You don’t have to go to college, drag ’round a portfolio, mail off transparencies to snooty galleries or sleep with someone powerful. All you need now is a few ideas and a broadband connection. This is the first time the essentially bourgeois world of art has belonged to the people. We need to make it count.-Banksy
The Banksy is gone...too bad.
Last Edit: Apr 13, 2010 18:29:08 GMT -8 by steveinca
now what?? it's called a stolen art? or someone who owns this property took it for his collection??
maybe we should look for the ebay.
Good question. I'm bummed because I didn't get a chance to see it. Was planning on driving down sometime this week. Here's what a member of the banksy forum said.... "not stolen.... I have a video of the guys taking the piece away. I know who did it and why =)" I've asked him to elaborate, but he has yet to.
Sadly this is what I feared about these pieces hitting LA. The art scene is so big there and let's face it not every gallery owner is in it only for the art, and there are plenty of other industries filled with uber greed located theree. I am by no means indicting the institutions of Art but in my opinion Banksy and all street art belongs on the streets. If you want some buy the street artists gallery work. I think most would agree with that here. I pray that this ends well somehow.
And definitely bummed that you didn't get to see it, Steve.
So a guy by the name of Doug Christmas from Ace Gallery took it upon himself to remove it. Damn, that really ticks me off. I'm curious to know if the owner of the property realizes what he had, or if Doug ripped him off. Would be great to contact the property owner and let him know that someone removed an art piece worth a hundred thousand bucs off of his property.
Last Edit: Apr 14, 2010 14:13:22 GMT -8 by steveinca
Doug Christmas owns the property or at least manages it.... It is shady but this is more of buyer beware, I wonder if Banksy like in new york didn't get permission before he put it up .... Kinda of weird location, almost not really the typical kinda place he would do it...
Kinda of weird location, almost not really the typical kinda place he would do it...
It certainly does seem like a strange location. I'm not sure of where exactly it was in relation to the street, where it would gain the highest degree of visibility..which I presume is what any street artists is aiming for. It seemed a little hidden from the images, behind that fence and all. But maybe it wasn't at all, as someone spotted it pretty quick.
Beyond that, what are the odds of Banksy selecting this site, owned or managed by apparently one of the most unethical gallery owners out there, for essentially the only large scale installation while in LA (yes, I'm aware of the swing install)? Seems all too coincidental too me. Not sure exactly what the implication is. But seriously...what the hell are the odds. I suppose he could've been completely oblivious to the location he chose and it was purely a matter of coincidence. And pretty convenient for it to have been stenciled on the only bit of drywall in the entire building. That whole structure where the stencil was just looks off too. It almost appears as if the drywall itself was recently installed on that wall purely for the purpose of safely being able to remove piece where the artwork would be, with it being extended off the cement wall itself. Something is not right about this..on both the property owner and even the artist side of the equation.
Would be great to contact the property owner and let him know that someone removed an art piece worth a hundred thousand bucs off of his property.
Not that this piece will sell quickly or at all without authentication, especially now that Banksy is denouncing the theft and almost backing off of the execution entirely, but I think you'd need to add another zero into the mix of that estimate. There are unique reclaimed street pieces in various gallery inventories a fraction of the size for 100k sterling. A piece this size and this unique - if authenticated - would go for way closer to a mill.
Wow, guys. This just keeps getting crazier and crazier. Now rumors are circulating that this in fact wasn't a Banksy, it was an imposter who put the piece up at the request of this Doug guy, so he could take it down and sell it as a Banksy. If this is true, how horrible and what a lowlife that guy is.
Well, I wouldn't say there is something shady on the artist side (hopefully).
I'm wondering if there is something we don't know. I'm sure someone was taking Banksy around to show him spots to hit up, so why would they tell him to do the one owned by a shady gallery owner? Was Banksy jacked by his so-called friend? Also why would he stencil drywall instead of concrete or something harder to remove as per his usual MO which leads to the question is this a fake as Steve said.
Post by oldfartatplay on Apr 15, 2010 7:13:07 GMT -8
Well, It's for sale on ebay now Seller says "I can NOT confirm this to be a Banksy piece." Which to me means it isn't. http://cgi.ebay.com/BANKSY-GUARD-ON-DUTY-STENCIL-KOONS-DOG_W0QQitemZ250615685539QQcmdZViewItemQQptZArt_Paintings?hash=item3a59dbe1a3#ht_500wt_1182
I think this piece must have been placed with the intention of removing it for sale. There are just too many coincidences. I'm going with fake.
It's either one of two scenarios:
1. It was put up by a banksy imposter, hired by this Ace Gallery owner guy so he can take it down and sell it off as a legitimate banksy piece
2. Banksy knew who owned the building and put it there on purpose. There are several reasons why he may have done this. Perhaps he wanted to make a statement about these so called Galleries that steal art off of the street. Or, perhaps he's in on the sale(i really doubt it).
If i had to guess, i'd say that it's a fake. I just don't see Banksy purposely putting this piece up on property that is owned by one of the shadiest and least respected gallery owners in LA.