Hacker News Reader

Comment by isoprophlex | Hacker News Reader

- 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.

View on HN

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 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.

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com