WRITTEN ON October 25th, 2008 BY William Heath AND STORED IN Pertinent Art
The Indy has a marvellous story about Westminster Council trying to dispel the spirit of Banksy with those rational groupthink-brainspeak values which are the currency of local government. What makes it so delightful is the surprising way in which the value of “art” has put the money on Banksy’s side of the debate.
So they’re really going to destroy a £300,000 artwork to improve the environment, just to prove their grey prejudices about graffiti? But it’s a £300,000 artwork. It proves their prejudices about graffiti are wrong.
This story needs the destruction of the work to fulfil its potential power. Only thus does it make its statement about the state. The work isn’t half as powerful if councils liked them and preserved them. But when they destroy them, their artistic value goes up. And after all, the image persists in the media. Thus Banksy wins. (Cheers Suw, btw, for being the first to put me on to Banksy when ORG first started).
2 Responses to “Befuddled Westminster Council: to destroy or not to destroy?”
Given that the grafitto is painted on what looks like private property, and is the the most sightly thing in a fenced off patch behind the spectacularly ugly West End Delivery Office, is the Council proposing to do this using some magic planning powers or the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environmet Act 2005? (Don’t you love the catch-penny propaganda names that laws bear these days?)
The Council should paint “In CCTV We Trust” on the wall of the building opposite.