Art, graffiti or criminal damage?
Or maybe criminal damage if a valuable work of art?
What do you think?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2z30p033ro.amp Link to BBC News article.
What do you think?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2z30p033ro.amp Link to BBC News article.
A mural by the street artist Banksy is being removed from the wall of a court building in London.
The mural appeared on an external wall of the Queen's Building, in the Royal Courts of Justice complex, on Monday.
The image depicted a protester lying on the ground holding a blood-spattered placard while a judge, in a wig and gown, looms over him, wielding a gavel.
The work has been covered up at various points since it was discovered and guarded by security staff, with the HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirming that it would be removed due to the building being listed and therefore legally protected.
Comments
I would argue that to the extent it is art, it is art of an ephemeral nature, and it has to be presumed that the artist painted it on the property of another with the understanding that it would not be a permanent work of art, that its artistic value lay as much in the discussions and reactions it would prompt as in the work itself, and that its removal should not only be expected but serves the artistic of goal of generating discussion.
For that reason alone it should be scrubbed off.
MMM