Poll: Should Banky's work be protected by law?
Poll Options
View poll results: Should Banky's work be protected by law?
18 58%
13 42%
Voters: 31.
This is an article talking about a paper released by the University of Bristol recently, which makes a case for the works of 'Banksy' the famouse graffiti artist to be protected by law.


The paper, part of Webster's dissertation, suggests that Banksy's art might benefit from the protection of the Listed Building Act, which seeks to protect structures of architectural and historic significance. In addition to the recognition of certain works as culturally important, listing would provide property owners certain rights to retain, protect and restore street art on their property.

Not only would listing allow property owners to retain Banksy works on their property, Webster explains it would also allow owners recourse should a Banksy on their property be damaged or removed: "The effect of Listing would also ensure that the work could be preserved for future generations and grants could be applied for to preserve the work."

But what about property rights, would the protection trump the rights of the owner of a building for the sake of cultural preservation? Nelson's Column and Abbey Road crossing are public property, but listing Banksy's work would inevitably include many walls on private property. Further, many of his works were erected illegally, violating property laws. How do you save something that it culturally significant but also illegal? Legal protection for an illegal phenomenon seems counterintuitive to say the least.

Thoughts pit?
banksy is badass.

But for the rest
nope, the most artistic thing about it to me is that it should be abhorred.

keep it real.

"Banky," the new kid-friendly Goldman Sachs mascot.
Quote by jakesmellspoo
ooh look at me i'm ERIKLENSHERR and i work at fancy pants desk jobs and wear ties and ply barely legal girls with weed and booze i'm such a classy motherfucker.
lol British graffiti artist. that's silly. that's like the UGer that said he's been to some of the best pizzerias in Australia.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
Not sure it should be protected by law, he's still defacing public property, but it beats the shit out of gang signs and curse words.
For Frodo!
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers
No because a world full of marbles silly man is just as real as a half empty glass of microwaved nesquik.
It doesn't matter how artistic it is, it's vandalism. It's the same as how you could be playing beautiful music but if it's cranked to 11 at 3AM in a residential area, you're still a fucking douche.
I'm rgrockr and I do not approve of this message.

Some of Banksy's stuff is so sledgehammer

That's the most relevant thought I have at the moment

EDIT: I'd support the protection. Banksy is wrong to graffiti private property, but I hate when fairly petty things like that take precedent over art, and it'd be a shame if popular and important art was destroyed to teach a lesson about property rights. Even though I don't really like much of it.
Last edited by whalepudding at Aug 28, 2011,
So who thinks hypothetically, that if the mona lisa was painted tomorrow on the side of a pizza hut it should be painted over?

I personally can see a case for Banksy's work to be listed; the paper makes the point that if the Abbey Road crossing can be listed than why not a significant piece of street art?

I can see how it could set a dangerous precedent however. It may open the flood gates to a whole score of common vandals demanding their work be evaluated by a panel of government paid artists before it gets painted over.
Kind of off topic, but writers for Huffington Post are currently on strike. Visiting the website is crossing an electronic picket line, so to speak, so I implore everyone to try and avoid visiting the website. The strike has actually been met with moderate success so far, which is hopefully going to set an enormous precedent for online content in the future. For more information, here's a link.

On topic - I support the protection of his art.
Quote by MakinLattes
I think it's up to the building owners.

This. I hear on the local news a year ago (don't remember the details, and it might of been Fox ) that a building owner allowed it but was forced to take it down because other people thought he was encouraging vandalism.
Well they make a good point. It normalizes it and encourages it to be done in other places. Though he shouldn't have been forced to take it down.

It raises the question of where the line between street art and vandalism should be drawn.