One is on a canvas the artist purchased. One is on the side of a building the vandal doesn't own and doesn't have permission to paint. It's a very simple concept.
Still painted on someone else's property without permission, which they will have to spend time and money to remove (if they so choose). Doesn't matter who the artist is. Its awesome, but also vandalism.
Actually I do. While he does occasionally erect his own structures to do his art, he also uses building, which (as far as anyone knows since he chooses to remainanonymous) he DOES NOT OWN.
As I said, I appreciate his art and his activism, but the basic root of vandalism still applies, unless of course he gets permission by the owners, which is an entirely different matter.
Yeah nobody's saying that just because it's vandalism doesn't mean it still isn't art, in my opinion really good art. It's still art just also illegal and considered vandalism.
Well it IS technically vandalism. Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of Banksy's stuff, but he still generally paints it on other people's property. If there's no permission granted, it's vandalism by definition. But it's kind of meant to be, part of his art is about putting things in normally unsanctioned spaces.
It's actually the building owner that gets fined (assuming they don't catch the person, and that's probably a 1:1000 chance).
Unless it's commissioned art or it's your own building, it's vandalism. [Even if it's your own building, if the city doesn't like it, they can fine you ;)]
Not to be racist but it looks like the black guy killed someone and the blood splattered on a random ass canvas and now he's selling it. That's what I call thinking one step ahead.
As I said, I appreciate his art and his activism, but the basic root of vandalism still applies, unless of course he gets permission by the owners, which is an entirely different matter.
Unless it's commissioned art or it's your own building, it's vandalism. [Even if it's your own building, if the city doesn't like it, they can fine you ;)]