Couple May Need to Pay $250k to Have Banksy Mural Removed from Their Home | Hacker News Reader

Couple May Need to Pay $250k to Have Banksy Mural Removed from Their Home

artnews.com

Come on, it's clear this article is just a way for them to find a buyer for the mural. If someone puts a painting on your property without your permission it's called graffiti and you have the right to just paint it over.

Why will they not do that? Did Banksy come over one day with a contract saying "hey, I'd like to paint here, sign on the dotted line you'll care for the thing forever"? I doubt that. They probably are trying to extract as much value from it as possible (as anyone else would in their position). Do I blame them? Of course not. Do I belive their "struggle"? Not really.

They're not hiding that, quoted at the end 'we are just normal people, we want to make something back from it' and gives an example of another one that was (carefully) removed and sold for a tidy sum.

This article references The Sun[1] which references The Times[0], which is probably what the URL should be. The artwork has already been removed (last Monday, May 22nd), it's not clear where the £200,000 estimate comes from since the move has already happened (wall rebuild, transport to buyer perhaps?). There is even a photo of their house exposed to the elements in the original.

[0]: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/homeowners-spend-200-000-... [1]: https://www.the-sun.com/news/8193316/huge-bansky-mural-plast...

https://archive.is/A1IGF

I get very attached to my home. If Banksy painted on mine, I suppose I would be initially elated, but:

- I wouldn't want to live there anymore with it up

- I wouldn't want to paint over it, because it would feel wrong to do so to me for reasons I can't explain

- I wouldn't want to cover it up also because I wouldn't want to deal with stress and controversy over such

- I wouldn't want to move, because of how attached I get to my home

Comments like "why don't they just move" seem to miss the point that it really is quite rude to swoop in overnight and do something to someone's house that will make them want to move, even if the sale price goes up because of it.

- I wouldn't want to cover it up also because I wouldn't want to deal with stress and controversy over such

Isn't graffiti art supposed to be ephemeral by nature? Banksy could have put that seagull on a wall of his own, or on a canvas.

100 liters of white latex, one afternoon, and all the troubles disappear. The art was up for a while, now it's gone, poignant moments were had by all and let's move on.

While I can't read his mind of course, I would think Banksy especially would not be annoyed with destroying it if it causes issues for ordinary people. Treating it as important art specifically is the problem here and he's destroyed his own art as a statement before.

I would go so far as to guess that the entire reason the piece exists is to be a commentary on the arbitrariness of important art, and that the real art intended was creating a situation where someone who isn’t an insider gets to decide what’s important.

These and your parent comment are all excellent observations, and I fully agree with this line of reasoning.

I'm sure there is some zen koan hidden in this story about chaining your own mind by inflating the importance of things that were never really that big a deal...

You'll have to tell that to the media and possibly hordes of Banksy fans. Though it'll probably boil down to two days of drama on social media.

Then why don't they use a paint that will wash off in the rain?

You then become immortalized as the curmudgeon who painted over culturally important artwork. Who knows how people would react? I'd say there's a good chance that your property would become a target for graffiti artists and vandals. You may have people in your life no longer want to associate with you. You'll definitely have strangers giving you the look for years to come after they find out what you did. You'll forever have to explain yourself.

That's totally reasonable, imo. To relate, earlier today I was talking with Spectrum support because after a simple service transfer a TV package was mysteriously added to my bill. When I called to have it removed the agent presented me with several options that would improve my service for no immediate extra cost (i.e. what if we have Banksy paint a mural on your house). I told the agent that I would prefer to have things stay the same as I've always had them. I don't want any surprises, I don't want any "special deals". I just (edit: typo) *want things to go back to how they were before you complicated them.

I don't understand how he painted it without being caught.

This title is misleading. The $250k is the cost to remove the brick walls its painted on if they want to sell the mural, not something that is being forced upon them.

> forced to either pay for the bird’s protection and preservation, which would cost almost $50,000 per year. Otherwise, they could have the mural removed, which could cost up to a quarter of a million dollars.

I don't get it. Who is doing the forcing here. Is there some kind of law that you have to preserve graffiti if they are by banksy?

Yes, actually. The US has the Visual Artists Rights Act which means an artist can sue if you destroy their artwork. France has even stronger laws where you can’t destroy an artwork even with the permission of the artist. I assume the UK has similar laws.

The US also has strong don't paint other people's houses laws. If what you say is true, I could graffiti your front door and sue you if you tried to fix it. I don't think that's at all how the law works for us.

Ok, but that doesn't seem to apply to "normal" graffiti does it? People remove them all the time, even when they are quite good or interesting.

we're not actually a very rules based society

Or rather these ‘rules’ would only generally apply anywhere if the mural/graffiti was painted with the consent of the owner

I understood that they want to profit. But people are stealing parts or painting over, so they either have to put security (50k per year) or sell it paying 200k for the removal. They really are asking potential buyers to pay the bill.

For what I read about VARA, it applies only if you paid the artist to paint the graffiti, and later you decide to destroy it, as the artist keeps some rights even if you own the art.

For what it's worth, I don't think this would be protected in the US.

In the US, graffiti artists' rights have only been upheld under VARA if their work was permitted by the property owner. The artists suing the developers who painted over 5 Pointz were successful because their work was created with the consent of the property owners.

However, more recently a property management company in California was not held responsible for painting over murals on their building that were painted without the owner's consent:

"CCI concedes that the statutory provisions of the VARA “do[] not expressly state that the consent of the building owner is necessary.” Id. Instead, CCI argues that “common sense” implies a requirement that a plaintiff must plead consent of a building owner to establish standing and access the protections of the VARA. Id. The Court agrees with CCI, at least with regards to works of art that cannot be removed from a building without causing their destruction."

https://casetext.com/case/canilao-v-city-commercial-invs

EDIT: -Chicago +California

Spray painting some's house without their consent is not 'artwork', it's criminal damage.

It can be both.

In law it's only criminal damage...

The Sun article mentions the council having the ability to make some sort of preservation order? Ostensibly this is to protect historic properties, but it seems like an overreach to apply that to a mural painted without the property owner's consent.

I can't otherwise explain how the property owners are being held responsible for damage done to the mural.

From this linked article: https://www.the-sun.com/news/8193316/huge-bansky-mural-plast...

It says: >But after the Coutts’ were told by Suffolk council it would cost tens of thousands of pounds to maintain every year - they made the decision to have it removed.

Mr Coutts told The Times: “At first it was obviously incredible but as things have gone on it has become extremely stressful. I’m not sure Banksy realises the unintended consequences on homeowners. If we could turn back the clock, we would.

“We had the council get in touch to tell us that they could put a preservation order on the piece and we would be responsible for maintaining it at a cost of £40,000 a year.

Could, but haven't yet. Seems like they need to spray it with paint remover ASAP, preferably at night.

Why do they need to do it at night? It's their house, they can paint it.

That linked article also says "Another time vandals were caught with a dozen pots of white paint and were apparently going to paint over it." so it seems like a free solution to the problem is already presenting itself, but they actively took steps to prevent that from happening.

The real villain here seems to be UK law and local busybodies. I don't think Banksy meant for people to make such a big deal over his graffiti, let alone force random people to pay thru the nose for its preservation.

> I don't think Banksy meant for people to make such a big deal over his graffiti, let alone force random people to pay thru the nose for its preservation.

His painting shredder piece suggests that he's specifically making the point that his art is temporary and that ties in with his general graffiti style. If he wanted it to be easy for people to buy and sell his art, he'd do it on something a bit more portable than the side of a house. A lot of his art around Bristol (where I live and Banksy's home town) is very much designed for the public to enjoy rather than to be traded.

It also says "East Suffolk Council told Eastern Daily Press: "While we are naturally disappointed by the reported removal of the Banksy seagull from the side of a building in Lowestoft, it is ultimately the right of the owner to make decisions about their own property."

As I read it, I don't think anyone from the city council forced them to do anything, "could put a preservation order on the piece" doesn't mean they did.

It's all a bit unclear though what the exact situation is though and why they chose to spend £200,000 instead of £200 on some paint.

Why would they feel compelled to make that threat? lol

It's not clear to me it even was a threat; the context of that comment is entirely unclear. It's possible the couple just asked what could be done about the situation and the council responses with "well, we could put preservation order on it, but you'll be on the hook for protection then".

Given the later "it's their property and right to do with as they want" comment, I think something along those lines is more likely, but hard to be sure.

The reporting on all of this has not been of stellar quality.

What an absurd claim and article? As someone in the UK I estimate it was would cost probably a less than a couple of hundred for the paint, supplies, and ladders. Probably less if they bought the paint and did it themselves.

It’s very clear from the article that they actually value the work and do NOT want to destroy it.

The problem is that they feel obligated to protect it from vandals and thieves.

As mentioned elsewhere, the whole thing may be essentially marketing to find a buyer.

I'm surprised that the local authority doesn't step in to protect and preserve it.

We had a relatively recent Banksy not far from where I live (Bristol, UK so we do have quite a few around the place): https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/has-a-new-... . The council quickly put a protective plastic covering over it.

Otherwise, the house owners could just attempt to sell it and specify that the buyer has to cover the costs of removal and repair.

You mean the council forced the home owners to live with it? How does that work? Someone vandalises your property and then it’s made permanent?

I don't think that's a fair interpretation as having a Banksy on your property wouldn't be considered vandalism by most people (i.e. making your house worth 10x more). I guess if the owners objected to it, then they could get it removed though other people wouldn't be too happy about that.

Here's an example in Totterdown (also Bristol) that appeared whilst the house was about to be sold: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/dec/12/owners-...

I kind of get what you say.

But all I was asking about -- whether owners were "forced" to keep it? Because that is vandalism. Now you like that on your property after the deed, or not, if up to you. Not upto the vandal/artist and should not be up to the city council.

Not "forced" per se, but it might get you some unwanted publicity for doing it.

There's even an example of an old codger painting over a Banksy caught on camera here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59236187

They are trying to stop people painting over it.

The title is.. well clickbait really.

They're just trying to make bank off it. A bottle of paint stripper costs $20, hiring a pressure washer less than $100.

Sell it under the condition that the buyer pays for the removal costs.

If nobody wants it, let it go and paint it over.

Painting over it could be considered a work of performance art like when the KLF burned a million quid.

Or Banksy's painting shredding.

>have been plagued by vandals and forced to either pay for the bird’s protection and preservation, which would cost almost $50,000 per year. Otherwise, they could have the mural removed, which could cost up to a quarter of a million dollars

I do not understand this quote. Why are they being "forced" ? Either paint over it or let the vandals destroy it. Who is forcing them ?

With that said, I would like to see it maintained but the owner should not have to do that. If the City wants to keep it, they foot the bill.

I think he's a disgrace to artists (if he even is an artist) and a menace to society if he's literally vandalising private property like this. I know the arguments people have against that and I don't care, get a canvas like the rest of us.

He is clearly an artist, even if you disagree with his method.

Besides you forget the house owners here were happy: initially they thought it was cool. Then, instead of painting over it, they sold it for a profit.

> they sold it for a profit

So they can take that profit to pay for 250k

Some of it, yes, but definitely not all of it. Don't pretend they had to pay 250k. It wouldn't have cost more than a couple hundred just to paint over it.

Maybe sell the art as an NFT and then remove it, or even better, sell an NFT for the act of removal of the mural, like the shredding painting thing. (Partly /s)

NFTs are so 2021

If banksy painted on my house I would paint over it, I really don’t give a rats ass about their art and I think vandalizing people’s home is distasteful.

No empathy. The supposed costs are to preserve their windfall of what, a million dollars? Poor them, having to make cost-benefit analysis on a fortune.

It won't cost any damn million to get rid of their problem. Just a bucket of paint and an afternoon.

Oh yes, so very terrible. A "living nightmare" with a clearly labelled and painless exit door. They could of course just paint over it, but no, they want to sell it and make money, therefore they have no choice but to hire a security guard and remove the wall. Crocodile tears.

It doesn't look like a Banksy. His stuff is quite different aesthetically.

Graffiti is graffiti. Enjoy art whilst it's there, whether that's graffiti or not. But remember, nobody should be above the law, and there's far better artists than Banksy out there, graffiti included. There's some genuinely incredible murals out there that make this look like a doodle.

Why be precious about it? Banksy artwork shredded itself: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/watch-14-million-b...

Can't they make Banksy take care of it, with lawyers if necessary?

Since he hides his identity, who would you send letters to?

This sourced to reports in The Sun and the Eastern Daily Press. For those unfamiliar with U.K. newspapers, these are well-known sources of clickbait low-effort journalism. Never trust their headlines, for starters.

Think about how a couple of landlords who live in Enfield in London can have "woken up one morning" to find that their property in Lowestoft, in East Anglia, had been painted on, for instance. They're approximately 200km apart.

Why can't they paint over it?

Because then they cannot sell it. It's a BS story, they made a $250k investment because they expect to sell it for much more than that. It's a non-story.

$250k to sell it

> The only way forward, the Couttses say, is to have the 22-ton mural removed, a major undertaking which over the last month has involved “reinforcing it with 12 layers of resin, fibreglass [sic] and five tonnes [sic] of steel and using a 40ft crane to take it away.”

> The Couttses hope to sell the massive work in order to offset the $250,000 cost. “We are just normal people,” Mr. Coutts told the Sun, “so we’d like to sell it and make something back on it.”

I find the [sic] amusing because those would both be the correct British way to reference the material and the mass. The oddball in that blurb would be interspersing feet.

Yeah, I was confused by that too.

Given that the costs are in dollars in the quoted passage, it's clear that this article is aimed at a US audience. So when reporting a written quote with sections that a reader might assume was an error but is actually correct because it's a direct quote, using [sic] is exactly the right thing to do.

Ordinary people have nowhere near that amount of cash (or investments). I can only imagine they had potential buyers lined up.

Considering the enormous size and weight of 20ft x 20ft brick wall, I wonder how much the work would go for. Perhaps not as much as we think?

They know that piece has the potential to find a buyer at auction for several millions. I would also rip apart my house.

Reminds me of the bedroom wall shown at the Charles Schulz museum.

https://schulzmuseum.org/timeline/8497/

(Charles Schulz was the artist who created the Peanuts cartoon with Charlie Brown, Snoopy and others...)

What a lovely person that they took the time to find the painting and then donate it. Very selfless!

If Banksy painted a seagull on any house within miles of me, the homeowners associations would be calling for a paintover the next day. I’m slightly jealous that they at least get to be in the drivers seat of deciding what to do.

They should have a protective case installed (similar to those in museums) and then sell the property. That can’t possibly be as much as $250k. Then have someone clean it periodically.

There are probably ways to profit off of it without selling though.

I wonder if the Council would have had the same thoughts if it'd been a Chuy?

I would personally just get a bucket of paint and paint right over it. If you want to remember what it looks like, take a photo. Graffiti is supposed to be semi-temporary anyways.

$250k for a white paint job? surely, they jest.

The article also said that people were painting over it for free.

250k to rip the entire side of a building off cleanly: https://archive.is/A1IGF

What a travesty they would have to pay some money to sell something worth much more. Poor them.

I would sell the house and move to place bereft of vandals.

just invite local graffiti boys to paint the rest of the wall, call it a Museum and have entry tickets. After all your museum owns a bansky

They could just let it go. Is it that hard?

How can a “mural” weigh 22 tons?

It's painted on bricks

They're talking about the wall that the mural was painted upon.

Why not sell the home? I am sure the mural would make it more valuable?

Maybe they just intended to live in it and didn't want to be uprooted? This comes up with US eminent domain from time to time.

Then they should paint over it. I'll do it for half that amount.

They should paint over it while filming the process and then sell the video as an NFT.

No, they live somewhere else entirely and let out the building.

So they're not even paying the mortgage on the property (the tenants effectively are).

This just adds to the "cry me a river" vibe.

> “We are just normal people,” Mr. Coutts told the Sun, “so we’d like to sell it and make something back on it.”

The normal people approach to vandalism is to just paint it over and continue your life. These people are gamblers who are spending 250k on a lottery ticket that might not pay out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com