Banksey's latest street art

Banksy could be a cartoonist. His art is reminiscent of that style.

Very true Foinavon, and none the worse for that.  Have you seen the Central Park story? - proper Banksy's on sale for $60.  Not sure if he was fed up with the fakes, or wanted to make a point about inflated art prices, or maybe both. Mind you he wouldn't be the first artist to get famous. whilst "trying" not to be.

Good grief it gets dafter
.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-42857424

Window cleaner comes to clean vandalism off it.
What a savour....they needed somebody with a sponge and a ladder and old window cleaner pro was at hand to save the day like banana man ffs

New year honours list awaits.

No, I hadn't seen that, Blackbarn. The top end art market is a law unto itself, controlled by elites who use it as a long-term piggy-bank.

Vandalism for me as well just like all graffiti.

Injera - The problem with that position comes when the graffiti is obviously art.    Now let me guess your response

simple test

banksy graffittis your garrage door

do you wash it off or sell it for 500k ?

It's a violation of other peoples' property!

donny muddies the water a tad...

Banksy works are brilliant.

Such a shame half wits want to destroy them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-42484761

Maybe someone who has profited from Banksy can fund the cost of repairing these vintage trains?

Beautiful trains , it shows the mentality of yobs like banksy and the mindless rubbish he produces

every wall no matter how plain or crumbled,  every building no matter how derelict is made uglier by any form of mural of any form of vandalism

"mindless rubbish"

The forum's right wing once again display Talibanesque tendancies

It's why you always have to be prepared to move house every 10 years or so to get away from people like that

They would paint on trees if they could get away with it

how anyone could take a spray can to a wall is beyond my understanding

I watched that Blackbarn and it was called Banksy Does New York. From memory, he set himself a target of displaying a new piece of work somewhere in the city every day for a month.

lfc - "every wall no matter how plain or crumbled,  every building no matter how derelict is made uglier by any form of mural of any form of vandalism.  lfc may have a point, the Sistine Chapel is a particularly nasty example.

I don't have to see the Sistene chapel everyday from were I live
It's in Italy thank god and that's were it should stay ,
If you want to see art visit a museum , I like art but I get tired in museums
ps , the Michael Angelo painting is very overrated

It's not to my taste , I prefer a small Lowry
He painted pictures of walls and factories , very beautiful
He didn't paint on walls

One small painting by Lowry is worth a thousand Sistene chapel paintings (
the painting not the building)
Just my opinion

I wouldnt say Banksey's attempts are up to much.
There isnt very much artistic merit lets put it like that.

He certainly does plenty of preparation before he stencils onto walls, and some of the content is mildly amusing.
My mother used to spray fake christmas snow on the windows in shapes that were precut into stencils, the medium is neither new nor much of a signifier of ability.

I believe the subjects he stencils relate to much of society, but there are far more competent artists showing their work on YouTube who probably dont get a fraction of the money his works go for.
Its just the stupidity of easily led people.

The Art is in the idea....not in the calibre of the production of the work.

Centuries ago artists created work that others could never reproduce.
Now artists create stuff anyone could make.

Its the degradation of ability, the dumbing down of society.

art is about ideas dustybin not about unique technical talent.  A photograph can be art but a photograph of art isn't.

What amazes me is how there arnt many copies flooding streets around the world.
There is nothing particularly good beyond mildly amusing about his 'art'
I bet I could create one on any subject that nobody could determine wasnt done by Banksy

I agree with dustybin.

Saddo - What? that you could one as well as Dustybin and that would be as good as Banksy's......and Dusty's?   This one could run and run

There's more than a whiff of Emperors clothes about Banksy. A genius for elevating the prices of his 'work' though.

Saddo - Everyone has an opinion about every artist.   Mine is that your opinion is one of the stupidest ill-informed posts about a living artist that I have read.

Good for you.

if you don't think this is good you are soulless

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauer-betlehem.jpg

Saddo - since you clearly don't get it, let me try to explain my view.

"Emperors new clothes" suggests something pretending to be something that it is not. Banksy is not pretending his work is anything other than artistic execution of a simple process.

"A genius for elevating the prices of his work though". How does this work then?  By definition, his original work is on privately owned property and therefore cannot be sold at his profit.  OK, he can profit from his prints and that market is lucrative, but he is selling tens of "first impresssion" works in New York Central Park at $60 apiece. 

I like his work, you apparently don't, but as you say "Good for you"

Odd how he is never caught on footage with the billions of cctv , mobile phones .........................

I don't dislike his work, I never look at it. I am not one of those who are attracted by hype and slick marketing.

Saddo - "I don't dislike his work, I never look at it. I am not one of those who are attracted by hype and slick marketing."

but "informed" enough to spout......There's more than a whiff of Emperors clothes about Banksy. A genius for elevating the prices of his 'work' though.

You seem more than a little put out because someone does not fawn over graffiti. Are you feeling unwell?

If you read my posts carefully on here you will know my views on graffiti. Do I take your silly "are you feeling unwell" post as a white flag or do you want to debate further on the subject? Just wondering?

dave put me down as soul less  - that was a heap of -  Now if you want to talk about jmw turner that is a different matter

I haven't a clue what you are talking about tbf. I quite possibly see art more often than you, though I don't feel that is boast worthy, nor do I expect you to like what I see. I certainly would not be abusive if you did not.

Blackbarn ^

Saddo - You say you "possibly see more art more often that me" and that may be the case. What do you do? I buy and sell modern art. My specialist subject is Grosvenor School linocuts. I also do sussex stuff specifically - Ravilious, Bawden et al.   What do you do. or see

I did say possibly. I visit Yorkshire scuplture park almost weekly, and The Hepworth Gallery when something new comes in. I prefer the Moore stuff to Hepworth's in the main, though I do think she'd have made a great designer of suspension bridges. I think Chatsworth is magical for the modern sculpture hidden around the gardens, but it's a drive.

If you'd started talking commonsense earlier we could have had a good debate. Only kidding, well just a bit!!

It's hard to take some of these "new" artists seriously when you have only seen a bit. You get Tracey Emin's unmade bed, then you get to see some drawings, then you think hang on!!, then she's Professor of Drawing (ffs) at the Royal Academy.

Who was it who said trust nothing of what you hear and half of what you see.

Take the bed rubbish away and she is still much more miss than hit for me, though I think she really can draw. Moores drawings are spookily precice if rather spooky also. I haven't seen owt by Antony Gormley that I didn't really like, including the Angel. It must be a Northern thing as I am a sucker for Hockney as well.

art is about ideas dustybin not about unique technical talent.  A photograph can be art but a photograph of art isn't.

Value is attained by endeavours of the artisan, in whatever skill that emanates.

It is often said that art is what it makes people think, and to an extent that is true, but art tends to be purposefully open ended to take on whatever narrative the observer may make, while aesthetics are universal to the extent we are all born with an intuitionist basis of recognising such things.

What I see is a multitude of pretence that makes up for a lack of ability in creating a thing of beauty; in that sense these art forms are simply opportunistic.

The analogy of the camera could be used to suggest that perfection in skill is the recreation of reality by the hands alone.
That is where art went following the Renaissance until the likes of expressionism went off half c0ck and any and all jumped aboard plying trades in making things out of nothing, mainly for money.