FAQ
It is currently Thu May 25, 2017 4:55 am


Author Message
Prometheus
Post  Post subject: Sold  |  Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:58 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 8:58 am
Posts: 309

Offline
I must say i find this story disgusting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21517034

The poor and disadvantaged are exposed to art and culture but now the plan is to sell it to a private collector. Surely it is incumbent upon more advantaged people to act more responsibly than this?


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Sold  |  Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:07 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5521
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
Prometheus wrote:
Surely it is incumbent upon more advantaged people to act more responsibly than this?

I wouldn't say it's incumbent upon them to do so. They can do whatever they want really unless it harms others, so maybe your argument is really that this is a form of harm somewhere on the spectrum between what should be allowed and disallowed.

Either way, many do act more responsibly than this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Prometheus
Post  Post subject: Re: Sold  |  Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:00 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 8:58 am
Posts: 309

Offline
The harm would be the deprivation of arts and culture for the underprivileged to aid the privileged. Akso, this is in one of the areas rocked by the London riots - such actions could increase the likelihood of more.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Sold  |  Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 6:48 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5521
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
I think another question at play here is whether or not art should be treated like a good or commodity, and then further what is and is not art. If I buy land, I could equally be depriving people of views to beautiful streams or woodlands or animals, for example.

If I buy a building, and that building is covered in graffiti, I can paint over or cover that graffiti and would be denying people access to the culture who put it there. But where do we draw the line? Who gets to decide which goods are too important to deprive from the public, and how are those decisions made?

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
tridimity
Post  Post subject: Re: Sold  |  Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:40 pm

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:55 pm
Posts: 1117

Offline
Relatively good news: the old Banksy wall recently stripped of its mural has been bequeathed a new piece of artwork.

I can't find a decent image to link to, except for that which is on the BBC website. It basically depicts a mouthless nun looking up (reverentially?) towards a heart symbol. The nun is clad in dark attire; only the heart symbol and a star symbol which encapsulates her right eye are bright red.

How would you interpret this new work?

I would interpret it as a message on the voicelessness of certain individuals whom, although they are able to decipher Truth about morality almost inherently, are subdued by higher powers (religious authority or the state - as represented by the star symbol) and so are prevented from expression their acknowledgement of what is true. In this case, the nun can see from her own perspective a vision of true love but is rendered voiceless and unable to communicate her humanly vision by the combined powers of religion and state - powers tgat may be intertwined. Perhaps it could be stretched to a reaction to the stealing

http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21562875

_________________
gone also


Last edited by tridimity on Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.


Top
tridimity
Post  Post subject: Re: Sold  |  Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:44 pm

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:55 pm
Posts: 1117

Offline
To the theft of the previous mural. The nun could be a guise for the artist who comes to love those undergoing social struggle but whom is gagged by higher state powers seeking to take his love and sell it for monetary gain - rendering him unable to express his compassion for the socio-economically deprived. His newest work would then be ironical; a triumph of expression over those who seek to silence his passion. Or perhaps that is a stretch of interpretation too far :P

_________________
gone also


Top
Prometheus
Post  Post subject: Re: Sold  |  Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 10:46 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 8:58 am
Posts: 309

Offline
iNow wrote:
I think another question at play here is whether or not art should be treated like a good or commodity, and then further what is and is not art. If I buy land, I could equally be depriving people of views to beautiful streams or woodlands or animals, for example.


What qualifies as art could be tricky, i've seen some good graffiti painted over because it's not considered art by the powers that be. But in this particular case there was no doubt in anyone's mind , especially the seller, that it was art.

As for whether art should be a good or commodity... In my opinion art is only art if it is accessible to a community. But now we're getting onto a philosophy of art question i'm ill-equipped to comment on.

iNow wrote:
If I buy a building, and that building is covered in graffiti, I can paint over or cover that graffiti and would be denying people access to the culture who put it there. But where do we draw the line? Who gets to decide which goods are too important to deprive from the public, and how are those decisions made?


Tough questions in general cases. In this particular case i think there is enough public outcry to warrant its retention.

tridimity wrote:

How would you interpret this new work?


Image

Not sure it's a Banksy, which are normally easily to interpret. As for the meaning, it's hard to imagine the artist was not aware of the previous work there, and so it's not too much of a stretch to think it is some commentary on its disappearance. Unfortunately i'm not much of an art critic though, never exposed to it growing up.


Top
Ascended
Post  Post subject: Re: Sold  |  Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 2:45 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 6:59 pm
Posts: 221
Location: Over the hills and far away

Offline
I think the commercial aspect now means it's going to be unlikely that any street art made by Banksy is going to remain untouched any more. With his work now selling for hundreds of thousands there's just to much money at stake and greed kicking in. But whilst in a way it is sad that we can't all be able to enjoy the art in the place and way it was meant for us all, what has also happened because of his fame and the value of his work is the inspiration it's provided for so many others to get involved and have ago. As a result we can see street art popping up over the place especially in places like Bristol and London.

It would be kind of funny though, although he wishes to remain anonymous, if he could let it be known a piece artwork wasn't by him when someone decides to come along and cut it out of a wall. So that people couldn't then go off and sell it for £500,000 or £600,000.

_________________
Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   
cron

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy