Banksy writes in the Guardian

Although I like some of Banksy‘s work and also like some graffiti as an artform you can’t really defend the defacing of public buildings, transport and street furniture.
Banksy attempts to in todays Guardian.

“Melbourne is the proud capital of street painting with stencils. Its large, colonial-era walls and labyrinth of back alleys drip with graffiti that is more diverse and original than any other city in the world. Well, that was until a few weeks ago, when preparations for the Commonwealth games brought a tidal wave of grey paint, obliterating years of unique and vibrant culture overnight.”



  1. You are wrong. The buildings are Public Buildings. The Public Owns the Buildings. They form the Public Space. The Public has the Freedom to do whatever they desire with that Space. Should anybody wish to remove their building from the Public Space they have a perfect right to do so. They should then also forgoe the privileges that their presence in the public space provides them with. The Price of Commerce is that the Customer is always right. Even when the customer is slapping grafitti onto your walls.

    I’m sick and tired of being told what is and is not acceptable. I am in no way artistically talented – but the only way I’m going to actually appreciate some work is by seing it in public places. It makes the world more, not less beautiful.

    And those who produce crap grafitti. Sentence them to proper art lessons. In a proper art school.

  2. So Anne Oni Mouse, give us your address and I’ll come round and make your world more beautiful by pouring paint over your car and spraying my initials across your doorway.
    Yes, public buildings are owned by the public and I’m a member of the public and if we, the public, commission a new building and its designed by an architect with artistic flair and it includes a good helping of public art, I don’t want to see on the first day that it opens, a pathetic doodle painted across the front door. Why not include performance art and smash a few windows. Or interventionist art, break in and replace the desks with something more ‘beautiful’.
    Actually, there’s no point me arguing as you have said you’re fed up being told what is acceptable. Does that only apply to vandalism or everything?

  3. You remain wrong for all your outrageous bluster. First I am homeless. You are suggesting, in your terms, vandalising Public Spaces. Irony is appreciating a narrative at a different level. When bitter it is sarcastic. So feel free to intervene and perform on any Liverpool street corner.

    Again, I am sick and tired of being toldwhat is and is not acceptable. Your suggested Performance and Intervention is mere thuggish posture. Chasing the rabble away with a few choice words. Instructing them to accept only one conception of Public Space.

    There is every reason to argue about such matters. Sick and tired does not mean unreasonable and incapable of rationality. As opposed to dismissing the opinions of others.

    Corporate ownership of “Public” buildings spreads the fetish grafitti of Logos about the place. Yet there is no odium heaped upon them. The relentless invasion of even the least tangible of private spaces is acceptable in pursuit of commerce. Yet the beauty of which I remarked is removed by Public Employees.

    Beauty is not easy. Beauty is not package sized nor is it always seen to be Beautiful. Had the received opinions of the 1930’s held sway, Pablo Picasso, Marcel Duchamp, Samuel Beckett, Georges Bataille and a whole host of others could have been consigned to unillustrated, unquotable footnotes. Their degenerate art and literature removed to prevent upsetting the Public.

    You are wrong. Because you have no conception of the difference between “Public” and “In Public”, “Private” and “In Private”. There is, as you say, no point in you arguing. Because you make no attempt to convince that you are correct.

    I shall begin collecting to visit the Caves of Lascaux in order to paint it over in a nice cozy grey. Ridding the world of nasty graffiti. Then work through the sites of Art History eradicating Sgraffito. Yes, I do misunderstand what you say. Precisely because you have said so little.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here