[baddox]

I don't understand your attitude. Money is a very good way to genuinely quantify the value of something. Putting a dollar amount on a piece of art means people do enjoy looking at it for what it is. Unless you're defining "value" in some manner unfamiliar to me, you can't say "enjoy it" but "stop valuing it."

[markost]

But don't you see, you're missing the entire point. Banksy is a graffiti artist. At no time have any of his works been capable of being bought or sold. His graffiti has routinely been lost, painted over, weathered, or ignored. That is the whole point of his work. Not only that, but often the point of his work is to devalue some other seemingly valuable thing--witness his Ronald McDonald statue[1].

Just because some rich people feel like attaching monetary value to most art doesn't mean Banksy's art has to fall in line. It's not like you're going to take down a section of wall and sell it, and someone did, he would also be missing the entire point.

Just be happy that cameras exist and take a picture.

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article8886934.ece/ALT...

[lotsofcows]

"At no time have any of his works been capable of being bought or sold."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/arts/design/another-banksy...

[stickydink]

They, were on sale, just last week ;)

http://banksy.co.uk/2013/10/13/central-park

[lmm]

If people enjoy seeing it it seems decidedly churlish not to preserve it for future generations. As does someone who can only enjoy it because other people won't be able to.

As for missing the point, I'll raise you death of the author. A piece of art must stand on its own merits, not the intentions of its creator.

[icebraining]

But you can't preserve it for future generations, because the location and inevitable impermanence is part of the work. By covering it, you'd be defacing the work to protect it.

[lmm]

The defence of the value of his work was that "people enjoy looking at" it. Is that compromised by covering it? No.

(Any measure of art preservation is an inconvenience to viewing it, but we generally consider this a worthwhile tradeoff)

[icebraining]

we generally consider this a worthwhile tradeoff

Yes, generally we do, and I'd agree for graffiti done in canvas or similar mediums, but I think street art is an obvious exception, since the canvas is the whole street. You could only preserve the artwork by preserving at least the whole building, and possibly more than that.

[lmm]

Are people going to enjoy looking at it less if the building changes (assuming the painted part doesn't)? My guess is that the overwhelming majority of the enjoyment will be preserved.