There was a Banksy on my street in San Francisco that had paint thrown over it. Perhaps this method could help recover the art.
A paint splash hastily thrown on his art is less compelling to me, on all these dimensions. Perhaps it’s a particularly well-splashed bit of paint, but even so, the closest it can really come to commentary is something along the lines of “Banksy works in a transient medium, and all things in life, including street art, are destined to be painted over” or perhaps “this, too, is art”. But at this point, that is a not particularly original bit of expression, and I’d just as soon have the Banksy on display.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erased_de_Kooning_Drawing
My post above was simply my answer to why, of the two, the Banksy is worth saving. For sure, others might think that the thrown paint is more worthy of saving, and I’m sure plenty of people think both iterations can go in the dustbin.
Because Banksy is a famous brand, and his work has big price tags attached to it.
The whole thing is totally unique and fascinating. Banksy has developed his concept so well. He clearly also acknowledges the absurdity of the situation. His self shredding painting is clearly a comment on the contradiction between the ephemeral and the valuable.
Street art is inherently ephemeral. It's the wild west. There are no rules (although sometimes etiquette), because by its very nature it is breaking the rules.
Seeing newspaper articles where people are talking about a Banksy piece having been "vandalised", or that someone cutting out a piece of their wall to sell it is "stealing something that belongs to the community".
At the same time, street art in general is viewed as vandalism. The law doesn't try to make distinctions based on the artistic merit of a specific bit of unauthorised public space modification.
But money and fame, that's something anyone can understand! If something is worth money, then it's good. You painted on my wall! How lucky I am! Oh yeah and the pictures great too, what a clever image!
I personally think his work is pretty good. But much more interesting is how society has reacted to it.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/banksy-painting-shreds-it...
Society never really reacted to Blek Le Rat because he was a legit guerilla artist and as such his work remained unknown. Whereas the well funded art studio behind Banksy work mass marketed his art, it just so happens the marketing strategy was that of an anonymous street artist. Yet in reality his work was often shown and sold in galleries catering to the rich and celebrity types reinforcing its "value", now the studio even sells the work direct through auctions houses, it is anything but an organic reaction by society.
If I follow... The self professed answer in their FAQ that Banksy is inspired by 3D from Massive Attack is actually just fabrication, the true inspiration is hidden in the artwork. Which definitely fits with the kind of artist that I can see participating in such a pseudo-anonymous collective effort... But it's definitely far from being proof...
Id love to hear more if you have anything else to back up the theory!
If you figure out the answer to such deep questions, i'm sure the philosophers would like to know. In the meantime the answer we'll have to stick with is because a plurality of people with power say so.
In my view, since he didn't ask the wall's owner, Banksy took his chances when he painted it. So they're free to remove it, keep it, or remove something else to restore it.
The value of art (in general or one piece compared to another) is subjective, so there's no objective answer to this question.