• FauxPseudo @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    I’m kind of surprised it was Guess instead of Urban Outfitters. UO is always always lifting other people’s work

  • EndOfLine@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Umm, isn’t Banksy’s entire career centered around helping himself to others property without asking permission?

    I’m honestly confused if he is using this display to advance his subversive messaging or if he is upset that he is the one being subverted.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      As far as I know, he doesn’t make money from that. He gets publicity from street art, but it’s not like someone is paying for it —at least, they aren’t paying for it to be created, but many will pay more for it after.

    • silasmariner@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Banksy is overrated sentimental trash and I will die on this hill. Also yeah it’s a money making cooperative, not a single artist

      • GHiLA@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Also aren’t a few of his(their) pieces literally made of collages of other people’s art?

        • Donkter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Is banksy making money from those images? Afaik no one’s ever claimed the graffiti to sell it.

        • flames5123@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          14 hours ago

          That’s fair use. Using small parts of something to create something new. It’s transformative in nature.

  • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Can’t say I agree with the path he took to get there, but I do agree with the conclusion.

  • jerkface@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    100
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    wait wait wait wait … if I vandalize property, do I get intellectual property rights over the creation?? Or even ignoring the legal aspect, do I get moral rights to the creation? Not sure I have the balls to make that claim.

      • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Hilariously enough though, someone can cut the piece of wall the artwork is on out, and sell it, which has happened.

        It’s their wall, after all.

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        21 hours ago

        You don’t get property rights over the physical object

        Woah, not true dude! I’ve spent enough time with gangbangers to know that if you tag something, it means you own that entire city block, and anyone who says differently gets their ass kicked, or shot.

    • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • jerkface@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        52
        arrow-down
        28
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        except that it’s literally a crime to vandalize public spaces to impose your ideas, aesthetics, and art on the public. Are you in actual denial or what is happening here?

        this is not a comment on my opinion of Banksy’s artistic value. But a major component of their art is the simple fact that it IS a crime. If you take that away, it loses most of its meaning.

        • stringere@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          42
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          1 day ago

          Cool…so it’s ok for businesses to force their ideas, aesthetics, and art on the public because…money?

          • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            27
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              23 hours ago

              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.

          • jerkface@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            26
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            You should be able to form your arguments about the merits of Banksy’s work and whether or not they commit crimes without pulling in emotional and irrelevant facts like, “I don’t like everything I can see advertized (typically on private property) from public.”

            Look, their whole shtick is that their art is criminal. That’s their fucking gimmick. I don’t know why people are pushing back so hard on this.

            • jwiggler@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              24
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              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.

            • hate2bme@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              18
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              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.

            • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              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.

              • Grimy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                23 hours ago

                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.

                • hate2bme@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  21 hours ago

                  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.

                • jwiggler@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  22 hours ago

                  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…

    • puppycat@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      curious how you know it’s vandalism. like murals are a thing, getting approval from the building owner is a thing, one of the parts I miss most about my hometown was the art everywhere, but “fuck you” if you use spray paint as your medium I guess

    • CrolishGrandma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I thought about that as well, but don’t forget that this can also be commissioned. Where I live this happens a lot on places where they know people are gonna spray anyway. It’s a lot nicer to look at and other sprayers are less likely to spray over it