Art Buff returns to Folkestone

Art Buff

"Banksy artwork set to return to Folkestone after lengthy legal battle" is the title of this item, reported a couple of days ago in the Guardian. It reads, in relevant part, as follows:

A Banksy artwork ripped from a wall in Folkestone and shipped to the US is to be returned to the seaside town after a lengthy legal battle, in the first example of a Banksy being returned to public ownership. A British judge ruled on Friday morning that the mural, titled Art Buff, was to be returned to the place where it was originally daubed by the elusive graffiti artist during the Folkestone Triennial last year.

The artwork, which depicts a woman looking at an empty plinth while listening to headphones, appeared overnight last September. It was verified by the elusive artist on his website, with the words: “Part of Folkestone Triennial. Sort of.” The piece attracted hundreds of visitors but just weeks after its appearance the owners of the amusement arcade on which it was painted chiselled it out of the wall and sent it to a gallery in New York – which valued it at almost half a million pounds. It was later sent to an art fair in Miami where it failed to sell.

The legal challenge to return the artwork to Kent was launched by Folkestone-based arts charity the Creative Foundation, with the financial backing of a benefactor, who felt that Art Buff belonged to the people of Folkestone and not to a wealthy collector.  ... 

The piece, he said, had been cut out under the supervision of art dealer Robin Barton who trades under the name of Bankrobber and specialises in Banksy pieces.

After investigating the matter, lawyers acting for the Creative Foundation discovered that the Godden family, who had ordered the removal and sale of the Banksy, only owned the leasehold – not the freehold – of the arcade where Art Buff had been drawn. An injunction against selling the artwork was taken out in early 2015, and on Friday morning judge Richard Arnold ruled that the tenant had “no reasonable prospect of establishing that it was entitled, let alone obliged, to remove the mural” and ordered its return to Folkestone. ...

In the past Bansky has condemned the removal and private sale of his artworks as disgusting. In April last year 10 of Banksy’s most expensive murals, all of which had been removed from public spaces, were sold at auction in London for between £100,000 and £500,000 each.

Upton said he hoped the case, which was the first example of a Banksy being returned to public ownership, would inspire others in the future. “People should fight to keep these works in the public realm,” he said. “That’s how they came about and where they were intended to stay – not that I have any idea what Banksy’s intentions are.”

While it's good to see that this piece of artwork has been saved, it is worrying that the fate of a piece of art should be made to hinge on something as arbitrary was whether the wall upon which it was painted was held by a leaseholder or by the freeholder.

Keep off our worms? No, keep off our walls ...

The United Kingdom, like any modern multiracial and multicultural society, takes great pains to protect minorities from the hostility and prejudice of others.  The same jurisdiction is also accused of being the bastion of unthinking and self-defeating political correctness.  Bearing this in mind, readers are invited to draw their own conclusions regarding the following item on the BBC website:

A new Banksy mural showing a group of pigeons holding anti-immigration banners has been destroyed following a complaint the work was "racist". The mural in Clacton-on-Sea -- where a by-election is due to take place following the local MP's defection to [the politically incorrect] UKIP [whose policy on immigration and border control can be found here] -- appeared this week. It showed four pigeons holding signs including "Go Back to Africa", while a more exotic-looking bird looked on. The local council, which removed it, said it did not know it was by Banksy [Obviously the council was fooled by the style and the content. Maybe they thought it was a newly-discovered fresco by Leonardo]. 

 

Tendring District Council said it received a complaint that the mural was "offensive" and "racist".  

... 

Nigel Brown, communications manager for the council, said: "The site was inspected by staff who agreed that it could be seen as offensive and it was removed this morning in line with our policy to remove this type of material within 48 hours. We would obviously welcome an appropriate Banksy original on any of our seafronts and would be delighted if he returned in the future." ...

Now why would be want to do a thing like that?

This blogger must confess that, when he saw the offending artwork, he thought it a brilliant way of poking fun at what he suspects as being the artist's view of the social attitudes and voting intentions of the good folk of Clacton-on-Sea and that, if anyone was going to be offended by this message, it should be them.

Presumably a banning order should also be placed on "The Ugly Duckling", which has presumably upset and humiliated generations of swans.

Art vs Vandalism

Is defacing a Banksy art or vandalism?

Well, from the US point of view, it is certainly a crime worthy of punishment from anywhere between jail time to fines in the thousands of dollars.

It has, therefore, not been a fruitful year (artistically speaking, or otherwise) for David William Noll, who either has a big issue with Banksy's works or, whose artistic creativity, in defacing Banksy's art and then posting it on YouTube, has not been recognised.

In April this year, American "artist" Noll was charged with a vandalising several Banksy murals in separate incidents in LA and Park City, Utah.

In LA, Noll was charged with felony vandalism for painting over two Banksy works. For those charges, he pled no contest and was given three years of felony probation and 60 days of community service.

Girl on Swing – one of the Banksy works in LA that was vandalised

Around the same time, Noll was also charged with a vandalising two Banksy murals in Park City. After Noll failed to appear for a court hearing to face charges of criminal mischief for defacing those pieces, a warrant for his arrest was issued in August. At that time, it was speculated that, if convicted, Noll faced as many as 15 years in jail.

At the beginning of this week, however, Noll pleaded guilty to defacing the two Park City murals, and, as part of a plea deal, will not face jail time if he pays $13,000 in restoration costs before a November sentencing hearing.

So, could it be said that it is not a crime to paint on a wall if it looks nice/is carried out by a famous artist? But, it is a crime to paint over the works of famous artists? If this is the case, how does this fit together with instances where owners of the walls adorned by Banksy works decide to deface them?The challenges with protecting Banksy works continue to mount, even though it doesn't seem like it's an issue to Banksy.

Source: Associated Press, 16 September 2014

Ecce Homo: The Plot Thickens

The botched restoration of the Ecce Homo fresco has received quite a bit of attention lately.  As Jeremy wrote in our post of 23 August, the fresco, located in a church near Zaragoza, Spain, was "restored" by an elderly, untrained parishioner named Cecilia Gimenez.  The result of her efforts was to transform the portrait of Jesus into what one individual describes as "a very hairy monkey in an ill-fitting tunic." This gaffe inspired a great deal of commentary and humor around the world.  (One of my personal favorites here).

However, it seems Gimenez's work may have inspired another, more well-known artist.  Over the weekend this image appeared on 9GAG.  Although the piece has yet to be confirmed as genuine, perhaps world-renowned street artist, Banksy, is paying tribute to Gimenez.  The image is not on Banksy's own website, causing many to question its authenticity.  It would appear that the piece is likely a fake, another part of the ongoing Ecce Homo internet meme.

And if the piece were real?  All of this could be viewed as one vandal paying tribute to another.  However, Gimenez claims to have had permission to restore the fresco.  And Banksy?  Banksy's work is known to sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more.  That being the case, some would argue his pieces no longer constitute vandalism, as properties graced with a genuine Banksy experience significant increases in their value.  In some cases when a building with a Banksy is sold, the art piece tends to comprise most, if not all of the sale price, with the building a mere afterthought.  

Try your hand at a restoration here on BBH London's Cecilia Prize website.

Bansky work destroyed

Back here we reported on a piece of art that had been mistaken as rubbish and thrown out. Now it appears that a similar fate has befallen one of Banksy's works – albeit not for the first time.

Gorilla in a Pink Mask had graced the outer wall of a building in Eastville, Bristol for 10 years until it was recently covered in emulsion by the new owner of the building. Unfortunately, it seems that he was not aware that he was destroying an extremely valuable artwork.


But does anyone have the right to complain or a cause of action to prevent such acts? After all it was the owner's wall to paint over - was it not?

This is likely to reignite one of the main controversies over Banksy's outdoor works that because he uses private properties as his canvas, it is often difficult to ascribe ownership of the works and to protect and preserve them. Any suggestions as to how his art could be protected?

Banksy's legal protection

The IPKat reports here that although Bansky is relatively relaxed in respect of the use of his artwork by others he has a registered trade marks for his name.

Thus, it seems that Banksy appreciates the importance of protecting the rights in his name, albeit that it is not his real one.

Has Run DMC been Brainwashed?

Friedman's original mid-eighties photograph

Thierry Guetta (AKA Mr Brainwash), rushed to fame thanks to Banksy’s Oscar nominated Exit Through the Gift Shop. Rumours abounded at the time as to whether or not he was a real artist or a Banksy hoax. Such rumours have now largely been quashed and Mr Brainwash has been established as a prominent street artist in his own right.

In fact, one of best claims to Mr Brainwash being a real person is that he has recently been sued by Glen Friedman, the photographer behind a mid eighties Run DMC photograph which Mr Brainwash uses in several of his works.

Black and white brainwashing - fair use?

Full colour stencilled brainwashing - is this use fair?

Friedman is reportedly claiming a share of “indirect profits” from a 2008 exhibition in addition to unspecified damages for, amongst other things, loss of business and dilution of the value of the copyrights.

Mr Brainwash doesn’t deny use of the photograph but claims that the use falls within US federal law’s “fair use” exception to copyright infringement claims. This exception apparently allows for the limited reproduction of copyrighted works for creative ends.

As street art becomes both more lucrative and more mainstream it is likely that such copyright cases will increase, particularly as this is an area where the detachment from traditional art has arguably led to a more infringement orientated creative approach where sampling parts of previous works is prevalent.

Banksy Bail Identity Crisis

Banksy’s identity is a closely kept secret and although several newspapers have claimed to have unmasked him, this has never been publicly confirmed.

However, whilst anonymity may a good thing from an artistic and personal perspective, it has its drawbacks, particularly if you want to intervene in Russian court proceedings.

As Simone published previously, Banksy has been following the fate of the Moscow based Voina art collective. Two of their members Oleg Vorotnikov, 35, and Leonid Nikolayev, 27 have been in prison since November 2010 after Palace Revolution, a piece of performance art in the centre of St. Petersburg, was considered to be more criminal than artistic. The performance art in question involved turning over police cars in an anti-corruption protest which police claim caused thousands of pounds worth of damage.

Banksy organised an online fundraiser which raised the required bail money (approximately £80,000) but last Friday, a judge refused to accept the money due to a "lack of information about the person providing the money." The two Voina artists’ fate remains unclear. Even if bail is granted, they are facing up to seven years in prison, in what appear to be less than savoury conditions. A response which Russian art community has denounced as excessive.



Previous Voina performances have included throwing cats at McDonald’s workers to alleviate their boredom, staging an orgy in a Moscow museum and painting a giant cock on a bridge in St Petersburg (not to be confused with the blue cock which will be coming to Trafalgar Square’s fourth plinth in the near future)…

Sources: Art Info and The Guardian

Banksy supports Russian art revolt

From one controversial artist to another – news that Banksy is to donate the proceeds from the sales of his “Choose Your Weapon” prints to support the Russian art collective “Voina,” a radical Russian performance group known for their provocative and politically charged works of performance art.

A performance in September, known as “Palace Revolution”, which involved a team of 31 activists overturning police cars in St. Petersburg, has led to the arrest of two of Voina's members. The two are now are now awaiting trial, charged with "hooliganism, carried out on motives of political or ideological hatred or animosity towards a social group," and facing a prison sentence.

It remains to be seen whether Banksy's aid assists his fellow artists in freeing the two member of the collective.

Palace Revolution

Source: BBC 13 December 2010