Posted on 05/15/2010 11:25:51 PM PDT by Daffynition
DETROIT, May 15 (UPI) -- A controversy has raged in Detroit over what to do about a graffiti mural left on a decaying plant wall by famed British-born graffiti artist Banksy.
During a recent visit to the Motor City, the artist known as Banksy, an international art world celebrity, secretly stenciled a painting of a boy holding a can of red paint on the wall of the crumbling 3.5-million-square-foot Packard plant. The caption on the work read: "I remember when all this was trees."
A group from the 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios, moved the 7-foot-by-5-foot section of cinder block wall with a forklift and placed it in a wooden frame near the base of the Ambassador Bridge, the Detroit Free Press reported.
Now, a debate has erupted over whether anyone had the right to relocate the Banksy piece and whether it should be protected in the future. Some Banksy works have sold for thousands of dollars.
"What does it mean to move a wall?" asked Luis Croquer, director of the Museum of Contemporary Art Detroit. "And beyond legality, who does the wall really belong to, and now does the art belong to the gallery? To everybody? To nobody? We're operating in this space where there's this lawlessness that opens up possibilities that would be harder to encounter in other cities."
Sure. Little hoodie remembers when it was all trees.
With the decay and deurbaniazation of Detroit, within a generation you could carve on one of the trees growing there "I remember when this was a factory".
"And beyond legality, who does the wall really belong to, and now does the art belong to the gallery? To everybody? To nobody? We're operating in this space where there's this lawlessness that opens up possibilities that would be harder to encounter in other cities."
Uh, maybe the title holder of the land and what is left of the building? To the person or company which has been paying property tax on it? The those who would have been held legally liable if a loose brick had fallen off and hit Bansky on the head? Your vandalism is not a claim to my property.
Hey. Only good thing I’ve read about Detroit, a burgeoning spirit of the arts. Let them have their art.
Like the mouse. Beautifully rendered.
Yeah, that sounds nuts but no more so than does a legal wrangle over some minor and mediocre art work.
So now they have vandalized a property they don’t own.
Oh wait, it Detroit, thats expected to happen to every building.
So true. lol.
Could not be posted due to copyright complaint: "...a guerilla act on top of Banksy’s initial guerilla act"
I'm one of the white people who consider graffiti to be art when it looks like something other than a bunch of squiggles. In every other instance, I consider it vandalism.
Taking down the old building would provide employment for about half of the unemployed in Detroit.
Just an idea since there is so much that needs to be done there and so many idle hands that could be put to work.
Your notion has merit, regardless of the fact that architect Kahn's design incorporated steel reinforced concrete which replaced wood in factory walls, roofs, and supports. ;)
They should at least, save the facade.
Someone was there before Banksy.
yo [put some cap/mpc up in this sis
I can see that. My beef with it is that it requires people to put up with it if other folks think that they're too plebeian to understand it. And it just gives license to the hoods to continue tagging their turf.
I remember when this use to be a factory.
These people glorifying the destruction caused by graffiti need to volunteer their faces as graffiti murals.
Millions upon millions of dollars is wasted on graffiti abatement. Where are the adults in this world?
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.