|
Right Or Wrong? Removing And Profiting From The Sale Of Street Art 3-min read by Kimberly Van Minh | Jan 31 2020 CRITIQUE SHARE
|
|
|
It was painted and drawn on the wall of an abandoned factory building by an iconic artist. Every day, hundreds if not thousands from the busy sidewalk and two-way carriage lane, would admire it, with many taking a snap for keepsakes. The nondescript building, which became a tourist attraction thanks to the mural, was later listed for redevelopment. Seeing that the artwork is highly valued (we're talking about millions, potentially), the muraled wall, now a private asset, was carefully extracted and kept in its original state, winding up in a prestigious auction house for profit – and away from the public eye where it was intended to be. So the question is this: Is it fair for iconic public artwork such as this to be sold without the consent of the artist, especially when the original intention in its creation had been for public consumption? One such "unauthorised" sale is Banksy's Slave Labour (2012) aka Bunting Boy – a mural painted behind a London discount shop. The mural depicts a young boy working at a sewing machine, cranking out a bunting featuring the British flag – which is rendered not in paint, but as a plastic, store-bought decoration. A year later, the same piece was removed from a Miami auction after Banksy fans protested, saying the work had been "stolen" from its original home. But it was later privately sold for a whopping US$1.1 million. In an act of protest, American street artist Ron English procured the mural five years later from a sale at Julien's Auctions for US$730,000, vowing to paint it white, though nobody knows if he has actually done so. His act of protest could be seen as a homage to American painter and graphic artist Robert Rauschenberg, who in 1953 infamously erased a drawing by Dutch-American abstract expressionist artist Willem de Kooning. The latter was the most famous modern artist during his time, and Rauschenberg who experimented erasing with his own work, figured de Kooning's piece would be groundbreaking. English also said that street artists were "tired of people stealing (their) stuff off the streets and reselling it". His stunt came more than a month after Banksy’s Girl With Balloon (2006) shredded itself partially during a live auction at Sotheby's London. That work, left half-intact by a malfunctioning shredder concealed in its frame, was subsequently retitled as a new piece of work, Love is in the Bin (2018), which fetched a cool £1 million. The piece was authenticated by Banksy's authentication body Pest Control. Slave Labour isn't Banksy's only work that vanished from its original location. Last year, his mural of a workman chiselling away at a star in the European Union flag disappeared from the side of a building in Dover, England. The mural, which had adorned the Castle Amusements building since 2017, symbolised Brexit. Like thieves in the night, the culprits erected a four-tier scaffolding beside the mural, and by the next morning, Dover residents noticed the artwork was gone. The mural was a tourist landmark in Dover, the ferry port that links the UK and France. Banksy, who remains anonymous, has so far only raised the issue of exhibitions being organised and promoted under his name without any authorisation from him. One such series is The Art Of Banksy exhibition. Last year, the late Keith Haring's murals at NYC's The Grace House, a former convent, also made its way to the auction house. The 85-foot-wide-mural that was drilled out of the walls was sold at a Bonhams auction for a staggering US$3.9 million. Grace House's owner, the Church of the Ascension, sold the building to cover its expenses. Some of Haring's most iconic works are the barking dog, the crawling baby, and two conjoined figures with a hole in their shared chest. The Keith Haring Foundation wasn't pleased about the sale. Its president Gil Vazquez told The New York Times that "this mural was not meant to be owned by a collector. It was meant to brighten a room full of children". That aside, if money is involved, should the creator or the artist's estate be rewarded accordingly, since the author's name is used to generate commercial interest? Unfortunately, the Visual Artists Rights Act (US) only allows artists some level of control over what happens to their art. If auction houses say such public-to-privately owned pieces help to raise artists' profiles, escalating the value of their body of work (which is by no means a guarantee), then what commissioned-based resellers are doing is opportunistic and hypocritical: savouring the fruits of labour by someone else – the artist – who is pocketing mere credit mentions. While one can float back to the argument that the wall of a building which is the canvas of the artwork is a privately-owned asset, perhaps the laws of intellectual property should be considered and discussed – as these protect ownership (and the creator) of such cultural pieces that are critical to the urban art landscape. In an act of protest, American street artist Ron English procured the mural five years later from a sale at Julien's Auctions for US$730,000, vowing to paint it white, though nobody knows if he has actually done so. His act of protest could be seen as a homage to American painter and graphic artist Robert Rauschenberg, who in 1953 infamously erased a drawing by Dutch abstract expressionist artist Willem de Kooning. The latter was the most famous modern artist of his time. Rauschenberg, who had experimented with erasure by wiping out his own drawings figured erasing Kooning's work would be something people would talk about. English also said that street artists were "tired of people stealing (their) stuff off the streets and reselling it". His stunt came more than a month after Banksy’s Girl With Balloon (2006) shredded itself partially during a live auction at Sotheby's London. That work, left half-intact by a malfunctioning shredder concealed in its frame, was subsequently retitled as a new piece of work, Love is in the Bin (2018), which fetched a cool £1 million. The piece was authenticated by Banksy's authentication body Pest Control. Slave Labour isn't Banksy's only work that vanished from its original location. Last year, his mural of a workman chiselling away at a star in the European Union flag disappeared from the side of a building in Dover, England. The mural, which had adorned the Castle Amusements building since 2017, symbolised Brexit. Like thieves in the night, the culprits erected a four-tier scaffolding beside the mural, and by the next morning, Dover residents noticed the artwork was gone. The mural was a tourist landmark in Dover, the ferry port that links the UK and France. Banksy, who remains anonymous, has so far only raised the issue of exhibitions being organised, curated and promoted under his name without any authorisation from him. One such series is The Art Of Banksy exhibition. Last year, the late Keith Haring's murals at NYC's The Grace House, a former convent, also made its way to the auction house. The 85-foot-wide-mural that was drilled out of the walls was sold at a Bonhams auction for a staggering US$3.9 million. Grace House's owner, the Church of the Ascension, sold the building to cover its expenses. Some of Haring's most iconic works are the barking dog, the crawling baby, and two conjoined figures with a hole in their shared chest. The Keith Haring Foundation wasn't pleased about the sale. Its president Gil Vazquez told The New York Times that "this mural was not meant to be owned by a collector. It was meant to brighten a room full of children". That aside, if money is involved, should the creator or the artist's estate be rewarded accordingly, since the author's name is used to generate commercial interest? Unfortunately, the Visual Artists Rights Act (US) only allows artists some level of control over what happens to their art. If auction houses say such public-to-privately owned pieces help to raise artists' profiles, escalating the value of their body of work (which is by no means a guarantee), then what commissioned-based resellers are doing is opportunistic and hypocritical: savouring the fruits of labour by someone else – the artist – who is pocketing mere credit mentions. While one can float back to the argument that the wall of a building which is the canvas of the artwork is a privately-owned asset, perhaps the laws of intellectual property should be considered and discussed – as these protect ownership (and the creator) of such cultural pieces that are critical to the street art landscape.
|
