You may be aware of the recent relocation of a Banksy original, 'Slave Labour', created last year in response to several social and political issues: the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, slave labour, and the Olympics. For anyone unfamiliar with his work, Banksy is an internationally recognized, albeit anonymous, graffiti artist and social commentator. The removal of his 2012 piece raises real questions about ownership, socio economic status, ethics, and copyright. Click on the link below to watch a short youetube video. Apply what you learned from Linda Scales' lecture or your own research, and briefly answer one of the following questions in the comment section below:
- Who owns the artwork?
- Does 'public art' apply to graffiti? Why, or why not?
- Who owns the copyright? Do you agree; why, or why not?
- Who makes the profit from the sale? Do you think this is fair?
- How does the community feel about this, and how does it make you feel as an artist?
- How have legal issues, such as the illegality of graffiti, affected the ownership of the art work?
- How have legal issues such as the illegality of graffiti affected the identity of the artist Banksy?
- Do you think Banksy's work is art?
You may approach this assignment in the form of a dialogue, where you respond to a previous comment. I expect your response by next week. Be sure to include your own opinion, diplomatically expressed, and a reference to Linda's lecture, or your own research.
Linda's Power Point presentation can be found on our Moodle page. While we get ourselves familiar with the format (including log in issues), We will discuss here.
It can be argued that Banksy himself owns the artwork. He is
ReplyDeletedefinitely the designer and creator of the image but by choosing to do
it in the form of graffiti on someone else's property he therefore gave up his right to say he own's it. For example he couldn't just draw on anything and remove it like the thieves done to sell it. The persons responsible for owning the property own the wall that the image is on and I think whoever took the piece of wall stole from
them.
My source is that people own property and taking something that isn't yours is stealing.
John! Congratulations on being the first in your class to post a comment!
ReplyDeleteYour comment is built around the ethical implications of the 'theft'. However, you are also talking about the issue of copyright - and how complicated the issue has become as a result of the format Bansky uses - namely, graffiti. As graffiti is illegal, you are saying he's given up his right of ownership. Does this mean he's also given up his copyright? Do we know who actually put the piece up for auction? Cue next commentator:
I absolutely agree with John. Banksy gave his copyright of this particular piece to the owner of the wall (building). The piece was made without owner's permission, that's mean he could treat this artwork as vandalism and could wash it with chemicals (or do what ever he want to do with it). What if the piece wasn't so successful? Would people argue for that? What is art and what is just vandalism?
ReplyDeleteJustinas
Good question, Justinas. How DO we differentiate between art and vandalism? WHO gets to choose?
ReplyDeleteI feel that graffiti is art in a sense but this depends how the medium is applied to a ground. If the piece is commissioned I feel that this is art in some form. But if it is applied nonconsensual to someone else's property this is inconsiderate and frankly vandalism. Never mind legal issues this is just immoral.
ReplyDeleteI see Banksy's work as art if it is a commissioned piece. If it is nonconsensual it is illegal but he still holds the copyright of the piece just not the grounds it is applied to. It's his paint and IP. This aside he should still be dealt with by the authorities but as his work draws a revenue they throw a blind eye. What is the bigger crime?
I do view Banksy as an artist, and believe even though his work is extremely public and informal, he touches on all the important aspects of great artwork. He causes extreme controversy with every one of his pieces- although I do wonder if his artwork *disagreed* with the publics main beliefs (A strong disbelief in God, or blatantly against homosexuals), would his work be considered art, or vandalism?
ReplyDeleteI think it really depends on the finished product. If I was to simply scrawl my name in lazy handwriting across the wall with a sharpie, it would be seen as vandalism. If someone spends TIME on the work, and obviously has thought about layout and aesthetics, it will be leaning more towards art, rather than vandalism.
Banksy's reputation is built on the notoriety he got from painting provocative pictures 'guerrilla' style, in the night, without the permission of those who owned the walls he used as canvas. In the existence of a Banksy piece there is a symbiotic relationship between the private Property Owner and Banksy. One doesn't exist without the other. Therefore the Property Owner has not only a literal ownership in law of the piece ("I own the building and therefore retain the right to replace a section of it"), they are complicit in allowing his work to be displayed - should they want to. Banksy is no Robin Hood hero of the people - he may seem to manifest some counter culture ideals or question realpolitik, but and it's a big but - he knows he is giving the landowner, ostensibly the class of society he questions, a gift that is worth thousands of pounds. You may say that by giving up ownership of his work he is truly espousing 'a man for the people, property is theft' ideology, but if he was seriously concerned with his work being owned by the community - as the vox pop on the video suggests - he could easily do work in tandem with the local councils on community buildings - become known as champion of communally owned areas and green spaces.
ReplyDeleteGood point about working with the community councils; knowing something about his socio-economic/political philosophy, would he have to reinvent himself?
DeleteBansky has never given away his identity, because of the media he has chosen he cannot make a personal claim to his work without repercussions. In my opinion, I think we need to take 'Banksy the person' out of the equation and replace it with 'Bansky the symbol'. Similar to the work of 'Anonymous' the internet 'hacktivists' (scriptkiddies). We are not meant to regard them as individuals, we are meant to see them as a movement. A flag for an ideology. Virtuous or not, banksy did vandalise a wall. It does not take away from the overall message, it adds to it.
ReplyDeleteI suppose the question would be, "if I paint on this wall, is it still a wall? Does the initial owner still own it? Have I changed its physical properties enough for initial ownership to be void?"
In essence Banksys work is free and created for the public. The owner of the wall selling it the piece privately was a great move. How can you attack an ideology, a symbol? Sell it. Make money of it. Turn the artform and its principles against itself. It's brilliant.
Given that Banksy works in a style that is illegal, I can't support any notion of there being any copyright issues. If the owner had commissioned Banksy or if he had asked and gotten permission to do a piece there, then it's the owners wall and free to do with as he chooses. If there was no consent then the owner is free to remove the graffiti from his property however he wants.
ReplyDeleteFurther, the way Banksy works, guerrilla style graffiti with stencils on public or private property is meant to be, in a sense, disposable. If it were anyone else it would be painted over or washed away.
The whole "Banksy's art is of the people for the people" line of reasoning holds little weight unless you ignore the hypocrisy of vaulting what Banksy does over anyone else who is doing the same thing.
I'm referring to the street artist Noir who's work was featured in the Olympics as part of the culture of Britain. Work has also been done by Noir for games and British media and publications.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/olympics-graffiti-artist-noir-is-jailed-for-tagging-trains-8212686.html
The whole argument at the heart of this story is about allocating a different set of rules for one person over anyone else doing the same thing because they are somehow better or more important than anyone else.
You've made a good point about the underlying ethics revealed here. Is what we're seeing about value, or popularity?
DeleteBanksy has become more of an icon than an artist, discussing various issues in his graffiti and becoming a topic much to be discussed by the media and a name known by many interested in art in any form.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this act of stealing a piece of artwork considered to be a unique addition to the community could be considered a bigger act of vandalism than the original appliance of the artwork in various ways such as taking an amount of tourism or attention away from the area by removing this, what could be considered, tourist attraction.
In saying this, it was only a matter of time before artwork done in such a public and anonymous manor was stolen or destroyed in some way, shape or form and have to say that although artwork was stolen, I believe that the person I in fact feel bad for is the true owner of what was stolen. The owner of the chunk of wall taken..
Robert Nolan
Robert, do we know that the owner of the wall is not the very person who cut the chunk out of the wall?
DeleteI must say I agree with Dave on the copyright issue regarding this particular piece. The fact that he created the work through a process that is illegal make the work vandalism, regardless of how clever the concept was.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that people seem to ignore (to a degree) on this is that the person who owns the wall is has the right to do as he pleases with it. weather that is paint over it, strip the paint away or, in this case, remove it entirely. Frankly the people protesting the sale of the piece have no legal backbone in the issue.
As for the matter of graffiti vs. art, I think the dividing line has become less clear over the past decade. While the term "graffiti" itself refers more so to the vandalism aspect of the work, the "street art" movement has created many different routes for the work to take. As I mentioned earlier legal graffiti areas have become a new outlet for those who enjoy this particular culture. All Irish skateparks, as well and Windmill lane and Wheelon's lane in dublin, have become heavens for graffiti artists who prefer to do something other than vandalize.
As for commission work, I view this as something other that graffiti. People have a tendency to refer to large-scale typographical work (or in fact anything to do with aerosol based paints) as graffiti. This is simular to saying painted work is fine art.
I have been quite interested in graffiti from a young age, and I've seen how much the view towards it has changed over the past decade, and how key a character Banksy has been in the change. But when it come down to it, the legality of a situation like this cannot be overlooked simply because Banksy is well known and liked.
I would also like to add this image to the debate if I can. Before I saw it I held the highest regards for Banksy and "graffiti art". But this piece got me thinking about the whole thing in a more critical fashion. The piece is entitled "Boring" by Banksy. It is viewed as art by many, but I'll let you make your own opinion:
http://farm1.staticflickr.com/8/7585473_93fdaa2126_z.jpg?zz=1
I'd say it should be belong to the property owner. if he/she painted it on my house wall then it'd be expensive??? unfortunately I need to know more clear about it because there is no subtitles on it though.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the above, that since Banksy created the artwork in an illegal fashion, he therefore forfeits any copyright he may have had. The owner of the property has the right to do with the work whatever they please.
ReplyDeleteIf it were my property I would be honored, that is however because Banksy is a famous artist. Which brings forth another issue. If it were a non famous artist, and one that wasn't very appealing, the matter would be a whole lot different. Because it is Banksey I would probably cash in as well, call it compensation, and I got lucky.
If it was done in a more public place that has no ownership I would feel very different. The art should remain for the lucky people of the area.
Leon Neligan
Leon, I would also like it if Bansky painted something on my wall - unless it was the piece Tom added! It is important to point out, however, that despite the illegality of graffiti, the 'author' still retains the copyright. The owner of the building still owns the wall. Ownership of copyright is distinct from the ownership of the physical object.
DeleteI feel that, given where Banksy has chosen to create this 'piece', he cannot claim it legally as his own. Although this is known to be Banksy's work, and the copyright on this piece of intellectual property is in effect, he obviously cannot sell it himself. However, does it give the owner of this property the right to sell this artwork?
ReplyDeleteAs Linda Scales mentioned, it is generally considered that the resale (or reproduction) of another person's work is 'somewhat' acceptable once the piece has been altered in some form by the seller. In this case, the property owner is selling the work of another person, with no changes or alterations made.
So, in a sense, could neither the property owner or Banksy sell this work? With this dilemma in mind, perhaps Banksy knowingly applied the artwork to another's property in order to create this situation of 'no sale possible' as well as to raise this very issue we're discussing..?
Sam K
Sam - good point about the acceptability of resale. Could it be argued that the piece was altered when it was take from the wall?
DeleteDefinitely think the owner of the piece is the person who owns the wall, in this case it's private property, so I believe the owner of the property has the right to sell parts of his property.
ReplyDeleteThe chosen canvas was not Banksy's property and therefore he can not claim ownership.
There is an interesting comparison we can make as illustrators; if you worked for a large animation studio and you created an original character while on their premises do you own the copyright to said character or do your employers?
Good question, Anthony. Generally, when work is commissioned, the author retains the copyright, but this is of course subject to contractual terms.
DeleteAs an artist, you retain copyright on your work, as you created it, but as the point has been made numerous times, this piece of work was made illegally on someone’s property, thus making the physical artwork theirs - as it is on their building.
ReplyDeleteBut having not purchased the work themselves, the idea of selling it at a profit falls in very grey territory. If this was just a tag on a building, it would most likely be written off as vandalism and painted over without a second thought. But due to Banksy's notoriety the building own decided to try turn it into profit.
Because it is his building, he legally owns the bricks that this work was put on without permission, I think he was within his right to sell those bricks. It's not his fault if those bricks happen to have markings on them that form an image created by someone who can't legally step forward and stop him, and another person wants to by those markings for a ridiculous amount of money.
It's clear to me from reading your comments that in general, you all have a good understanding of ownership when it comes to copyright, and good judgement when debating situational ethical issues. If you had any uncertainties, I'm sure that they have been clarified - both from Linda Scale's lecture, and this subsequent online conversation. If you need further clarification, you'll find plenty of information on Linda's website, or on the Visual Artists Ireland site. Links can be located on the sidebar of this blog.
ReplyDeleteHi all,
ReplyDeleteFor those of you still tuning in, I thought I'd follow through with this topic. I just read that the piece has ben sold - for 1.1 million! Have a look at this short article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/03/banksy-mural-sells-slave-labour-fetches-millions-at-london-auction_n_3378755.html?utm_hp_ref=arts
Enjoy your summer, and see you at graduation!