A group of street-cleaners in Melbourne painted over one of famed graffiti artist, Banksy's pieces of work. This is raising concern over graffiti and whether it should be preserved and protected like other more conventional forms of art. I feel that graffiti is just as worthy of protection under the law as "fine art". What do you think, what defines "real art" or "fine art", and can we even put a label on one's creation?
Here's the link:
http://www.good.is/post/banksy-gets-erased-should-some-street-art-be-preserved
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
i'm of the opinion that these sorts of works should be preserved in some way, but i think it's probably a very difficult task to legally argue that this sort of work should be protected under the law--especially when the graffiti is on private property.
ReplyDeletei think graffiti art is just as legitimate as any other form of art, but it's harder to protect graffiti art in the same way.
I think it's a tough issue. Of course art is art, and I don't think that one form should be held higher than another.
ReplyDeleteI don't know the background of the piece in question, but I'm wondering if it was a public or private building. If it's a public building then I can understand the city either (1) painting over it, or (2) officially sanction keeping it - and hopefully being as clear as possible about the stance it takes. If it's a private building then I think the owner should do something similar. In Denver, if a building owner doesn't remove graffiti within a certain time period they're fined. But what about something as beautiful as a piece, not just a random tagging? I think there should be (if there isn't) a system to official declare to the city that certain work is art and that it's there to stay.