724
Evil company vs artist
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
724 points (99.1% liked)
People Twitter
10366 readers
1221 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major celebrity, figure or any politician. https://web.archive.org/save is an option. Archive.is is no longer recommended because they remove/alter content.
- If a tweet (or similar) makes a statement of fact, either mark it as "satire" in the body or provide the original source link backing up the statement
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
How is creating a work of art by an artist of worldwide renown on an ugly bare concrete wall vandalism? If it in some way affected the utility or even the aesthetics, you might have a point. But trying to make a crime out of improving public spaces through art is just silly.
Cool...so it's ok for businesses to force their ideas, aesthetics, and art on the public because...money?
I think it's more ownership and permission than money (although unfortunately they often overlap). You're allowed to paint your own house, but not somebody else's unless you have permission to do so.
Exactly. You can get a permit to place artwork on public property, but there's a significant amount of red tape there. You can even be commissioned to place artwork on public property, but that's pretty niche.
If you don't want to deal with that, place your artwork on private property and display it publicly from there.
You're not wrong that it's illegal or that that is part of Banksy's "gimmick". I agree with you that, legally, what they do is vandalism.
But I'd guess you're getting pushback because you seem to be defending private property, which Banksy and perhaps their more politically-knowledgeable fans, likely view as unjust on the whole.
I'm guessing by the downvotes there some people here that don't understand what banksy does exactly. Although they do occasionally use some canvas and frames, most of their work is graffiti.
Exactly. It's amazing graffiti, but it's graffiti all the same.
The point isnt that it is illegal to do, but the criticism expressed towards many societal issues and capitalism. The fact that it is often done clandestinely is more an indication for a desire for his personal privacy and/or safety I would guess, albeit I admit that it meshes well with the anti system message.
It seems hypocritical from my standpoint. He can use private property as much as he wants for his art, but no one can infringe on his god given copyright? He can't have it both ways, either they are both in the wrong or neither of them are.
The problem is this isn't a person using his art, it's a company using it to make more money. So in this case he can have it both ways.
I don't necessarily agree with the person you responded to, and I could be wrong here but I don't really think Banksy is actually invoking their copyrights, just using it as an idea to criticize private property in general. Similar to how your own "god given copyright" is in itself a criticism. It's more like, "look our property laws that are meant to protect the art-maker mean nothing to big companies. Why should the property laws that are meant protect big companies mean anything to us?"
I get how you could see it as hypocritical, but I think fundamentally Banksy probably isn't advocating for stronger copyright laws here...
This it it. Banksy's not demanding money there. What's noted is that Guess has decided to join in and therefore its property is publicly up for grabs.