Banksy works cost public almost £150k | Hacker News Reader

Banksy works cost public almost £150k

bbc.co.uk

26 pointsalvis85 comments

The article's photo of the art barricaded from public view with two security people standing guard in front of it speaks even louder than the original artwork.

And then, further down in the article, the picture of a whole structure built to block the view of the piece, with a locked door. Satire writing itself!

Oh the irony. Oh my.

You almost have to ask if Sotheby's didn't somehow arrange for it.

Banksy is an establishment-approved protestor, they promote him regularly [1]. His artwork is regularly on display in galleries [2]. They could easily seize the works to pay for costs, but don't. His name is supposedly Robin Gunningham from Bristol [3], they could take him to court. The whole thing is ridiculous.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cp7r8vglgj1t

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz91zpgn43do

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98q8llqq4po

In case it's not clear from the story: a big part of the expense here is that the mural was painted onto the Royal Courts of Justice building, which is a Grade I preserved building, putting it in the same tier of building preservation as the Tower of London and the Palace of Westminster. Some of the things you'd do to get graffiti off a subway tunnel wall or a brutalist municipal building in the US (like using a high-powered pressure washer) can't be done to the RCJ building without risking damage to the structure.

>the mural was painted onto the Royal Courts of Justice building, which is a Grade I preserved building, putting it in the same tier of building preservation as the Tower of London and the Palace of Westminster.

The section in question is not a Grade I preserved building, it's Grade II, which is a significantly less stringent standard. That building is in fact a quasi-brutalist tower built in 1968[0], adjacent to a much older building.

The site of the mural is visible here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Queen%27...

Ironically, in that picture you can see that the wall just above the mural was already badly defaced by the installation and removal of security cameras during several decades.

The scars and drilled holes from old, removed cameras and wiring are still plainly visible. Contrary to its rapid reaction to the mural, the government has made no attempt to repair this self-inflicted damage, which calls into question the whole argument about protecting the building

(You can verify that the damage has been there for decades, by looking at older Google Streetview pictures back to 2008).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Courts_of_Justice_(Banks...

For the comments questioning why the MoJ are doing this, and the reason for the costs, the information can be found in the article:

> A HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) spokesperson said: "The Royal Courts of Justice is a listed building and HMCTS are obliged to maintain its original character."

This is the why. HMCTS don't have the option to "just leave it" because they're obligated by legislation to remove the graffiti. Discussions about whether it'll bring in tourism are irrelevant to the discussion. The law requires the listed building to be maintained in its original state, so the government department follows the law.

As for the costs:

> Court staff barricaded off the area and guarded it. Attempts to clean off the mural began immediately.

> Westminster City Council will have to inspect the wall and if the removal is deemed incomplete, another cleaning method will have to be used.

> As a final option, the affected stonework may have to be removed and replaced.

> A Listed Building Consent (LBC) application has been submitted for the installation of railings across the wall that Banksy targeted.

All of this costs money, it's not just a case of putting a bit of turps on the wall and job done. It'll require experts to remove it without causing further damage.

> Discussions about whether it'll bring in tourism are irrelevant to the discussion.

No, it's not - it's very relevant. Laws are not set in stone, and the first step towards changing them is having the discussion.

> The law requires the listed building to be maintained in its original state, so the government department follows the law.

This is true, but is orthogonal to the point above.

> Laws are not set in stone, and the first step towards changing them is having the discussion.

You’re correct but missing the point entirely. I’m answering “why are the MoJ spending money on this?” Whether one should change the law is irrelevant to answering that question.

The dull blocks have no character, the artwork in contrast captures and hammers out the original character. It doesn't have to be true, nothing ever has, they just need to rubber stamp it as such.

> The dull blocks have no character

That's your opinion and irrelevant. The Grade-II classification and the requirements it imposes don't care about your opinion.

> the artwork in contrast captures and hammers out the original character.

That's your opinion and irrelevant. The Grade-II classification and the requirements it imposes don't care about your opinion.

> It doesn't have to be true, nothing ever has, they just need to rubber stamp it as such.

What on earth are you waffling on about? Speak like a human being instead of getting ChatGPT to write comments for you.

Is there a second Grade II Royal Court of Justice building on Carey Street in London? Because the Royal Court of Justice is a Grade I building, and it's on Carey Street.

I took the wording from the article:

> The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) says it has spent £50,000 trying to remove paint from the wall of the Grade II-listed building in Carey Street. A further £35,300 was spent on overtime and security costs.

I also double-checked against Historic England and I think the one you're referring to is the Law Courts (https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1...). It looks like there's a number of buildings in the law courts area between Carey Street and The Strand and each one has its own grading.

I would have to beg to disagree, my opinion is the only thing that counts. The grades are just your opinion or not even that(?)

The murals and the waffling shall continue until morale improves.

> The dull blocks have no character, the artwork in contrast captures and hammers out the original character. It doesn't have to be true, nothing ever has, they just need to rubber stamp it as such.

"If you change the law to make this legal, then it will be legal!"

*Shakes head

Technically this is vandalism of a govt building.

If they're so concerned about cost, why not do what you'd do with any other vandal with a spray paint can...

Immediately paint over it with grey paint to neutralize the "blight", then efficiently do a deeper clean / removal / repair the facade.

Seems like they gave the Banksy very special treatment of fence, guards, etc. and now are paying for the side effects of that.

The Banksy cost-benefit and clean-protect loops are part of my favorite modern civic dialogs. I like it when the BBC takes the obvious side of the establishment because it is honest.

They could do nothing and just let the art exist for free.

Half this cost is related to security to actively stop people looking at the art work. If it's not acceptable for banksy to cost tax payers £50k to remove the graffiti, why is acceptable for the powers that be to waste another £50k on security to stop anyone seeing it?

And if that ruins the character of the building, why is the fence acceptable?

Probably to stop people rocking up and cutting them out of the buildings

That's true, though it's worth noting that Banksy's pest control – the people who certify that an artwork is legitimate – will always identify anything not meant to be sold as a fake, so resale is a lot more limited than anything meant for galleries and auctions.

Not free, at the cost of the beauty of the vandalized area

Demolish the building leaving only the wall then make a park around it and name it after the guy who ordered the demolition.

They can't. It's a listed building. They're legally obligated to remove it.

Let them apply austerity measures then.

This thread should be nominated for the best of Hacker news.

Absolutely not. There is no enforcement mechanism to punish them if they chose not to enforce the listed building rules.

In the sense that they are the enforcement mechanism of the law it's true that they can probably just ignore the law to a point, but it's no use pretending that there isn't a legal stricture here.

(I'm a policy opponent of historic preservation, which is a major impediment to housing reform, but even I don't pretend that it simply doesn't exist.)

Agreed, btw - I think the only method of preservation should be market purchase, to force the right tradeoffs.

Just to be clear, you're asking the Ministry of Justice, the department responsible for maintaining the court system, to break the law? I can't think how that could have horrendous long-term consequences...

There are tons of laws they simply don't enforce. This would be one more.

Which laws? Who is "they?" Be clear.

It’s street art/graffiti. If someone wants to tag over it let them. Protecting this stuff with tax payer money is just stupid.

I think that's where I'm at too (as a lifelong fan of actual street art), but that leaves the question of why Banksy is privileged the way he is, for his trite brand of sub-tour-poster stencil work, most of which would be too on-the-nose for a Rage Against The Machine reissue cover.

> trite brand of sub-tour-poster stencil work, most of which would be too on-the-nose for a Rage Against The Machine reissue cover.

Art makes questions: It's both stencil-like and precisely, powerfully executed; it's both obviously 'on-the-nose' as you say, and penetrating. How is that all true simultaneously?

(I don't know; it's what I've wondered and you helped clarify the question.)

It has no subtext, poses no real questions (Reddit nailed this: "war is bad, innit?"), and pursues only "coolness". It is thus fashion more than it is art, and it's not daring fashion. Its closest analog is Shephard Fairey, of the Obama "HOPE" mural, who now spends his days "engineering meaningful brand experiences with authority & authenticity".

There's nothing wrong with that; I respect graphic design and branding deeply. But it's not deep or meaningful.

> It has no subtext, poses no real questions (Reddit nailed this: "war is bad, innit?"), and pursues only "coolness".

I can't read your mind but that sounds like the usual response to artwork that someone doesn't want to understand: the subjective judgment made truth, the absolutism (no curiosity, not even a possibility of anything else), the aggressive dismissal.

Sarcastic comments on Reddit are, IME, truly pursuing only 'coolness' and make no attempt at insight. Pursuing insight requires embracing ignorance and questions, thus surrendering the smarter-than-thou attitude.

You're missing out, IMHO.

You'd I think be the first person to argue that Banksy's art is too subtle for some people to get.

Whatever, but I'm saying they aren't trying. Understanding art, beyond the surface, takes work. Something in it provokes people, often a good signal.

I don't think understanding Banksy takes much work.

Maybe you're missing something. The sin is dismissing that even if you don't intend to pursue it. Especially when others say they see more - see my original comment.

Often, when I don't see something I later find I was looking in the wrong dimension (in a sort of geometric sense). Classical music aficionados rejected rock music as 'just noise'; they were looking for elements of classical music. Rock fans sometimes find classical boring for a similar reason.

In any case, I'm sorry you are missing out. :)

I love rock music. Banksy is the musical equivalent of My Chemical Romance.

I'd say the stencil work is a necessity so the grafitti can be painted as fast as possible.

Every serious street artist would disagree. Watch a video of someone putting one of these up. There's a zillion of them on Youtube.

Why does it take 85k to remove it from the wall? I'm pretty sure it doesn't cost that much. There is some ridiculous government inefficiency or embezzling happening or some kind of learned helplessness or malicious compliance. Just go, wash it off and done.

Rediculous government ineffiency is multiple redundancies. Just government. They could replace it with another commissioned Banksy for half of that.

$84,500 in the pockets of the government's favorite contracting companies.

$500 to the guy who pressure washes it off the side of the building

The article discusses this. They attempted to wash it off the building and failed.

Scrape it off. Lose a millimeter of the stone. Not the end of the world. These are self inflicted bullshit costs that cripple the government. Use common sense. If it's legally impossible, then update the laws to be sane.

This isn’t an American building where you buy a couple of two-by-fours and some plastic siding from Home Depot. It’s a historical building made out of stone.

You think a stone building is hard to clean with a Kärcher?

Not without damaging the masonry. It wouldn't matter at all if it were a standard municipal building, but this building is protected. If Banksy stenciled another My Chemical Romance poster on the Frank Lloyd Wright Unity Temple in Oak Park, you'd get a flavor for how complicated the discussion would be.

I have no idea what that temple is or which oak park you mean but I will take your words for it

It's one of the most famous Frank Lloyd Wright buildings (and architecturally one of his most important, and, apropos this story, his building that is most like the RCJ.)

Damn, the guy was productive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Frank_Lloyd_Wright_wor...

Your comment makes me realize I know nothing about US architecture

The job requires methods more akin to restoring a painting after a knobhead splashes it with ketchup than a pressure washer, as it is a historically preserved building.

It costs only 150k? Pay the man. Its public art. Its art, and a damn sight better than the advertisements, wait... are you comparing art to ads? Get the ads to pay for the art? This article is merely government propiganda. Oh Charles... wake up! Knight Banksy noe..

Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy said: ""Our courts are a national symbol of justice and the rule of law."

It seems like someone doesn't get the symbolism of the Banksy piece.

How could you not get the "symbolism" of Banksy? The man is as subtle as a Family Guy episode.

Uh, no, the piece isn't subtle. They simply disagree with it.

And the value of nothing.

A rounding error to support the arts.

why don't they just sell the works to recoup the costs?

how much does graffiti cost the public in general?

They can't; they're obligated by law to preserve the original structure the graffiti is painted on.

From TFA:

> As a final option, the affected stonework may have to be removed and replaced.

So it's definitely an option.

And well worth it. Too bad they defaced it.

> The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) says it has spent £50,000 trying to remove paint from the wall of the Grade II-listed building in Carey Street.

How in the world do you spend £50k to remove a graffiti?

From a very quick look online, “Grade II” means that the building is of historic or architectural interest. I think it’s reasonable to infer that cleaning graffiti off of a building like that might require materials or consultations that a normal removal wouldn’t, although I have no idea whether £50K is a reasonable amount for that. I guess it would depend on the material, size of the graffiti, etc.

Just a couple of years ago, activists painted a listed building in Norway that also costed about 100k USD to clean

https://www.nrk.no/norge/miljoaktivister-domt-til-a-betale-1...

It's a Grade II-listed building meaning you have to be very careful with it to restore it to its previous state. It's not enough to give it a good scrub, you've also got to ensure you minimise damage to the stonework. There'll also be required paperwork with the local authority to ensure the work they're doing is correct.

It's surprising to me. Spray paint mostly wipes off with cellulose thinners and a cloth.

"Think of the money!" This mentality needs to go extinct. Along with billionaires.

A multi-millionaire artist costs society £150k in damages and you are OK with that? Why doesn’t the artist pay for the cleanup and removal? They have more than enough money.

It's okay because it upsets all the right people.

Now do how much tourist money his works have brought in.

Well, prosecute him for vandalism then to recoup the costs?

Original art by Banksy is reportedly valued at millions of £ or $ [0]

The BBC says "Banksy works cost public almost £150k" because "The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) says it has spent £50,000 trying to remove paint from the wall of the Grade II-listed building in Carey Street."

Therefore, the title is incorrect. The cost to the public is much more than £150k. The Ministry's damage to this freely-contributed artwork has probably already cost the public a few million £, not just £150k

[0] https://www.dawsonsauctions.co.uk/news-item/how-much-is-an-o...

Have you considered that the public may be gaining something from the conversations and awareness that arise from the performance of this art? I invite you to move away from evaluating a piece of art simply in terms of the monetary cost to the tax payer.

Yes, I have considered that and I agree.

I didn't mention it only because it's difficult to attribute a monetary value to "conversations and awareness that arise from the performance of this art", while it's easy to cite the sale value of previous works.

Of course the poster has considered it, and disagrees with the message!

The government has appropriated Banksy's artworks (e.g. the police sentry box), and could sell them. If the sale of those artworks exceeds the cost of cleaning others, then the government has netted a profit, which takes the monetary argument off the table.

In effect, that's the point that I was making. I'm sorry if my writing was difficult to understand.

you mean... as opposed to removing the bricks with the art on them to auction off and replacing them with new bricks?

>removing the bricks with the art on them to auction off and replacing them with new bricks

That is in fact the kind of process I was suggesting. Auctioning the art would generate income; Destroying the art destroys income.

Destroying art generates income for the workers paid to destroy it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com