this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2025
995 points (98.9% liked)
Microblog Memes
9155 readers
2057 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Banksy knew that it would look like this if they tried to remove it. He put it on a building where they couldn't just break a chunk of wall off, but they had to remove it. He understood exactly what kind of commercial removers were out there, he understood that it would leave a shadow.
Banksy has experimented with this theme before, of the art being destroyed, where the act of destruction is like a transaction.
One of his paintings was sold at auction, and when the bidding was closed, the big frame the work was displayed in began shredding the drawing. Except with the murals the "destruction" of the art was carried out by the state bureaucracy that the work is critiquing. But its a mundane, meaningless sort of removal. Human creativity and expression of injustice, likely worth millions, wiped away because of faceless, mindless state bureaucracy.
This is what makes Banksy an incredible artist. The after shot is the art.
Are there any other examples besides one of the most famous and expensive art pieces?
Most of his works have been moved or destroyed, I think. He's had works washed off, he's had works vandalized, the walls where a work resided has been broken out and then the wall has been sold to collectors.
He spray painted a piece onto plywood at a charity Boys Club, confirmed with the people running the club that the work belonged to them, so they removed it and eventually sold it for a pretty penny to keep the club running.
That dynamic seems to have always been present. I'm seeing some people saying he even may have etched the wall first, so I'm not sure. But with stuff like this you have to assume it was the artist's intention. This is what artists spend all their time thinking about and discussing! In art school even, beginner students are made to critique every line and mark of each others work. Any single piece of art itself is a conversation with the history of art. We aren't used to thinking like that, we think of art works as commodities with a dollar value. I promise you, banksy does not think that way
It's fine if you like banksys art, i do too, we have a saying that "you can get away with things as long as you keep it clean". (Poorly translated)
If the owner or rightsholder of the property he defaced/vandalised/painted on, decides to restore it, sell it, keep it, whatever. That's entirely up to them. Always was.
There's no "dynamic", he wants to make a statement, so he goes out and vandalises a piece of property to amass attention. In theory, it's no different than the "just stop oil" people trying to throw paint at the Mona lisa or some random stores windows. Vandalism is vandalism.
Ofc he also produces art that isn't vandalism. But he rose to fame for his vandalism. I think it's with keeping in mind.
That's a 4D chess move, if that's true. I do remember the Bansky shredded artwork event, that was wild.