Soldato
It's not.
If you, guerrilla-style, replace and upgrade the glazing on a public library, then would that be vandalism? It, in fact, would not. That's not to say something "wrong" wasn't done, but that "wrong" wouldn't be vandalism.
Banksy Arrested
- Thread starter Sonea Fifer
- Start date
It's not.
If you, guerrilla-style, replace and upgrade the glazing on a public library, then would that be vandalism? It, in fact, would not. That's not to say something "wrong" wasn't done, but that "wrong" wouldn't be vandalism.
I'm afraid the law disagrees with you and as it is a legal term I would take the law over your opinion in this instance.
Graffitti is always vandalism, it is committed without permission on another's property and 'damages' the original facade of the building, whether you or I think it is artistically enhancing to the property or not is irrelevant.
Last edited:
Soldato
This law?
any person who, without reasonable excuse, wilfully or recklessly destroys or damages any property belonging to another shall be guilty of the offence of vandalism.
We're back to "destroy" and "damage" again.
Which proves exactly what I've said. Graffitti, whether artistically good or bad damages the original facade of the building without permission of the owners. Whether you think that 'damage' makes it look better or not is irrelevant.
Soldato
Would you really complain if Banksy done a piece on your property? (Not that he's ever gratified a house before), however I bet you're property would be worth more.
This whole 'he's a vandal to society, lock him up', is he really causing that much disruption by actually using graffiti in a interesting way? Lock up the chavs, but Banksy can stay.
This whole 'he's a vandal to society, lock him up', is he really causing that much disruption by actually using graffiti in a interesting way? Lock up the chavs, but Banksy can stay.
I would not want Banksy, or anyone for that matter to paint my house without my express permission.
And I'm not saying what he does is morally wrong or that he should be vilified for it or that it isn't any good (quite the contrary as I've defended his positions in other threads) my only position in this thread is to say that graffitti is defined as vandalism in law, whether it's any good or not doesn't change that.
Soldato
But we've already seen that "damage" requires some impairment. If the graffiti enhances, then it has not caused an impairment.
I wouldn't extend this to all graffiti, or even all good graffiti, but when it's a Banksy, you're getting an actual piece with a value. As I said, most (or at least "many") councils would welcome it, so it would be tough to argue it as "vandalism"
I wouldn't extend this to all graffiti, or even all good graffiti, but when it's a Banksy, you're getting an actual piece with a value. As I said, most (or at least "many") councils would welcome it, so it would be tough to argue it as "vandalism"
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,072
Oh come on, he's an artist not a vandal.
What may seem an enhancement to you is an impairment to others. If it alters the original facade without the express permission of the owners it 'damages' or impairs the original look of that facade....If it is done without permission of the owners and if they make a complaint it makes it an illegal act of vandalism. Graffiti is legally defined as Criminal Damage under the 1971 Act of the same name and under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, as well as the Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act 2005.
It's not tough to argue that graffiti is vandalism as it is defined as such in law, both legislatively and through case law.
Last edited:
Absolutely.
To repeat what Castiel has said again.... he's doing this without permission, it is illegal and if/when he is caught that's exactly how it will go.
Soldato
Yes, but my point is that Councils will often welcome a new Banksy. In Bristol, the leader of the city council was to be found using a toothbrush to clean blue paint off of a Banksy which had itself (ironically?) been vandalised. Even Clacton, which painted over its banksy, had councillors saying they would welcome another "more appropriate" installation from the artist.
It's simply not the case that graffiti is vandalism. It may be, it may mostly be, but it is not absolute, and Banksy's work is rarely.
Unfortunately as the Clacton Council example shows, graffiti is illegal (they mention the term appropriate). Graffiti is vandalism, whether Banksy's art is always Graffiti or Street Art is something else.
Man of Honour
His works need a good coat of paint as well. 'Banksy had been here'
How about a compromise.
All art is vandalism. Whether it's hacking raw stone into a new shape or covering an otherwise inoffensive canvas or wall with paint. Given that all art is vandalism, and so all artists are vandals, it follows immediately that all artists should be arrested.
Thus everyone wins (possibly excluding artists and those blessed with sight)
All art is vandalism. Whether it's hacking raw stone into a new shape or covering an otherwise inoffensive canvas or wall with paint. Given that all art is vandalism, and so all artists are vandals, it follows immediately that all artists should be arrested.
Thus everyone wins (possibly excluding artists and those blessed with sight)
Soldato
Well, if you're separating "street art" as distinct from "graffiti", then we may come closer to agreement. Graffiti excluding "street art" would mostly be vandalism, I suspect.