• edgemaster72@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I wonder how hard it would be to make a stencil to somewhat recreate the original in a way that could be quickly applied. For scientific reasons, of course.

  • CptOblivius@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    11 hours ago

    The remaining outline reminds me of the silhouettes left of people on stone after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is in some ways more haunting and powerful.

    • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Honestly a better outcome than the wall being cut out, replaced and auctioned to some rich fucks with millions to spend on artwork. And Banksy reportedly hates that so that’s cool that it’s gone now

    • BakedCatboy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      65
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Yeah just like that one in the shredder frame that shredded it as soon as it was sold - the removal could be seen as an unwitting part of the performance art.

      • Obi@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        I bet the shredded one tripled in value when it happened, buyer was probably very pleased. (Yes I’m too lazy to go verify my hunch).

        Edit: yep, it originally fetched a bit over £1M at that auction, then was sold again a few years later for £18.6M lol.

  • plactagonic@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    15 hours ago

    The building has stone cladding and graffiti on stone has to be removed quite quickly because after a while it is nearly impossible to clean it.

    Don’t get me wrong it is still pr disaster and it should be handled differently, the cover of it, standing policemans around… It just gives feeling that they don’t want anyone to see it (which was maybe someones intention). Leaving it visible with some press release about protecting stone buildings and cleaning it immediately afterwards would be better pr option.

    • lividweasel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I’m not familiar with the building, but it looks like it could be limestone, which is porous. That would make it difficult to remove something painted on without removing a decent amount of material from the surface. The paint is probably in there pretty good, and power washing may have pushed it deeper.

  • stray@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    14 hours ago

    I think the commentary about it being removed is pretty stupid, honestly. I can’t imagine that if I spraypainted a lovely mural of kittens playing with butterflies that they’d leave it up. It’s really got nothing to do with the art itself and everything to do with it being a wall which the artist did not have the legal right to paint. I don’t think Banksy put it up with the idea that it would remain there forevermore.

    The silhouette looks sick as fuck though, better than the original imo, and I have to wonder if that was his intent. Maybe he treated the wall in some way that he knew would have this result.

    • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Banksy has put murals on many a wall without permission. This doesn’t tend to happen.

      In fact the owner of the wall is usually happy as they might be able to cut out the piece and sell it.

      Not saying it would have stayed forever but they had better options than censorship.

  • k0e3@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Now, it looks like the remnants of nuclear blast victims as if to say you gotta blow it all to smithereens before this can be fixed.