PeteMorris Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21543487 Apparently one of his murals has been removed from a wall, and is now on sale in Miami at an auction house. So, is it the 'people's' artwork? Is it Banksys? Or does it belong to the person who owns the wall? I suppose technically, it would belong to the person who owns the wall. But I'm pretty sure Banksy would have a different opinion. Any pearls of wisdom out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 It belongs to the owner of the wall. The copyright belongs to Banksy of course, so the wall owner can't copy it or reproduce it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I would say the owner of the wall; the question is how the hell did they get it off a rendered wall without damaging it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gym_rat Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 it belongs to whoever commissioned the work in the first place - commercial artist this Banksy guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted February 22, 2013 Author Share Posted February 22, 2013 It belongs to the owner of the wall. The copyright belongs to Banksy of course, so the wall owner can't copy it or reproduce it. I wouldn't disagree that indeed it does belong the owner of the wall. But the question I have in mind is what do we think Banksy's take on it might be? I'm pretty sure his intention wouldn't have been for it to be removed wholesale and sold at auction. ---------- Post added 22-02-2013 at 09:13 ---------- it belongs to whoever commissioned the work in the first place - commercial artist this Banksy guy. I may be wrong, but I don't think any of his work is actually commissioned. But of course I could be completely wrong. ---------- Post added 22-02-2013 at 09:14 ---------- I would say the owner of the wall; the question is how the hell did they get it off a rendered wall without damaging it? Yeah, I wondered that too...they must have had to be very very careful....one false move and you have a pile of worthless rubble! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I wouldn't disagree that indeed it does belong the owner of the wall. But the question I have in mind is what do we think Banksy's take on it might be? I'm pretty sure his intention wouldn't have been for it to be removed wholesale and sold at auction. Banksy's take on it is irrelevant as he doesn't get permission from the property owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 We flatter ourselves that we can ever know wht an artist (of any kind) intended. If Banksey leaves his artwork freely on publicly visible surfaces (for want of a better word), then it surely makes a statement about public ownership of art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Whatever statement it might or might not make, the ownership of the artwork is with whoever owns the substrate it's created on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gym_rat Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Whatever statement it might or might not make, the ownership of the artwork is with whoever owns the substrate it's created on. your making assumptions there - dangerous game that. ---------- Post added 22-02-2013 at 10:39 ---------- I may be wrong, but I don't think any of his work is actually commissioned. But of course I could be completely wrong. not wrong, just bought the hype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted February 22, 2013 Author Share Posted February 22, 2013 We flatter ourselves that we can ever know wht an artist (of any kind) intended. If Banksey leaves his artwork freely on publicly visible surfaces (for want of a better word), then it surely makes a statement about public ownership of art. I was thinking along those lines as well alice. ---------- Post added 22-02-2013 at 10:49 ---------- Whatever statement it might or might not make, the ownership of the artwork is with whoever owns the substrate it's created on. I realise that technically you have answered the question posed in the thread title. Should I now close the thread? I was thinking more about the wider implications. The morality, the thinking behind it. Is it right to remove it and sell it? You seem to be far too black and white. A factual answer, and no more discussion is required? Try to think beyond that. Do you like the artwork? Should he do it at all, if he's not got permission from the owner? What makes his work valuable? Clearly he wants it to be seen and appreciated by the public, otherwise he'd be doing it on canvas....etc...etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.