Scholastic ART > Debate Blog
 
 

« Picasso Mystery | Main

Who Owns Street Art?

A painting by famed street artist Banksy was found on the wall of an abandoned automobile factory in Detroit in May 2010. Shortly after the painting was discovered, volunteers from an arts organization called 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios went to the site. They cut through the 1,500-pound cinder-block wall and removed the work. They put it on public display in their gallery.

Removing the art started a debate. Some people thought it should have been left where the artist placed it. Others believe it was right to preserve the work before it was destroyed. Still others argued the building’s owner should decide. At the time, no one knew who owned the factory. It had been abandoned for more than 50 years. Now an owner has come forward and filed a lawsuit to get the painting back—it could be worth a lot of money. Other works by Banksy have sold for more than $100,000.

its not right what the gellery did to the painting from a airtis who work on it for days or weeks or yeaes that not right the should give it back to the owner of the factory

no

if the owner want its back than give it back or try to buy it from him

I think it was wrong to remove the art because part of the art is where the artist created it. I think it should have stayed where it was at.

when they moved it it lost its initial meaning, it was painted there to show the harm of industrialization

no i think it was wrong because it was not theres and they took it and sold it for them to get money and i think that they should of gave it back to the man.

it wrong to move the art because it found property of another.

I think this was wrong because now they caused all this controversy over nothing and if it was left there nobody would have said anything and the owner of that factory wouldn't have filed a lawsuit about it.

i think that they should have took it and put it on display because its on there property, so its theres.


YMCMB !!

It Was wrong because you should not do nothing like that to a person that has worked hard for something

No it was wrong to remove the art because the artist painted in that location for a reason. To move it changes the meaning.

it was wrongg

it was wronqq

The artist put it there for an obvious reason and to just tear it down and basically steal it just shows how selfish people can be

it was wrong because you don't take credit for somebody elses work .

No, it's not ok for them to put the artist's art inside for display because it was on the wall for a reason. If he wanted it in doors, he probably would have created it to go indoors, but it was made to be on the wall, and that isn't right that they touched it.

it aint right because people who did that art, put their own time and hard work to do that art and its not right to just move they're art withput them knowing

I think it was okay for the gallery to move the art into their gallery. They obviously thought it was that valuable and important that they wanted to keep it safe. They want this piece of art to stay forever instead of it having a possibility of getting destroyed in the streets.

i think it was right to remove the art because it will be in a gallary and be preserved better then the factory owner could have preserved it

the artist put it there for a reason it was wrong to remove it, he obviously didn't want it in a gallery he wanted it to be seen by people passing by

It's wrong. Whoever made it, owned it!

yes it was right to remove the art because if thay didnt remove the art work it would have been destroyed were it was originaly placed ....nd if thay worked on if for years nd months weeks no it will b placed were every 1 can c it in stead of it being wrecked and i do some realy good art work to nd for that to b placed id love it i wouldnt want it destroyed

No, I don't believe it was right to move the art because first off they should of asked permission from the artist and also the location of the piece is meant to be there. It's the location that probably inspired the art and this location is like a piece of the art also.

they shouldn't have removed the art because if the owner left it their then maybe the owner was going to come and get it later on

they shouldn't have taken it down because maybe the owner was gonna come back for it

no they shouldn't have removed it for one thing it was not their property or right to take that peice of art. they were wrong for another reason and that being that it was put there to be there, and why should i have to go to a building to see a peice of art work that was out in public.

I don't think that the "owner" should get it, because the factory has been abandoned for more than 50 years, and now, all of sudden this owner shows up and wants this expensive piece of artwork? why should we give it to him and let him have it, when we could put it in an art museum for the whole world to see?

The artwork was made to be temporary and it probably only took the artist a short time to do it. Banksy creates his artwork to be temporary, so why move it? We have pictures of it anyway. But, if people want to put it in a gallery, I don't mind. It won't really change anything.

Personally, I think they should just run a bulldozer through it, I don't care, I painted it.

i think that the reason that piece of artwork was even created was to send a message, to actually mean something, and when you take this meaningful artwork out of context its not so meaningful anymore. for the arts message to work the way the artist wanted it to it has to be seen in the enviroment it was created or its just another pretty picture in an art gallery.

they shouldn't have removed the art because if the owner left it their then maybe the owner was going to come and get it later on

I think that the artwork should have been left where the artist intended for it to be. The location of the art is apart of the art and its meaning. I also think it would be very unfortunate if the owner of the factory were to get the art back and then sell it. The art belongs to the spot where it was created.

I think it was smart to remove the artwork in order to preserve it. Throughout the years it would have faded away and the art would no longer be there, so it was good to keep it safe. It also keeps the memory of Banksy alive so it was good to keep not only the painting alive but his memory.

Since the artist created his work on that specific spot, i believe that the art should stay where it was intended to express itself.

I think that it was wrong to remove the art because the artist put it up there to show the damage being done to the enviornment. Seeing this artwork indoors doesn't have the same effect because there is nothing around. To preserve it, they could buy it and preserve it the best they can, leaving it where it stands. Street art is meant to be temporary, not permanant, so it wasn't meant to be taken and preserved indoors.

i think that it doesn't matter who has the art since its meant to be temporary but technically it belongs to the owners of the factory since its on his property. If Banksy wanted it to last he could have painted it on a canvas or something even though it wouldnt have made as big of an impact as it has.

I think the artwork should have been left where it was because if you take it out of the location it doesn't have the same effect. It doesn't mean the same thing in a gallery.

it should have staied

I think they should not remove the artwork because it was put in that spot for a reason and if they take it out it won't have the same meaning.

i think it was right to remove the art from the building because if it was stuck in the building it would of probably been taken down and never seen again.

hi

I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE LEFT IT ALONE BECAUSE ITS NOT THIERS ITS BANKSY'S AND THEY SHOULD GIVE IT BACK !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think it was wrong for them to move the art painting because the person how did that art work did it there for a reason, and removing that painting also lost its meaning of what the artist was trying to show to the world.

Creating art on a building wall without permission from it's owner is a crime. The owner of the building owns the art and should sue the gallery for demolishing his property. He should also press charges against Banksy for vandalizing his property in the first place, although witnesses would be difficult to find. The art belongs to the building's owner without question.

it was wrong for them to have removed it because it wasnt theres to take in the first place. how would they have liked it if their art had been removed and being negotited without even consulting the real artist? the owner of this building has no right to have any opinion in it in the first place either. it was an abandoned building so technially its nobody's.

I think it was wrong to remove the art because it is the owner of the property's decision. and if the artist wanted the painting to be else where i think he would have painted it else where or sold it to the 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios. they were wrong, though it was abandoned it was not their property to destroy. No one is really the rightful owner of the painting but it surely isn't 555 Nonprofit Gallery and Studios; it isn't Banksy's because he left it there nhot caring about the work and it's not the property owner's because the building was abandoned.

the artist made and put the work there for a reason and taking it away no matter how valuable or how dumb? is not reasonable and is destroying history in the making what about trying to conserve history well now the children of our children have been deprived of seeing history at its original place form and meaning...Boo to the people who took it from its original spot BOOOOO!!!!

ONCE MORE IT IS WRONG TO TAKE THINGS FROM ITS ORIGINAL SPOTIF i WAS THE ARTIST OR HOWEVER YOU CALL IT YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE THAT i i I AMSURE OF IT ITS THERE GIVING IT ITS BACKGROUNG AND STORY YES TRY TO PROTECT IT BUT NOT MOVE IT WHY RUIN FUTURE HISTORY,...WHY

IT IS WRONG TO REMOVE IT BECAUSE BY REMOVING IT FROM THE PLACE IT WAS MADE YOUR REMOVING IT FROM ITS BACKGROUND ITS HOME ITS PLACE ITS MEANING....I UNDERSTAND SOME WANT TO TRY TO KEEP IT SAFE BUT WHAT MEANING WILL IT HAVE WHAT IMPACT WILL IT HAVE LOCKED IN A ROOM WITH A RED ROPE SURROUNDING IT WWHAT GOOD WILL COME FROM KEEPING THE PROPLE AWAY FROM THE ORIGINAL SCENE MEANING AND BACKGROUND WHAT

The caption contest for this photo is closed.