| I guess a better question is, why is the Banksy stencil something that needs to be protected, but the work by the unknown street artist not. Because Banksy is a famous brand, and his work has big price tags attached to it. The whole thing is totally unique and fascinating. Banksy has developed his concept so well. He clearly also acknowledges the absurdity of the situation. His self shredding painting is clearly a comment on the contradiction between the ephemeral and the valuable. Street art is inherently ephemeral. It's the wild west. There are no rules (although sometimes etiquette), because by its very nature it is breaking the rules. Seeing newspaper articles where people are talking about a Banksy piece having been "vandalised", or that someone cutting out a piece of their wall to sell it is "stealing something that belongs to the community". At the same time, street art in general is viewed as vandalism. The law doesn't try to make distinctions based on the artistic merit of a specific bit of unauthorised public space modification. But money and fame, that's something anyone can understand! If something is worth money, then it's good. You painted on my wall! How lucky I am! Oh yeah and the pictures great too, what a clever image! I personally think his work is pretty good. But much more interesting is how society has reacted to it. |
Society never really reacted to Blek Le Rat because he was a legit guerilla artist and as such his work remained unknown. Whereas the well funded art studio behind Banksy work mass marketed his art, it just so happens the marketing strategy was that of an anonymous street artist. Yet in reality his work was often shown and sold in galleries catering to the rich and celebrity types reinforcing its "value", now the studio even sells the work direct through auctions houses, it is anything but an organic reaction by society.