[yetanotherphd]

It took ten minutes of reading articles and comments to convince myself this was real and not a joke. You can't make this stuff up:

"A scuffle broke out at the scene of Banksy's latest piece in Williamsburg as a building manager and bystanders manhandled a vandal who tagged over the piece [of graffiti]."

"The building manager grabbed him and threw him down and was calling the cops, but the guy bolted"

[dbond]

Banksy most likely doesn't care about them being vandalised, he still gets to make his point and picks up the publicity beforehand. The interesting part is that by tagging over them others could actually be hurting new york, Banksy pieces have been known to attract visitors (as with the one in east new york) and may even increase property values (though never proven).

On the other hand, the residents may just appreciate the artwork and not consider it to be vandalism, but some guy scribbling over it because "this is his turf" is. Usually pieces tend to remain intact for quite a bit longer but ny vandals seem to have taken a dislike to him. If they actually responded with art (King Robbo[0] as an example) I'd call fair game, but scribbling a quick tag is just vandalism.

[0] http://twistedsifter.com/2012/01/banksy-vs-robbo-war-in-pict...

[nikatwork]

Traditional writers dislike Bansky because he is seen as a hipster cashing in on hiphop culture without living a hiphop lifestyle [1].

They also dislike stencil art in general, as it takes far less technical skill and practice to execute. Again, this is seen as yuppie kids ripping off authentic street culture.

The most offensive way to express dislike is to cross out or tag over someone's piece.

[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Elements+of+H...

[dbond]

I'm no expert in this, I just have a mild interest and it's really the boundary between the subcultures.

I don't understand how banksy would be cashing in on hiphop culture? I just see him as an artist using a wall as his canvas, I wasn't aware that was reserved for those with a hiphop lifestyle. Was it maybe the "this is my new york accent" piece that draws the association?

Also how do they know he hasn't lives a hiphop lifestyle? I think the same thing exists in London, I have a few co-workers there who seem at least partially attached to it.

[nikatwork]

Banksy has taken the cultural cachet of underground graffiti and monetized it. Think Malcolm McLaren. His biggest "sin" is that he stencils, and is perceived as not learning the artform properly.

I personally couldn't care less, I find Banksy's pieces aesthetically pleasing and I like how he messes with authority. But I know a lot of writers and they mostly detest Bansky. You don't even want to get them started about yarn bombers.

[fennecfoxen]

To be fair, Banksy put up something good-looking, and the vandal put up his tag. If you caught someone putting the latter anywhere, grabbed him and called the cops, I'd say you're probably on the right track.

It's got more in common with "graffiti on a tasteful outdoor mural" than with typical graffiti-on-graffiti.

[yetanotherphd]

I'm just going to quote from the comments section of [1]:

theoddfather: Already dissed? Jesus, why are people so ghetto?

bronxflash: how is that 'ghetto?'

theoddfather: Tagging is ghetto bullshit with no redeeming social or artistic value. It's garbage and obviously in this case was meant to simply deface something that clearly has a great deal of value to many people.

bronxflash: while i appreciate the fact that you said 'tagging' and not the all-inclusive 'graffiti,' tagging was the foundation in the early seventies of an entire visual aesthetic that came to be related to the explosion of urban culture; hey, it had to start somewhere and it started with tagging. graffiti was at no point in its origins exclusively 'ghetto': white kids on the upper west side, in south brooklyn, and the east bronx all did graffiti. maybe more kids in the hood did it, because not everyone had the same social outlets by way of moeny and power and social status. banksy wouldn't even exist without what filtered out of upper manhattan and the southern bronx and was known as 'tagging.'

[1] http://gothamist.com/2013/10/17/banksy_bed_stuy.php

[alwaysinshade]

"banksy wouldn't even exist without what filtered out of upper manhattan and the southern bronx and was known as 'tagging.'"

Fair, but we've reached the point where we can discern the difference between something that conveys a message, and what is merely a trademark. A tag is territorial and self serving - a trademark. It might have been what gave birth to other forms of street art, but its value is intrinsically less than something that exists to conjure discussion and consideration, even if the public sentiment towards it is negative.

[yetanotherphd]

What you say gets to the essence of the difference: a man who wants to assert his ego, against others and the state, vs a man who entertains the middle class with whimsical, nostalgic, left wing drawings (basically the XKCD of graffiti).

I think both are equally valid forms of expression. However my main surprise was with the people in the story who believe that artistic merit should determine who gets to break the law.

[alwaysinshade]

"a man who wants to assert his ego, against others and the state, vs a man who entertains the middle class with whimsical, nostalgic, left wing drawings"

I'd argue that Banksy achieves both - his work is treated as acceptable because it carries a reason for saying "fuck you" as opposed to an indecipherable personal logo. And that's the line for what is considered destruction vs expression - value to others and not just yourself. Essentially your "fuck you" needs to carry a raison d'être.

The same could apply to saying "fuck you" to someone - if you can at least explain why you're saying "fuck you" then you might not get punched in the face.

[lmm]

> However my main surprise was with the people in the story who believe that artistic merit should determine who gets to break the law.

Really? The law is and should be subservient to morality; people who've done something good but illegal are naturally lauded (and those who've done something bad but legal are condemned). I don't think any of this is surprising.

[alwaysinshade]

"The law is and should be subservient to morality; people who've done something good but illegal are naturally lauded (and those who've done something bad but legal are condemned)"

Really thoughtful response. I think that really captures the spirit of what people find attractive in modern day Robin Hoods like Dread Pirate Roberts, Satoshi Nakamoto and, in the art world, Banksy (consider that they could be collectives, not individuals). People would argue it's romance, and wouldn't necessarily be wrong, but the core of our admiration is fighting things which inhibit progress.

[mjn]

People tend to have those reactions even for stuff much less famous than Banksy. There is a bunch of artistic graffiti stuff painted all over the temporary walls around metro-station construction sites in Copenhagen, and it's frowned on to paint them over with just a tag.

[radley]

Graffiti is art. Tags are just dogs marking territory.