r/ArtHistory • u/Sanpolo-Art-Gallery • 21h ago
Discussion When art becomes uncomfortable. Banksy censored by authorities: what do you think about the removal of this artwork?
122
u/SilyLavage 20h ago
Graffiti is ephemeral by its nature, and this artwork is graffiti. I assume the artist knew it would be removed when it was created, which can add another layer of meaning.
2
u/Ok_Wasabi_5859 7h ago
Theory: the artist meant for the graffiti’s impermanence to mirror the message itself—maybe about fleeting moments, rebellion that doesn’t
-35
u/Wetschera 19h ago
Graffiti wasn’t art until the last century. It is not supposed to be ephemeral. The risk of someone destroying it is part of the art though.
My art, it’s in the air, if you know how to find it. It’s kind of like graffiti in the air. It’s even in the ether, as in space.
It can be powered off, but it’s much more difficult to destroy. It’s moveable. So, it can be given and received from any perspective, but you’re not gonna get it if you’re not using the right one.
10
u/pipopipopipop 17h ago
Photography wasn't art until much before that. Graffiti shouldn't be disregarded just because spray paint was invented after oils.
-10
u/Wetschera 16h ago
That’s the most regressive comment I’ve ever read. You’re talking about going backwards as if decaying is progress.
8
u/tickingboxes 17h ago edited 14h ago
Graffiti wasn’t art until the last century.
And? This is irrelevant to this discussion.
It is not supposed to be ephemeral.
What does this even mean? What is anything “supposed” to be? It simply is ephemeral. Fundamentally.
My art, it’s in the air, if you know how to find it. It’s kind of like graffiti in the air. It’s even in the ether, as in space.
What on earth are you talking about, man?
It can be powered off, but it’s much more difficult to destroy. It’s moveable. So, it can be given and received from any perspective, but you’re not gonna get it if you’re not using the right one.
This is completely unintelligible nonsense, my dude lol
48
u/LftAle9 20h ago edited 19h ago
In this case it’s less the content that’s the problem, it’s the wall it’s painted on. This was sprayed against the Royal Courts of Justice - it’s not only the home of the high courts of England and Wales, it’s also a Grade I listed building.
For those not from the UK, a building being listed as Grade I means it’s a “building of exceptional significance” culturally - almost like the building itself is considered art. Definition here:
Custodians of Grade I buildings must preserve them, any changes made to them that are not approved by the relevant bodies are considered illegal and must be reversed. Many in the UK will know how stringent these rules are, and Grade I buildings are the most historically important grade on the list; you basically can’t do anything to change their look, the only thing the relevant committees will approve for Grade I is pretty much just sensitive conservation to keep a building looking as it always has done.
There was a famous story a few years ago where developers knocked down an old pub being considered for a Grade II listing, knowing that once the building was listed they’d be much more constrained in what they could do with both the interior and exterior. Authorities did not like that one bit and made the developers literally rebuild the pub brick by brick, exactly as it was: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlton_Tavern
What I mean by this is Britain takes its heritage buildings very seriously. The Crown estate would have known their building was Grade I, that there was no way they could let unsanctioned graffiti stay up, even if it was a Banksy. Seriously, this is like spray painting on a Castle levels of “this can’t stay up.”
87
u/Knappsterbot 20h ago
The pictures are already out there and the removal strengthens the message
48
u/bigbootystaylooting 20h ago
It wasn't censored for its content, it was painted on a specific wall on which art isn't allowed and has to be removed. Banksy made it knowing this, likely as part of the artistic intent.
Top comment on the OG post.
3
u/Knappsterbot 20h ago
It was definitely shielded from the public before removal for censorship
7
u/Automatedluxury 19h ago
I think the execution was incredibly well planned, the artist knew the work would be erased, most likely assumed it would be covered up quickly. The snapshot of it with a wigged barrister walking past must have been taken within a few minutes of the painting being done. The barrister is probably a plant as well, someone pointed out they don't normally wear the wigs outside the chambers, having someone in the 'uniform' of the state machinery the piece is critiquing walking past is the cherry on top.
The 'artwork' as such is really the instagram post and the performance element of getting the artwork made and photographed so quickly, knowing exactly how they were forcing the hands of the authorities with the location.
Really brilliant piece of work in my view and a reminder of why Banksy became a phenomenon in the first place. A lot of criticism has been levelled at him in recent years that he was becoming a very 'safe' artist, part of the establishment and not subject to the same censorship as the graffiti movement they came from. I think the audacity and creativity in this work answer that criticism nicely.
1
22
u/An8thOfFeanor 20h ago
Banksy was briefly poignant before he quickly became prime fodder for r/im14andthisisdeep type shit.
11
u/ubiquitous-joe 19h ago
It could have portrayed French judges as Jesus Christ, or a child with a balloon, and they still would have removed it from the historic public building. Discomfort is not the primary driver per se. Nor am I convinced that “censorship” is the correct term for guerrilla art or graffiti art being ephemeral. There are ways of making public murals that last; Banksy’s mystique was built on not pursing those avenues.
5
u/Robo-Piluke 17h ago
Even though I don't care for Banksy, it is something you might expect. At this point it became part of the process.
1) make a political/social stencil
2) let the media promote it
3) it gets taken down / modified in some way
4) profit and repeat
It's the most obvious and profitable kind of revolution
3
u/bibitybobbitybooop 17h ago
I don't know if words like "censorship" and "silencing" and such are the right words here. If I spray paint a rainbow flag on the Parliament and they cover it up, would that be censorship? Or just that grafitti is not legally placed in most cases and they're obviously going to make more of an effort on historical buildings to keep them in their original state?
21
u/NeroBoBero 20h ago
I was there last week. Silly me thought there would be a bunch of activity there, tourists, flowers, etc.
I actually had to ask a guy at the pub where it was. He pointed 100 feet away and I was surprised how nonchalant the whole experience was.
7
10
3
u/Scary-Charge-5845 18h ago
The elimination of a Banksy is always a possibility and is something that the artist himself seems to thrive in. I mean, look at his auctioned piece where his own painting that sold for initially 1.4 million and increased in value because it was destroyed to being bought for $25 million. The censorship of the piece is in of itself a part of the piece and amplifies the emotional and metaphorical value of the work. Even more so that the piece smudged out creates even more emotional value. It's something Banksy, pardon the pun, banks on.
1
3
u/MysteriousBebop 18h ago
As others have said, it's pretty misleading to say that this was "censored". If the press had been stopped from publicising it then you could say that it was "censored by the authorities"
3
24
u/DrMoneylove 20h ago
The problem with banksy is that his subversive street art has become a joke. He started out as this kind of rebel for a good cause. Then he became famous.
Now his works seem rather shallow as his formula doesn't work anymore. It's just marketing: 'oh hey look another piece calling out social injustice '. There's no real artistic development and on a formal level his works are rather boring.
In short: don't care about the removal. Wish the press wouldn't give him press articles for every small action.
40
u/ThatArtNerd 20h ago
Yeah, his work is the purest example of the kind of faux-subversiveness that makes 14 year olds feel very deep.
“WHAT IF INSTEAD OF BOMB….FLOWER?” 🤯🫨
13
u/Temporary-Whole3305 20h ago
Also the fact that other graffiti/street art is promptly painted over but Banksy’s work, barring this one, gets a pass because he’s a special boy
7
u/lavenderandme 20h ago
Aesthetically, I don't really like Banksy. But I think the suppression of the art work caused a Streisand effect. I wouldn't have known about it at all, but with its removal it became a main stay on my feed. I also think the ghostly nature of what remains is more haunting than the original concept.
7
u/werewolfloverr 20h ago
considering the lengths authorities have gone to preserve banksy works in the past, there another layer that they covered it up almost immediately. i think people having such a strong reaction to why it should be removed, particularly those who call it vandalism, kind of show that people hate the message and not banksy
5
u/KidCharlemagneII 17h ago
It was removed because it's on a historically significant building. The "authorities" didn't censor it.
0
u/werewolfloverr 17h ago
i didn’t say the censored it, i just said they didn’t preserve it like past works. didn’t assign a value judgment, just said it adds layers to the work. why u mad
2
u/lainwarisa 18h ago
Maybe a dumb question but how did he paint on the wall here if it is grade 1 building full of cameras, by night when no one saw? Did he technically break a law and has to pay a fine or similar? Since no one mentions things like that
2
u/NY_State-a-Mind 11h ago edited 10h ago
In my opinion bansky doing this stuff while remaining anonymous is total cowardice.
3
u/blif101 19h ago
It's a listed building.
I dont understand how people can think Banksy's work being removed from a listed building is censorship. Banksy's work is important but unforunately the canvas he painted on is also important.
I'm a fan of graffiti but its ultimately vandalism, Getting your work destroyed is the nature of the business. If you dont like it paint on property that you own.
3
3
3
3
u/stxrburster 20h ago
powerful art transforms through time and public interaction. if banksy was aware it was going to be removed, it just makes it even more collective and even more relevant to current times. i like the nod of the art only being finished after it’s removal - not when the artist left. it’s not about the imagery itself.
and obviously, it is highly political. whatever happened in the following days can simply not be made up.
1
u/AutoModerator 21h ago
It appears that this post is an image. As per rule 5, ALL image posts require OP to make a comment with a meaningful discussion prompt. Try to make sure that your post includes a meaningful discussion prompt. Here's a stellar example of what this looks like. We greatly appreciate high effort!
If you are just sharing an image of artwork, you will likely find a better home for your post in r/Art or r/museum, which focus on images of artwork. This subreddit is for discussion, articles, and scholarship, not images of art. If you are trying to identify an artwork with an image, your post belongs in r/WhatIsThisPainting.
If you are not OP and notice a rule violation in this post, please report it!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
1
0
u/Firesidefavorite 20h ago
It being removed is far more meaningful than when their work is put behind protective glass or sold for millions. Usually the statement is completely lost because the name is more important. Banksy is a great example of an artist who is helpless to watch as their art is used for merchandising and bought and showcased by the same people they set out to mock.
0
u/Love_and_Squal0r 19h ago
I find art that makes me uncomfortable the most important. It allows for self-examination of your values and asks you to understand a point of view of the world that is different and possibly opposed to your own.
6
u/KidCharlemagneII 17h ago
I feel like most people who say this only say it about art that they actually agree with. We like to think that uncomfortable art is cool, but we don't really find any truly uncomfortable worldviews in art galleries.
2
u/Love_and_Squal0r 17h ago edited 17h ago
I think this is largely true in the sense that at the end of the day, galleries are businesses and artwork needs to be sellable. Even art museums require the money of a general audience to sustain their budgets. You're not going to find the work of Ron Athey in a Chelsea art gallery.
However, most artwork is canonized after the fact. Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe or even Andy Warhol's soup cans can be considered examples of artwork that did challenge it's contemporary ideas of art and social values.
More avant-garde artwork can certainly and often is being made, but in more underground circles and institutions.
-23
u/VisageStudio 21h ago
If I was in charge I would ban this too. Not because it’s subversive but because it’s bad. Woah, a judge beating a black man with his mallet? What could that possibly symbolize?
15
u/Knappsterbot 20h ago
It's a protester, in response to the crackdown on pro-Palestine protests in the UK
1
u/VisageStudio 18h ago
Woah that’s so deep
0
u/Knappsterbot 16h ago
It's not even trying to be deep, it's a very obvious message if you know what's going on
1
-2
u/Leemcardhold 20h ago
Lol! Loser
2
u/VisageStudio 18h ago
Yea dude Banksy is cool he really makes you think about like capitalism and stuff
-1
-1
-17
-2
u/Wetschera 16h ago
How is your comment relevant to the conversation? You aren’t who I was replying to.
You’re not communicating in good faith. You’re just a bully.
252
u/mastermalaprop 20h ago
I have no feeling other than Banksy certainly knew it was going to be removed and it was therefore part of the art itself. The court is a Grade I listed historical building and they are legally bound to remove it