Hacker News Reader

Comment by FatalLogic | Hacker News Reader

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...

View on HN

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.

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

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.

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