Open link in next tab
Banksy: London Zoo removes gorilla artwork for 'safekeeping'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yper4gw27o
A nearby sign at the zoo now reads "Banksy woz ere" and offers an apology to disappointed fans.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yper4gw27o
A nearby sign at the zoo now reads "Banksy woz ere" and offers an apology to disappointed fans.
Unfortunately, someone would vandalise it or try and steal it in some way. The best they can do is move it into the zoo behind a protective screen of some kind imo.
One persons vandalism is another persons art.
No doubt if someone else claimed responsibility for it, it would already have been washed off.
Tagging or defacing a banksy is not "art". The art here can be appreciated by anyone, I think the idea is that the Gorilla opened the zoo and the animals are escaping, so the rest of London has the animals all over it
Defining something as “art” or “not art” seems a rather simplistic worldview.
Does art need to be “appreciated by anyone” to be “art”, is art only what is popular, or simplistic enough to be understood by a mass audience?
Is stencilling over/tagging a banksy vandalism, or is it a making a statement on the middle class hypocrisy of its widespread acceptance of street works from one author and the derision of others?
Which of these are “art” or “not art”…
Seems like the rules for what is/isn’t art could be quite complicated. There would be endless possible scenarios to judicate on. Not to mention, who gets to decide? Popular vote, experts, the owner of the substrate?
Much simpler to let art be undefined and interpretable however one wishes.