[pcl]

To my eye, pieces attributed to Banksy have a unique and appealing aesthetic, and the art generally is thought-provoking. He also has a knack for pushing all sorts of buttons. See his immigration piece in Clacton-on-Sea [1] for an example of all of the above.

A paint splash hastily thrown on his art is less compelling to me, on all these dimensions. Perhaps it’s a particularly well-splashed bit of paint, but even so, the closest it can really come to commentary is something along the lines of “Banksy works in a transient medium, and all things in life, including street art, are destined to be painted over” or perhaps “this, too, is art”. But at this point, that is a not particularly original bit of expression, and I’d just as soon have the Banksy on display.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-essex-29446232

[fredophile]

Why is a paint covered Banksy piece any less artistic than an erased pencil drawing? The art world has already accepted the latter as art [0].

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erased_de_Kooning_Drawing

[pcl]

I certainly think that a paint-covered Banksy could be considered art.

My post above was simply my answer to why, of the two, the Banksy is worth saving. For sure, others might think that the thrown paint is more worthy of saving, and I’m sure plenty of people think both iterations can go in the dustbin.