed pursue him if they paid for contractors to paint over it too) but in reality pretty much everyone is quite happy to have a Banksy and won't press charges/will retrospectively.
Essentially it's moot anyway as you'd have to be fine with setting fire to maybe six figures for a large-ish mural or possibly a 7 or even 8 figure sum for a well publicised one in a good location:
A building in Los Angeles is set to hit the auction block including mural on its facade by the notorious street artist Banksy
news.artnet.com
So unless some very angry eccentric billionaire or a completely mental person still takes offence and pushes for charges then it's not going to happen, everyone (inc local authorities) can be pretty much assumed to have retrospectively been happy with the artwork ergo no damage has occured.
But you'd have to spend a lot of money trying to protect it. Would you be able to afford it?
Yes, pretty much anyone who owns property in a busy urban area of London or Bristol could afford to initially put up some perspex and if they didn't want to be burdened with any ongoing faff they could quite easily sell it/hire contractors to cut out the wall (or whatever it is painted on) and brick up a new one for them.
That's ironically where local councils get quite shirty, unlike regular street art where the owner it ordered to remove it, with a Banksy it's the reverse; owner removes it and local council has a strop:
Just over a month since Banksy’s mural ‘Art Buff’ appeared in Folkstone – and was subsequently vandalised – by the …
artlyst.com
Initially viewers rushed to see the new work by Banksy causing an increase in tourism for the area, when it arrived last month; and Shepway district council, recognising the value of the work to the local culture, issued a statement saying that it would work with the owner of the building to ensure the work remained undamaged.
But now in a statement; Shepway District Council, said it was “disappointed” to hear that ‘Art Buff’ had been removed from the arcade wall at the weekend by the owners “who are no longer able to maintain it”. Mr Collins, also appealed to the Godden family, who own the arcade, to save the Banksy piece for Folkestone.
The MP said: “I was very disturbed to hear that the Banksy artwork on the wall of Palace Amusements in Folkestone was removed at the request of the Godden family who own the building. It’s being sold because the Goddens are heartily fed up with keeping it safe. And they’ve decided they want rid of it, being magnanimous, they don’t really care [about what the people of Folkestone think] – he told Academy FM.
He added: “Rochelle Godden’s husband, Jimmy Godden, died of cancer a few years ago and she’s going to put any funds from it to her cancer trust.”[/quite]
