692
Evil company vs artist
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
692 points (99.0% liked)
People Twitter
5268 readers
988 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Cool...so it's ok for businesses to force their ideas, aesthetics, and art on the public because...money?
I think it's more ownership and permission than money (although unfortunately they often overlap). You're allowed to paint your own house, but not somebody else's unless you have permission to do so.
Exactly. You can get a permit to place artwork on public property, but there's a significant amount of red tape there. You can even be commissioned to place artwork on public property, but that's pretty niche.
If you don't want to deal with that, place your artwork on private property and display it publicly from there.
You should be able to form your arguments about the merits of Banksy's work and whether or not they commit crimes without pulling in emotional and irrelevant facts like, "I don't like everything I can see advertized (typically on private property) from public."
Look, their whole shtick is that their art is criminal. That's their fucking gimmick. I don't know why people are pushing back so hard on this.
You're not wrong that it's illegal or that that is part of Banksy's "gimmick". I agree with you that, legally, what they do is vandalism.
But I'd guess you're getting pushback because you seem to be defending private property, which Banksy and perhaps their more politically-knowledgeable fans, likely view as unjust on the whole.
I'm guessing by the downvotes there some people here that don't understand what banksy does exactly. Although they do occasionally use some canvas and frames, most of their work is graffiti.
Exactly. It's amazing graffiti, but it's graffiti all the same.
The point isnt that it is illegal to do, but the criticism expressed towards many societal issues and capitalism. The fact that it is often done clandestinely is more an indication for a desire for his personal privacy and/or safety I would guess, albeit I admit that it meshes well with the anti system message.
It seems hypocritical from my standpoint. He can use private property as much as he wants for his art, but no one can infringe on his god given copyright? He can't have it both ways, either they are both in the wrong or neither of them are.
The problem is this isn't a person using his art, it's a company using it to make more money. So in this case he can have it both ways.
I don't necessarily agree with the person you responded to, and I could be wrong here but I don't really think Banksy is actually invoking their copyrights, just using it as an idea to criticize private property in general. Similar to how your own "god given copyright" is in itself a criticism. It's more like, "look our property laws that are meant to protect the art-maker mean nothing to big companies. Why should the property laws that are meant protect big companies mean anything to us?"
I get how you could see it as hypocritical, but I think fundamentally Banksy probably isn't advocating for stronger copyright laws here...
This it it. Banksy's not demanding money there. What's noted is that Guess has decided to join in and therefore its property is publicly up for grabs.