I'm in the camp where as a street artist, Banksy knows what he's doing and that his work isn't going to be preserved. It just happened that he made striking art that caught international...
I'm in the camp where as a street artist, Banksy knows what he's doing and that his work isn't going to be preserved. It just happened that he made striking art that caught international attention, and now we want to preserve it.
Even commissioned murals in Los Angeles along the 5 are expected to suffer to the elements.
I don't want to say "It's part of the vision," but I think if we were to document it, that would be the best way to honor the art that was created, and document its decay in its original environment.
I find both arguments compelling. Especially the one coming from an archivist I understand their motivation on keeping something substantial alive for longer. But he also speaks of being torn...
I find both arguments compelling. Especially the one coming from an archivist I understand their motivation on keeping something substantial alive for longer. But he also speaks of being torn because he understands the artist did not intend for it to stand the test of time.
I can't say what's worth more, honestly. Though I suppose you can say it's already kept and archived through means of digital pictures.
I'm a fan of the idea of temporal art, i.e. art that is created in a medium or location that is expected to decay in a relatively short amount of time. I think painting a graffiti piece like this...
I'm a fan of the idea of temporal art, i.e. art that is created in a medium or location that is expected to decay in a relatively short amount of time. I think painting a graffiti piece like this in such an environment clearly indicates an understanding that it will not last.
On the other hand, making a piece of street art illegally also implicitly declares an understanding that you will not be able to control what happens to the piece after it's finished. I'm sure Banksy, inarguably the most famous practiticioner of street art today, could have gotten permission to make this piece somewhere else in Venice if he were so inclined.
I'm in the camp where as a street artist, Banksy knows what he's doing and that his work isn't going to be preserved. It just happened that he made striking art that caught international attention, and now we want to preserve it.
Even commissioned murals in Los Angeles along the 5 are expected to suffer to the elements.
I don't want to say "It's part of the vision," but I think if we were to document it, that would be the best way to honor the art that was created, and document its decay in its original environment.
I find both arguments compelling. Especially the one coming from an archivist I understand their motivation on keeping something substantial alive for longer. But he also speaks of being torn because he understands the artist did not intend for it to stand the test of time.
I can't say what's worth more, honestly. Though I suppose you can say it's already kept and archived through means of digital pictures.
I'm a fan of the idea of temporal art, i.e. art that is created in a medium or location that is expected to decay in a relatively short amount of time. I think painting a graffiti piece like this in such an environment clearly indicates an understanding that it will not last.
On the other hand, making a piece of street art illegally also implicitly declares an understanding that you will not be able to control what happens to the piece after it's finished. I'm sure Banksy, inarguably the most famous practiticioner of street art today, could have gotten permission to make this piece somewhere else in Venice if he were so inclined.