mjc bcfc Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Second Banksy defaced 'Mild Mild West' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke_bristol Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Whoever it is throws like a girl, half of them missed a 20 square foot target! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfred Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 i believed the video showed ballons. In which case the chances of it being a bitter blue diminishes by the day as we all know that the six fingers you have reduces your dexterity to nil and the chances of being able to tie a balloon to even less than nil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eamer Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Just wondering who thinks this is a good idea. Somebody, somewhere knows who is doing it but is keeping it secret for some reason. Guessing there'll be another one done tonight. Which is next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Great Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 I have to say i'm gutted that this has been going on. It's one thing to make an ironic statement, but this has been done in a purely destructive manner. It doesn't require any skill to chuck a few paint balloons, and seems like a bout of petty jealousy to me. Yet another damning example of the repugnant society that we've become unfortunately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfcbs20 Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 the poor gash got upset that banksy said hurtful words in a national newspaper i would say go round and deface the minimal but adding to value of the place is not acceptable what ever the cause Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DanC Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 the poor gash got upset that banksy said hurtful words in a national newspaper i would say go round and deface the minimal but adding to value of the place is not acceptable what ever the causeI'm sure Banksy could come up with something to do at the Rugby stadium that will show the world for what they really are. Bankys work shouldn't be considered as being illegal. We should be privileged that he does it in our fair City and we should even encourage him. I do feel his work should have been protected in some way. Them sag heads really are a pathetic bunch. Has banksy commented on this yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bully Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Bankys work shouldn't be considered as being illegal. We should be privileged that he does it in our fair City and we should even encourage him. I do feel his work should have been protected in some way. Whats the difference between this "artist" and any other creative genius who defaces someone else's property? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frome Valley Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Whats the difference between this "artist" and any other creative genius who defaces someone else's property? Status. The owner of the property has decided that the piece can remain there e.g Mild Mild West. Much of the work around Stokes Croft by other artists is done with the owners consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DanC Posted June 24, 2009 Report Share Posted June 24, 2009 Whats the difference between this "artist" and any other creative genius who defaces someone else's property?Because tagging to me is not art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cider head Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Second Banksy defaced 'Mild Mild West' ohhh was it something i said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 ohhh was it something i said? That's the third time it's been attacked now, the two previous were with waterbased paints though. There is meant to be a planning application to have that one put behind glass.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bully Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Because tagging to me is not art. I see - although a property owner waking up to find a load of paint across their wall may not be able to discern between tagging and art, and even if it was considered art by the experts, they may not appreciate it being there. It appears that Mr Banksy and his fellow artists have always secured a property owners consent but i'm not sure that all those inspired by him follow the same protocols. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bully Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Status. The owner of the property has decided that the piece can remain there e.g Mild Mild West. Much of the work around Stokes Croft by other artists is done with the owners consent. The owner of the property is sitting on something valuable of course so good luck to them - if I popped around with a tin from B&Q they may not be so charitable of course. If work is done with an owners consent and its not offensive then of course its ok - surely you must see though that it inspires others to follow suit, with or without a property owners consent. Dan refers to the difference between tagging and art, but its still defacing your property if you didn't want it there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westred1 Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 I walked past it yesterday and it had large, blue blobs of paint on it. Some people just can't recognise or appreciate art these days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frome Valley Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 The owner of the property is sitting on something valuable of course so good luck to them - if I popped around with a tin from B&Q they may not be so charitable of course. If work is done with an owners consent and its not offensive then of course its ok - surely you must see though that it inspires others to follow suit, with or without a property owners consent. Dan refers to the difference between tagging and art, but its still defacing your property if you didn't want it there. Banksy's images are iconic. I see a world of difference between Inkys "Headspace" in West Street v De Baron. Did you know the 3 Dom piece in Gloucester road was removed by the Council even though it was done WITH the owners consent? I can't see that spending hours hanging off the side of a building creating something that hardly anybody else can do inspires virtually anybody else to follow suit when the know they council will highly likely paint all over it. Encourages people to know more learn more but you can't just turn up and create similar without years of practice at places like Barton Hill Settlement or the UWE. Its a craft and hardly defaces Stokes Croft does it? I know what I would rather see along Bath Road instead of all those advertising hoardings defacing our public spaces. Being artistic is someting Brisol is known for and its is something to be proud of - http://www.bristolgraffitimap.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bully Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Banksy's images are iconic. I see a world of difference between Inkys "Headspace" in West Street v De Baron. Did you know the 3 Dom piece in Gloucester road was removed by the Council even though it was done WITH the owners consent? I can't see that spending hours hanging off the side of a building creating something that hardly anybody else can do inspires virtually anybody else to follow suit when the know they council will highly likely paint all over it.Encourages people to know more learn more but you can't just turn up and create similar without years of practice at places like Barton Hill Settlement. Its a craft and hardly defaces Stokes Croft does it? I know what I would rather see along Bath Road instead of all those advertising hoardings defacing our public spaces. Being artistic is someting Brisol is known for and its is something to be proud of. Your view is a personal thing - discriminatory in fact because you decide whats iconic and what's simply shite. I see no difference between someone with talent spraying up another persons wall without permission to someone without any artistic talent whatsoever. The owner of said wall usually regards the work of art as vandalism so I don't care if it is skilful - if its not on your wall it shouldn't be done without the owners approval. Even then there's town planning to consider which is for the protection of everyone whether you agree with that or not. People build beautiful extensions on their houses without permission and get told to knock it down. As for the Bath Road - what public spaces are the hoardings on? - you need planning permission for them and that's not easy to get. If the hoardings are on public land, the City Council gets thousands in revenue which probably helps keep places like the Settlement open. Nothing wrong with art lots wrong with vandalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Your view is a personal thing - discriminatory in fact because you decide whats iconic and what's simply shite. I see no difference between someone with talent spraying up another persons wall without permission to someone without any artistic talent whatsoever. The owner of said wall usually regards the work of art as vandalism so I don't care if it is skilful - if its not on your wall it shouldn't be done without the owners approval. Even then there's town planning to consider which is for the protection of everyone whether you agree with that or not. People build beautiful extensions on their houses without permission and get told to knock it down. As for the Bath Road - what public spaces are the hoardings on? - you need planning permission for them and that's not easy to get. If the hoardings are on public land, the City Council gets thousands in revenue which probably helps keep places like the Settlement open. Nothing wrong with art lots wrong with vandalism. Surely Banksy's main motivation is to blur the lines between graffiti and art, though. I'm sure he'd be delighted that he's causing debate like this, as I feel it's the entire point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CiderHider Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Who did this, has anyone owned up? Who is this appropriate media? They need to be cleaned up, put behind perspex and guarded 24 hrs a day. I'm in Bristol in a few days and might camp a few Banksy's with a baseball bat and some tear gas at night. Failing that I'll just have their website hacked on a daily basis and deface that, Then find out who they are, where they live, and have some serious fun. If people think they can do this without any repercussions then they are woefully mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frome Valley Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Your view is a personal thing - discriminatory in fact because you decide whats iconic and what's simply shite. I see no difference between someone with talent spraying up another persons wall without permission to someone without any artistic talent whatsoever. The owner of said wall usually regards the work of art as vandalism so I don't care if it is skilful - if its not on your wall it shouldn't be done without the owners approval. Even then there's town planning to consider which is for the protection of everyone whether you agree with that or not. People build beautiful extensions on their houses without permission and get told to knock it down. As for the Bath Road - what public spaces are the hoardings on? - you need planning permission for them and that's not easy to get. If the hoardings are on public land, the City Council gets thousands in revenue which probably helps keep places like the Settlement open. Nothing wrong with art lots wrong with vandalism. The people of Bristol have decided that Banksys work should be elevated above mere as you describe it vansdalism. I would look at that as iconic status. Advertising hoardings do not always need planning consent which is why people can merrily plaster political slogans on them on Bath Road in broad daylight withour fear of prosecution. Planning is for the protection of everyone? Yep they really protected large parts of Bristol not becoming eye sore blighted by ugly buildings. Thank Christ local people care enough to try and brighten them up a bit with their own work . Bristol Murals bring people into the City generating lots of cash and will continue to do so for decades along with the frequent exhibitions like Weapon of choice. Of benefit any of this or still just mindless vandalism? You can't make a distiction between Inky and De Baron? :noexpression: Bye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaverface Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Who did this, has anyone owned up? Who is this appropriate media? They need to be cleaned up, put behind perspex and guarded 24 hrs a day. I'm in Bristol in a few days and might camp a few Banksy's with a baseball bat and some tear gas at night. Failing that I'll just have their website hacked on a daily basis and deface that, Then find out who they are, where they live, and have some serious fun. If people think they can do this without any repercussions then they are woefully mistaken. Maybe it was Banksy himself who done this? Wouldn't that be ironic, blue paint splattered all over his work with no artistic style at all!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olé Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 You can't make a distiction between Inky and De Baron? :noexpression: Bye. Quite - there's no comparison. De Baron is a moron. And while we're about it, for those of you who consider graffiti as mindless vandalism, have you had a look around BS3 recently, the neighbourhood in which your football club is based? There's the fantastic spray up on the side of the Tap & Barrel which I defy anyone to tell me is not both eye catching and a major improvement on the depressing part of Dean Lane, and now as of the past few weeks there is also a series of massive murals along the length of the garage just along from Aldi on North Street. BS3 is a better place for both of these and neither deserve the accusation of vandalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bully Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 The people of Bristol have decided that Banksys work should be elevated above mere as you describe it vansdalism. I would look at that as iconic status. Advertising hoardings do not always need planning consent which is why people can merrily plaster political slogans on them on Bath Road in broad daylight withour fear of prosecution. Planning is for the protection of everyone? Yep they really protected large parts of Bristol not becoming eye sore blighted by ugly buildings. Thank Christ local people care enough to try and brighten them up a bit with their own work . Bristol Murals bring people into the City generating lots of cash and will continue to do so for decades along with the frequent exhibitions like Weapon of choice. Of benefit any of this or still just mindless vandalism? You can't make a distiction between Inky and De Baron? :noexpression: Bye. 1." The people of Bristol" have not decided to elevate Banksy's work - some people have who are hardly representative of the whole. 2. You clearly like to play judge and jury - to someone who owns property, be that a brick wall or an advert hoarding, the fact that someone has decided to use their property to create a masterpiece or a slogan is neither here nor there if it was done without their permission. Planners are there to protect the visual amenity and if not, then they screw as much as they can out of developers via planning gain. Not sure what you mean by ugly buildings, but maybe you live in a teepee and see anything modern as a carbunkle. Those ugly buildings in the main, generate millions for Bristol via employment, shelter and rates. "Brightening up" is fine provided they get permission from whoever owns the wall in question - do you disagree with that concept? 3- I'm not aware that people flock into Bristol with their wallets poised to look at wall murals. Any exhibitions that do more than break even are to be encouraged but that's not what i'm talking about here as you well know . 4- I can distinguish in terms of (a) damaging other peoples property as opposed to (b)creating something that the owner is happy with. I confess that i'm not an art expert like yourself and have no interest in the relative merits of Inky or De Baron - why should I? - you were pretty dismissive there don't you think? Some elitist art lovers so far up their own asses no doubt distinguish purely on the basis of the message conveyed by the mural or the quality of the artwork, but some possibly don't own any property. The fact is Banksy is world famous, Bristol has very few famous people so he is celebrated by many and can no doubt create his art wherever he wishes. That's fine if the relevant parties are happy. #### who spray up walls simply because they believe things need to be brightened up, that they have a talent everyone can appreciate, and have no regard to other peoples property is not fine and I do not need experts like you to decide whats ok and whats not on my behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DanC Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 The owner of the property is sitting on something valuable of course so good luck to them - if I popped around with a tin from B&Q they may not be so charitable of course. If work is done with an owners consent and its not offensive then of course its ok - surely you must see though that it inspires others to follow suit, with or without a property owners consent. Dan refers to the difference between tagging and art, but its still defacing your property if you didn't want it there.If I woke up in the morning and found a Banksy on the side of my property I would hardly be upset would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cider head Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 That's the third time it's been attacked now, the two previous were with waterbased paints though. There is meant to be a planning application to have that one put behind glass.. There is a lot of other graffiti being done below it as well graffiti and i'm also surprised they got past all the wino's and drunks who sit there on the tennants lager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bully Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 If I woke up in the morning and found a Banksy on the side of my property I would hardly be upset would you? I dunno what he looks like so I wouldn't stop to ask him for identification before it was stopped. Only one Banksy but unfortunately hundreds, maybe thousands of ######s who think its ok to express themselves on other peoples property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 As Riaz said earlier in the thread, it is kind of ironic that grafitti should be defaced with grafitti. Still I'm all for Banksy, hopefully this won't happen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.