lines Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 It doesn't matter who said it, it was social commentary with a clear ironic/sarcastic twist: Firstly there was nothing racist about the message, secondly in view of the UKIP deflector it made perfect sense to be read in the exact opposite manner of a racist message, at which point the council should indeed hang its head in shame. In the same vein isn't the UKIP blokes comments just social commentary and therefore equally valid! Maybe even more valid because he was elected by the local people, whereas Banksy probably just flew in on his private jet to make headlines... and money... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfish1936 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Well, he's not the first to have his work misinterpreted! Some of Mark Twain's books were banned from US schools because they depicted race relations in USA as they were -- but the critics didn't realise Twain was opposing slavery and oppression of negroes! I looked at the images -- it seems plain the artist is criticising those who oppose immigration as fat, selfish birds opposing a colourful migrant. At least, the removal should endure worldwide distribution of the work -- I'd never have known about it if they had left it alone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 It doesn't matter who said it, it was social commentary with a clear ironic/sarcastic twist: Firstly there was nothing racist about the message, secondly in view of the UKIP deflector it made perfect sense to be read in the exact opposite manner of a racist message, at which point the council should indeed hang its head in shame. The problem is that if you are going to allow Banksy to indulge in social commentary in this way then surely you have to allow others the same freedom? What if Banksy's had painted Cameron, Clegg and Miliband standing at Boarder Control, waving through people in Islamic clothing, carrying bombs and severed heads? It is a difficult subject to have a firm view on. His work is interesting (even if you don't agree with every point he makes) but where do you draw a line? Who gets to decide what graffiti is artistic enough to stay and what isn't? Who gets to say what social or political messages are acceptable and what aren't? Who gets to decide what is offensive and what isn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 In the same vein isn't the UKIP blokes comments just social commentary and therefore equally valid! Maybe even more valid because he was elected by the local people, whereas Banksy probably just flew in on his private jet to make headlines... and money... The UKIP fella is equally valid, did I suggest he wasn't? Not sure what Banksy's wealth is to do with the discussion though. The problem is that if you are going to allow Banksy to indulge in social commentary in this way then surely you have to allow others the same freedom? What if Banksy's had painted Cameron, Clegg and Miliband standing at Boarder Control, waving through people in Islamic clothing, carrying bombs and severed heads? It is a difficult subject to have a firm view on. His work is interesting (even if you don't agree with every point he makes) but where do you draw a line? Who gets to decide what graffiti is artistic enough to stay and what isn't? Who gets to say what social or political messages are acceptable and what aren't? Who gets to decide what is offensive and what isn't? What, are you suggesting we haven't got that freedom on this forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 What gets me is it was classed as racist and offensive but if they'd known it was a "Banksy" then that'd make a difference! But it did sort of say that being anti immigration makes you racist, not necessarily true! So I can see why some were offended by it... It was classed as racist by some utter plonker and a couple of muppets from the council. Clearly it's not at all racist, it's a painting of a few birds?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lines Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 It was classed as racist by some utter plonker and a couple of muppets from the council. Clearly it's not at all racist, it's a painting of a few birds?!? I never said it was! lol It did however single out a single race! And a painting of a few birds, didn't you notice the placards then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamf Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I wouldn't say the mural was racist, what do other people think? Anyway, I think it very short sighted to go removing a fantastic example of street art & social comment without doing some research on it first. If it was a genuine Banksy...what a mighty blooper by the Council. Link... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-29446232 It looks anti-racist to me. It's fairly obvious that the birds on the left are the bad guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lines Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 The UKIP fella is equally valid, did I suggest he wasn't? Not sure what Banksy's wealth is to do with the discussion though. The wealth relationship was looking at his self promotion interest ---------- Post added 02-10-2014 at 15:35 ---------- It looks anti-racist to me. It's fairly obvious that the birds on the left are the bad guys. It was probably inferring that the ones on the left are racist because of their stance on anti / controlled immigration? Hence raising racial tensions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 What gets me is it was classed as racist and offensive but if they'd known it was a "Banksy" then that'd make a difference! But it did sort of say that being anti immigration makes you racist, not necessarily true! So I can see why some were offended by it... I think it was supposed to be satirical... Being a parody of anti immigrant rhetoric. ---------- Post added 02-10-2014 at 15:47 ---------- I never said it was! lol It did however single out a single race! And a painting of a few birds, didn't you notice the placards then! Are you confusing race with species? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 What, are you suggesting we haven't got that freedom on this forum? No, I'm not talking about the SF. I'm saying that we do not have the freedom to graffiti walls with our social commentary (it's illegal) and I'm suggesting that if we are going to let Banksy do it then we need to allow others to have the same freedom. I don't think it is practical to seek middle ground (some sort of graffiti quality control) and we therefore either allow it (right old mess) or we don't (Banksy has to buy some canvases). What do you think? You seem to think the piece should not have been removed but what if the social comment was a message you strongly disagreed with... would you feel the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now