On 22 Feb, 15:13, John B wrote:
On 22 Feb, 14:31, MIG wrote:

The little ******* were recently active on the westbound FCC platform walls
at Barbican, tagging the brickwork again. Bad in itself - but TPTB have seen
fit to remove the "artwork", not with a high-pressure hose but with a
liberal application of cream paint, which looks equally as bad. Considering
the fine brick retaining walls at the station, it's a shame that the job
couldn't have been done with a little more sympathy. It looks bloody awful!

Wheres John Band to argue that deep down they're just misunderstood
artists wot 'ave a golden 'art an all luv their mums....

*Whatever*. Banksy's work /is/ art; if you can't appreciate that
you're a ****wit. Tox06 is a mindless vandal with no artistic merit at
all.

Most grafitiists lean towards the Tox06 model than the Banksy model,
but not all. And even the Tox06-ists are hardly up there with brick-
throwers and knife-wielding thugs in the whole "really bad people it's
worth getting upset about and throwing in jail for ages" stakes.

No one who changes someone else's design (even just a brick wall)
without permission is an artist.

That's an interesting contribution to the philosophy of art. Shame
about Andy Warhol though (at least, I don't think he got permission
from Campbell Soup). In fact, you lose most 20th and 21st century art
based on that criterion... perhaps you don't view that as much of a
loss.

When did he change someone's design? He may have copied it, which is
of no concern to me. Possibly copying of design is what you are
talking about with respect to most 20th and 21st century art.

I wasn't aware that he painted over a load of existing soup tins with
his own design. I am talking about someone changing a specific wall/
train/painting/whatever that someone has designed, however badly in
one's opinion.

If I don't like the Mona Lisa and paint a moustache on it without
permission, I am imposing something on someone else's design when I
have no business to do so.