Is it art? You decide
'Banksy' graffiti, Stoke Newington Church Street Photo: © 2009 The Hackney Citizen Ltd
THE destruction of a ‘Banksy‘ mural on private property has provoked criticism of a wider issue – Hackney Council’s refusal to distinguish between graffiti and public art.
The 20ft mural, now mostly covered in black paint, featured a spoof portrait of the Royal Family waving from a balcony. The design featured on Blur’s ‘Crazy People’ single in 2003 and it was worth an estimated £200,000.
The owner of the property, Sophie Attrill, 50, received no prior warning of the council’s intentions to remove the mural. Three statutory notices had been sent to a previous address due to incorrect details being held at the Land Registry office.
Having had no reply to the letters, the council exercised its power to act by default and sent in a graffiti removal team. Attrill – who was reportedly in tears – and an impromptu gathering of residents intervened to stop the removal team from completing their job.
A spokesperson said, “[Hackney] Council has a clear procedure in place, but it is unfortunate that in this case the details held by the Land Registry were incorrect.”
The Council’s website outlines its position on graffiti, stating: “Graffiti is illegal, anti-social and it degrades the local environment.”
No reference is made to the concept of public art, though the council stated that a private resident may apply for planning permission to prevent any alteration to their property.
Councillor Alan Laing, cabinet member for neighbourhoods, defended the council’s policy following the removal of the mural, saying, “Hackney Council’s position on graffiti is not to make a judgement call on whether graffiti is art or not – our task is to keep Hackney’s streets clean.”
This contrasts sharply with a new street art policy in Bristol, which seeks to”‘define and support the display of public art.”
Residents of Banksy’s reputed home turf will be able to cast an online vote as to whether a piece of public art should be removed or preserved, provided the owner of the property has raised no objections.
Photographs will be posted on Bristol Council’s website and notices may be placed next to the public artworks themselves.
Councillor Gary Hopkins, Bristol’s executive member for environment and community safety said, “We will use every means possible to tell people about the consultation.
When asked whether a public vote would only result in protecting Banksy’s creations, Mr Hopkins replied, “It doesn’t matter if it is famous or not – the question is whether the public want it to stay.”
Hackney Council however, regards the policy in Bristol as purely Banksy-orientated and it will not be adopted in Hackney. A spokesperson said, “Bristol’s consultation specifically looks at the removal of Banksy graffiti – it is his home city.”
Closer by, in Islington, there is no written policy on graffiti removal on private property, but a spokesperson from the council provided the following statement: “We work with landowners, such as Transport for London (TfL), Network Rail and registered social landlords to remove problem graffiti on private property. With the exception of obscene graffiti we cannot take it off private buildings without the owners’ consent.”
On council-owned buildings, Islington has adopted the following policy: “On our own property, we can take it off – or even repair it – in the case of Banksy. This would be a discretionary decision made by a senior officer.”
At the time of going to press, Hackney Council and Ms Attrill had not reached an agreement as to what next steps may be taken. Hackney Council said that it would continue with its programme of works, aiming to clean up the borough.
Let us know what you think via our online poll on public art. Treasure or trash? – you decide.
Previous story on public art here.
Well done to Hackney Citizen for exposing more of Hackney Council stupid antics…
Mark
I’m sure there was a “Banksy” on a wall at the corner of Urswick Rd and Lower Clapton Road – a little girl sliding down the drainpipe but it has been painted over too.
so much of our public space is dominated by corporate ads and sponsorship (billboards, buses, shop fronts, development sites etc). none of this is remotely in the public interest, aesthetically pleasing, playful, enjoyable, creative. it’s all crap designed to sell us stuff we don’t need or want – why aren’t the council protecting us from all that crap rather than spending time and money destroying creative community expression? “Billboard advertising is anti-social and it degrades the local environment.”
We should have the right to vote, i agree with Katie about corporate ads & sponsorship.
no one ask us for this things to be in every street corner! street art isn’t vandalism! we should fight for stuff like that, for us now & for our kids, to not live in a world like the book “1984”
What a spectacular PR own goal for Hackney Council! I do so hope that the official who overruled his/her own employees/contractors (as they tried to point out that painting over the Banksy would be a Really Bad Idea), and insisted the wall was painted over – I hope that person loses his/her job, quite frankly. The have certainly brought Hackney Council into disrepute. If they were my employee, I’d sack them for gross misconduct.
The thing is – it’s an act of willful philistinism. They went out of their way to do this… to a piece of street art that has been there for the best part of a decade, and which used to make me smile every time I saw it. And which existed on a building with the express permission of its owner.
You can just see the cogs going round in this bureaucrat’s head – “Mucky leftie oiks who like grafitti – we’ll show them; get out the black paint!” If you look around Hackney you can see quite a selection of walls painted with ugly matte black paint. All the work of the Hackney censors (self appointed – we didn’t vote for this particular type of idiocy). All at the same time that an internationally reported smash-hit exhibition of Banky’s work is bringing £millions into Bristol’s economy! It beggars belief!
So anyway – the Banksy is ruined (but lives on in many photos). I think the best thing would be to finish off the black-out, and to do an even bigger, brighter one over it. Something on the subject of power corrupting perhaps? Something the owner of the building likes, and can explicitly tell Hackney council to [….] leave well alone.
Oh – and by the way, I completely agreedwith the other comments about billboards and street advertising. It’s a hateful plague, and I’d vote tomorrow to have it banned in Hackney.
I was in Prague in 1990, before there was any street advertising, and the difference it makes to the feel of public spaces was extraordinary. It was like breathing clean air for the first time.
Who gains from street advertising, apart from the owners of the locations, and (obliquely) the advertisers? No one. Get rid of them. Get out the matte black paint and start covering up!
me and my family want council to keep this art work on the wall. dont destroy it please. you ve already get rid of the half of it. its really shame. shame on you.
I say the next painting should be bold, and clear in meaning…something that mocks the intelligence or cultural awareness of the Hackney Council–something with the express permission of the owner.
Below the painting, big, bright letters “Vandalize the Hackney Council’s Reputation”
or “And God said ‘Go forth and vandalize'”
Watch how fast they “accidentally” paint over it.