:: GussetBLOG ::

:: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 ::

Council Policy

Does a week go by without a Banksy story in the news?

£100,000 Banksy painted over [Images]

"A group of bungling council workers have painted over one of the earliest surviving murals by guerrilla graffiti artist Banksy.

"The 25ft x 4ft design, thought to be worth more than £100,000*, was mistaken as vandalism by workmen who slapped thick black paint over it."

* The current record sale price for a Banksy work is £102k. Saying that everything he ever sprayed on the side of a garage is worth the same is pushing it. Good luck to the people wanting to sell one (with free house attached) for £200k.

"The artwork was sprayed onto the side of garages at Albion Road, in Easton, Bristol, about ten years ago.

"Locals are furious that the series of blue shapes, along with Banksy's trademark tag, has been lost forever.

"Bristol City Council [BCC], which has ordered all Banksy work to be preserved, launched a full investigation into the blunder yesterday."

It seems somewhat cynical of BCC to have a no-Banksy-removal policy AND a graffiti removal team. However, in the interest of more balanced journalism than most of the available sources and a less knee-jerk reaction that the forums, closer inspection shows that they actually have a no-mural removal policy, which I guess means the removal team focus on tagging. Obviously they aren't very good at drawing the distinction (even if it wasn't a very good Banksy mural).

That said, they do come down HARD on the tagging. The recent BCC community news letter that got dropped through my door seemed to have more column inches dedicated to graf removal than any other topic, and on every occasional referred to the "increased fear of crime" it causes in neighbourhoods.

It makes me wonder. Some graffiti artists are now recognised parts of the art establishment in their own right. They have worked their way up from simply tagging their names on ugly or abandoned buildings. Their work, even the older less impressive works, are now to be preserved. Yet people doing what they did when they started out are still criminals. How is the next generation to come through with this double standard?

The only way this can work fairly is if works are judged purely on their artist merits, so the less impressive or less interesting works get covered over and the only strong survive. It's what always happened in the street art scene anyway. Should councils be interfering and passing judgement or just letting people get on with it? I'd like to think they'll do the latter but know they never will as they would be giving up the power to censor what people may want to say (and potentially say about them), and they'll never do that.

To stray off the subject completely I'll finish my grumble about the council with a story. As you may know, I work in an environmental consultancy. I sit between the ecologists and the recycling consultants, who are sadly no-where near the bunch of hippies you would like to imagine them to be. One of them attended a launch lunch last week where BCC stood up and waffled for ages about the importance of locally sourcing materials. In the panel discussion afterwards someone asked them where the lunch that had been provided had been sourced / supplied from. No one knew.

All mouth and no trousers.

Labels: Art, banksy, Bristol, graffiti

:: Dan 13.3.07 [Arc] [0 comments] [links to this post] ::
...

Links to this post:

<\$BlogBacklinkControl\$> <\$BlogBacklinkTitle\$> <\$BlogBacklinkDeleteIcon\$>

<\$BlogBacklinkSnippet\$>
posted by <\$BlogBacklinkAuthor\$> \@ <\$BlogBacklinkDateTime\$>

<\$BlogItemBacklinkCreate\$>