Technically worth more now.
this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2025
598 points (99.3% liked)
People Twitter
8135 readers
887 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The remaining outline reminds me of the silhouettes left of people on stone after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is in some ways more haunting and powerful.
I would argue that the artwork has now been completed.
Honestly a better outcome than the wall being cut out, replaced and auctioned to some rich fucks with millions to spend on artwork. And Banksy reportedly hates that so that's cool that it's gone now
Yeah just like that one in the shredder frame that shredded it as soon as it was sold - the removal could be seen as an unwitting part of the performance art.
I bet the shredded one tripled in value when it happened, buyer was probably very pleased. (Yes I'm too lazy to go verify my hunch).
Edit: yep, it originally fetched a bit over £1M at that auction, then was sold again a few years later for £18.6M lol.
Literal whitewashing.
Somehow it's more ominous and powerful now with just the outline
They gave this piece history.
That photo with a judge hurrying along and the graffiti besides him was an absolute masterpiece, I didn't think it could be toppled, and yet now we have this bad attempt at washing it away that not only didn't hide it, it made it dark and grim...
It's an analogy of how every corporate dictatorship has handled the genocide and protestor response.
They might just paint over it now.
That is stone wall. You don't paint those. Its generally unwise to paint brick, stone, or concrete surfaces. Stonework is porous, and paint is not. This makes it retain water, and wear much faster than it should.
Painting over the entire wall to cover the shadowy remnants is not an option.
They could paint it red
You can paint brick, but you shouldn't. It will reduce the life significantly.
Well maintained brick lasts generations. Painted brick lasts decades. Its a slow process, but it does destroy the wall.
Bold of you to assume they care more about structural integrity than public image
It was always the point.
It's the same reason it was done in a camera dead zone created by turning a camera away slowly day by day.
Is this true? About the camera.
From what I've read yes. It's directly under one CCTV camera and another had to have been moved for a Blindspot to exist there.
The building has stone cladding and graffiti on stone has to be removed quite quickly because after a while it is nearly impossible to clean it.
Don't get me wrong it is still pr disaster and it should be handled differently, the cover of it, standing policemans around... It just gives feeling that they don't want anyone to see it (which was maybe someones intention). Leaving it visible with some press release about protecting stone buildings and cleaning it immediately afterwards would be better pr option.
Put it back
bottom of the iceberg revelation: they can't remove it, only cover it up
Put it everywhere
Now it reminds me of the shadows left by people in a nuclear blast. Banksy is a frickin genius.
Have you seen Thunderbolts?
We can tell more about a society by the art they don't allow than by the art they do.
I'm 41 and this is deep
I think the commentary about it being removed is pretty stupid, honestly. I can't imagine that if I spraypainted a lovely mural of kittens playing with butterflies that they'd leave it up. It's really got nothing to do with the art itself and everything to do with it being a wall which the artist did not have the legal right to paint. I don't think Banksy put it up with the idea that it would remain there forevermore.
The silhouette looks sick as fuck though, better than the original imo, and I have to wonder if that was his intent. Maybe he treated the wall in some way that he knew would have this result.
Banksy has put murals on many a wall without permission. This doesn’t tend to happen.
In fact the owner of the wall is usually happy as they might be able to cut out the piece and sell it.
Not saying it would have stayed forever but they had better options than censorship.
Oh wow, they actually did. That's a multimillion dollar artwork power washed off a wall.
And not very well, either.
I’m not familiar with the building, but it looks like it could be limestone, which is porous. That would make it difficult to remove something painted on without removing a decent amount of material from the surface. The paint is probably in there pretty good, and power washing may have pushed it deeper.
They hand washed it. The chemicals are probably just drying out.
I expected them to cut it out of the wall and sell it to the highest bidder. Would fit the british colonial style.
That's for when it's "art". When the message goes against the mandated mission, they call it "vandalism".
Seeing african tribes as barbarians didnt stop the british from stealing their art tho.
That's because it didn't violate the narrative. And stealing it enforced theirs.
I guess that does make sense yeah.
They've always called ~~Banksey~~ Banksy a vandal.
Now, it looks like the remnants of nuclear blast victims as if to say you gotta blow it all to smithereens before this can be fixed.
Too late, we've seen it and it's more poignant now
That's all the more powerful, they can try to silence people but we still those who are missing.
This was intentional. Enigma.
I so want to see 10 of them up there in a couple days.
Philistines
Interestingly, Philistine as a slur (meaning uncultured people) originated from biblical Israel's disdain for the Philistine people, who lived in modern day Palestine.
That actually is interesting and somehow says something about current day events...
...huh.
Still beautiful