data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/68b5c/68b5cbb2b5671b73942a158b539ac60c6dc6ef20" alt=""
The article in the Londonpaper March '09
Here's an article I meant to put up a while ago while it was fresh, but last night I was in Dalston and it sprung to mind. In March Banksy put up a piece on a building in Gillette Square, and Adam Hart, the building owner, was going to apply to have it protected under a planning permission law (see attached clipping).
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/52ed9/52ed9c195b4da23e877a4d0bdc24ec4f858de959" alt=""
Banksy's stencil in Gillette Square, Dalston
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/16da1/16da16a95fa89421f81106124edb939a93778433" alt=""
Going...
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ca58e/ca58e93b7a7a561a79050c229f98e12cff0c4b30" alt=""
Going...
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2eb3d/2eb3d6dbb3067a930c9bb174bafc729259fda610" alt=""
Gone!
Unfortunately for him, some complete fuckwit decided that it'd be a good idea to go over it. Now this makes me kinda angry, and hightens the public debate in favour of graffiti being vandalism when a piece of street art (still considered vandalism by law, but with obvious artistic and aesthetic merit) is countered by an ugly scrawl with the aesthetic merit of a Friday night piss puddle.
I know there is still a large public split on this debate, but what would you rather see - art, shit, or a nude wall? I'd be interested in your opinion...