Anonymous British graffiti artist and provocateur, Banksy, recently passed through Detroit, leaving at least three pieces scattered throughout the city. And, one of those pieces, entitled “I remember when all this was trees,” is in the news today… It appears as though our friends at Gallery 555 stole it.
This photo, taken by Jason Matthews for the Detroit Free Press, shows Gallery 555’s Carl Goines and Monte Martinez dismantling the crumbling Packard plant wall recently marked by Banksy.
Following is a clip from the Detroit Free Press:
…The move — a guerilla act on top of Banksy’s initial guerilla act — has sparked an intense debate about the nature of graffiti art, including complicated questions of meaning, legality, value and ownership. Some say the work should be protected and preserved at all costs. Others say that no one had a right to move it — and that the power and meaning of graffiti art is so intrinsic to its location that to relocate it is to kill it….
The folks at 555 Gallery and Studios know that not everyone agrees with their decision to move the mural, but they’re adamant they did the right thing. They don’t want to sell it or squirrel it away like a keepsake. They want to protect it and keep it on display for all…
Personally, I’m not sure what to think of it. Part of me agrees that the context was critical to the piece. Another part of me, however, is thankful that Carl and Monte assembled a crew to go amid the ruin and rescue it. I’d be curious to know what Banksy thinks of it. My guess is, as long as they didn’t take it with the intention of reselling it, that he’d be OK with it, but who knows? Maybe he’s pissed. And, maybe his opinion shouldn’t matter, anyway, as he didn’t own the wall. Once you’re in the world of vandalism, do ordinary rules apply? I’d like to stay up and think about it, but I have to go to sleep now.
30 Comments
If we’re voting, I say the 555 were in the right.
At least I find what they did a lot less egregious that what art dealers used to do in the subways of New York, collecting the works of Keith Haring and selling them for tons of money.
I agree with Knox…I think.
I’m still contemplating this, in part because of mention that there is no intent to hoard/sell, but I do lean on the other side. There are other precedents at stake. Such as: who else could claim this “authority” in the future? And, as mentioned, how much does the location play into the display as a whole?
I found it to be a beautiful sentiment among such severe wreckage. What other sentiments are at stake?
You forfeit the right to your own property when it, by it’s existence, doesn’t respect others’ property rights. Graffiti artists have no right to bitch.
As it’s all built around vandalism, it’s kind of hard to be judgmental. I’m not angry with 555 now, but I reserve the right to change my mind later, if I hear that they’ve sold the piece to a private collector.
The thing that’s criminal is the fact that the owners of the property allowed it to get this way in the first place.
Kim, I agree. The piece in it’s original location called attention to that notion.
Does the 555 move all good street art or just stuff done by famous people? They have the right to move it but they’re being way to self righteous about it and missing the whole point of public art. I think it should have stayed where it was. Now I want to go to the 555 and paint over it. I’m sure it’s insured for thousands. Maybe the owner of the Packard plant will sue them for theft. It is officially theirs.
I think I’m against their moving it. Sure they might not sell it, but ‘keeping it on display for all’ presumably means keeping it in their own gallery so that people will come in to see it. I mean it’s better than the guy that went around splashing paint on Banksy and other artists’ work, but it still ain’t right. Why not take some high quality photographs of the piece in its original site and hang that in your gallery instead?
Anyone want to go with me to take a wall from the 555 gallery?
so its ok for a gallery to get PR and gain massive amounts of attention and invite people to view it at THEIR gallery when they dont even represent the artist? no, no its not. i call bullshit on anyone claiming this isnt just greed masked under noble intention. its been taken out of its desired context and is therefore useless. would you take an warhol out of a gallery and put it in the street because YOU think it will be safer? no, because the warhol belongs in the gallery just like the banksy belongs in the “street”…after all he DID put it there and not in 555 gallery.
this is a non-profit gallery whos very own mission statement is to nurture LOCAL artists. why then would you take a well established famous foreign artists work out of the place he put it and bring it to your gallery? the very nature of the work welcomes the possible decay or defacing of it…its part of the life and personality of his work.
“preserve” lol…
Amen MEan!
OK, I’m being swayed.
Haha – yes! I’ll be chilling on this side of the fence.
It was wrong for the gallery to move the painting. Part of the impact of this piece of art is the surroundings that the artist choose to paint it in and on. To remove it is to remove the impact of the work itself. If the painting was left where the artists intended it to be then interested people would make the trip to see it, and then perhaps that trip would wake more people up to the plight of Detroit and perhaps it would spur a clean up or revitalization of the area. I think removing it removes the artist original intend.
The gallery could have easily screwed a high quality plexi glass cover onto the cement in order to preserve the painting in it’s original location.
Speaking of Art, has anyone else seen the TV commercial for the new reality show that’s purpose is to pick the “Best Artist”? What self respecting artist would participate in that kind of show…not any good ones I know. Makes my stomach turn.
A second Banksy is stolen in Detroit:
Read the rest:
http://www.freep.com/article/20100618/ENT05/6180307/1322/2nd-Banksy-work-leaves-Packard
A followup piece in the Freep shows just how messy a question this is:
Detroit officials seek Packard plant owners: Lawsuit may reveal persons who can be accountable for site
So we have a business that doesn’t exist, filing suit in the name of a guy who denies involvement, against some guys who removed a piece of graffiti from a collapsing factory that nobody really knows who owns. And the suit claims, what, that these guys vandalized this property by removing a piece of prior vandalism, when the mere ownership of the property itself is perhaps the largest act of vandalism is metro Detroit?
Totally awesome.
This is the kind of stuff that should make it into that new network cop show shot in Detroit. It’s fascinating stuff and it clearly demonstrates some of the huge issues we’re facing in the city. But, they’ll probably stick to murder.
The second piece that Banksy did in Detroit is now up for auction on Ebay.
http://www.freep.com/article/20100810/ENT05/100810041/1319/Once-in-Packard-Plant-Banksy-work-on-eBay
Here it is.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Authentic-BANKSY-Graffiti-Art-Wall-CANARY-CAGE-/320572163243?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0
I like the new art on the wall where the original piece was.
The court case over this piece appropriated by the 555 is getting national press coverage.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704071304576160544164062176-lMyQjAxMTAxMDEwMTExNDEyWj.html
The courts have spoken, and the piece belongs to the 555.
http://www.freep.com/article/20110911/ENT05/109110402/555-Gallery-gets-OK-display-Banksy-mural?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs
OK, now they’re selling it.
Read more:
http://motorcitymuckraker.com/2014/03/07/banksy-mural-for-sale-detroit-gallery-offers-up-rare-find/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+motorcitymuckraker%2FOudx+%28Motor+City+Muckraker%29
I can see their logic, but they’re going to take a lot of heat for this.
It reminds me, in some weird way, of the MASH episode where Charles was so pissed off to discover that expensive chocolates that he’d donated to a Korean orphanage were sold to US servicemen instead of being given to the children. He was told that, for the money that the sale of the chocolates brought in, the children could eat for months, instead of just one day, and it made him look like a jackass for yelling. It was a dumb, obvious plot line, but, for whatever reason, it’s stuck with me over 30 years. (I prefer the episode where Klinger attempted to eat a jeep.) At any rate, it’s something to consider. I’m still not happy about it, though, and I suspect there will be a backlash. I haven’t really been involved since I was a member of 555 back in the Ypsi days, but I wish them well.
It’s going up for auction in LA.
http://www.metrotimes.com/Blogs/archives/2015/07/30/packard-banksy-headed-for-la-auction-block
Every cent of the sale should be given AWAY to charity. Until that happens I do not wish 555 well at all.
It sold at auction for $137,500 at auction in Los Angeles.
Read more:
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2015/09/detroit_banksy_mural_sells_for.html
I bet this costs 555 more than $100k in bad feelings.
Yeah, my guess is that they thought it would go for more. Hardly seems worth all the bad publicity for only a little over $100,000.
Completely unethical even if it sold for 10 million.
3 Trackbacks
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mark Maynard, pot & box. pot & box said: RT @MarkMaynard …stealing a banksy in detroit: http://bit.ly/b0JETp […]
[…] “What if,” I thought, “I could arrange to have the guys from Gallery 555 bring their priceless Banksy from Detroit, and set it up in the beer garden, for people to urinate against?” I’ve […]
[…] list of The 7 Top Social Media Jokes About The Packard Plant’s Tiger Shoot with my witty Gallery 555 […]