Posted on 02/21/2010 3:26:34 AM PST by Daffynition
One of Britain's biggest Banksy artworks in Liverpool is to be painted over by a property developer who admits he doesn't like modern art.
The mural, a 30-foot tall painting of a rat holding a machine gun, will disappear after the businessman bought the former Liverpool pub it adorns and promised to paint over it.
The Grade 2 listed Georgian property was adorned by artwork from the Bristol-born graffiti giant Banksy, as part of Liverpool's Biennial art festival in 2004.
But after purchasing the artwork at auction on Thursday for £114,000, property developer Billy Palmer, 44, admitted he has no interest in preserving the painting, despite protests from art lovers.
"I'm not a fan of modern art, I can't say I know much about it really," he said after the auction at Liverpool's Marriott Hotel.
"All I was concerned about was getting this great building for a good price, I'm going to turn it into luxury flats.
"I might leave the Banksy on the wall until last, just to see how it looks, but it will have to go to get the look I want."
As an official commission, the work is a rarity for Banksy.
He has stopped authenticating his work to prevent dealers from cashing-in on his now global fame.
His fame hit new heights in 2009 when his Bristol exhibition saw hundreds of thousands of fans queue for up to five hours to see his latest pieces.
Liverpool-based urban artists group Purple Revolver, who have campaigned for the giant Banksy to be preserved, said losing the artwork would be a "tragedy".
"It would be an absolute tragedy if this artwork was destroyed," said Amber Tan, the group's director.
"As a graffiti artist, Banksy has gained international acclaim for his work, many of which now command ...
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Isn't a lot of "modern" art part of the commie manifesto plan - uglify art, architecture, to manipulate folks' minds against all that is lovely and good.
I don't know if this particular artist was a subscriber to that, but I don't think art triumphs an individual's taste or private property. If the builder wants to get rid of it, that's HIS property (at least, there used to be private property). Note that the builder is actually creating value, providing housing that people want to buy, making money. I'd take his opinion over some "journalist's" opinion.
It’s a nice painting, but I believe it would be a disservice to the artist *not* to have it removed.
The point of this kind of art is to put something out onto the volatile world, that is what gives it its magic. I am sure the artist is no stranger to having his works removed, it goes with the territory. Also, it is no mistake that he chose to put just that picture on just that spot. Now that this spot is going to be fundamentally changed, he will probably feel that the picture no longer applies there.
The public should also let the painting go for this reason. If the spot is changed, the point of that piece is also lost. The volatile world can not be made involatile, and this bit of bittersweet is a part of the point of this kind of art. It is not surprising at all that the viewing public will take the loss of this work harder than the artist will. It is the unspoken contract between artist and viewer.
I don’t think that this attention to his work has escaped the artist either. He will probably return to the site after the new building is finished and look to see if it calls for another of his paintings. If he sees that it does, I fully expect he will put up another one there. More likely though, whatever it was that made that spot require a painting will have been lost, but hopefully there will be another spot somewhere that calls out for one.
The chalk paintings on this thread are beautiful. It is a sad bittersweet that they were meant to be transient, with the first rain washing them away. I would have liked to see them stay at least until the road is repaved, but alas, that was not the artists’ intention. I am glad for the photos, but of course, they are inadequate.
The new owner could do what he wants, myself- i would keep the original graphics fresh with new paint and add things occasionally to keep the buzz going.
IMHO: Banksy’s got real talent, according to these other pictures that have been posted. But that particular work is just simply ugly. I don’t blame a guy for not wanting a giant painting of a rat on his building.
And besides... the temporal nature is part of his chosen medium.
I’ve got a feeling the mural’s of an rat (obscured) holding a machine gun on a cat. Note the two tails, one cat-like and the other rattish.
This conveys a message that the Brit government would naturally be happy to see gone.
No loss.
If they didn't care enough about the painting to make sure that it was preserved back when they had the chance, I don't see why they should complain about it now.
"Beauty in is the eye of the beholder" and "One man's trash is another man's treasure".......can apply. If we weren't talking about a relatively famous [and purposely secret] tagger than maybe this wouldn't be a news story. In a very self-deprecating fashion after an auction of his work he is purported to have said: “I Can’t Believe You Morons Actually Buy This Shit” with this painting....
The builder can do whatever he wants with the mural. It is his. After this publicity, his properties might have such inflated value for the art at the address, he might decide to keep it up. Who knows?
Much of his later stuff is disturbing, after he was diagnosed with AIDS.
Banksy replied, “I originally set out to try and save the world, but now I’m not sure I like it enough.”
We discussed his mural in Bristol (“I think because it turned out there was a sexual-health clinic on the other side of the wall helped, which just goes to show—if you paint enough crap in enough places sooner or later one of them will mean something to someone”) and the city council’s decision to preserve it (“I think it’s pretty incredible a city council is prepared to make value judgments about preserving illegally painted graffiti. I’m kind of proud of them”).
Banksy has always had a fatalistic streak: in one of his books, a pair of lovebirds is juxtaposed with the dictum “As soon as you meet someone, you know the reason you will leave them.” In another, a little girl releases a heart-shaped red balloon: “When the time comes to leave, just walk away quietly and don’t make any fuss.”
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/14/070514fa_fact_collins?currentPage=all#ixzz0gCnJtABn
Man that is trippy!
Yeah. I remember. Loved his stuff. Nothing wrong with going commercial.
There is a line, of course, between art and a political poster. Just as much as there is a line between a mural and an advertisement billboard. It is easy for anyone to see. They must be treated differently. Shame on anyone who would mix the two.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.