A constant topic of conversation in our IDC classes and this blog is “what constitutes art?” From New York Times Arts articles about silence as art to destruction as art, I’ve come to the conclusion that art is extremely subjective. I feel as if there’s a very thin line between what can and cannot be considered art – it’s really up to each person personally. Yet, this is not the case when it comes to the NYPD. They clearly feel there is a distinct difference, as was the case with Banky’s balloons this past week.
As an appreciation gift to this fine city, the infamous Banksy left seven inflatable 
letters overlooking the L.I.E. in Long Island City, spelling out “Banksy!” before leaving from his monthlong stay here. These balloons have an estimated value between $200,000 and $300,000. According to the police, however, they are just balloons. Deputy Chief Jack J. Trabitz made this opinion clear, stating that, “I don’t have it [the balloons] as art on the invoice. We have it as a balloon.” Because they were categorized as merely balloons, the valuable pieces of work may be discarded, unless they are claimed. The police became involved with the Banksy bit after three men trespassed and attempted to steal it. When asked, one of the man claimed he wanted to put the balloons in a museum [see a video of the arrest here].
Currently, the balloons are deflated – to save room – and situated in a Long Island City Police Department building. Because they were deemed ‘not art’, and simply balloons, until they are claimed, they can remain there for 18 months until being considered abandoned and auctioned off, or destroyed.
It’s really interesting that these balloons could be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to some and be basically valueless to others. This really goes to show that art is extremely opinion-based; there’s no right answer. My opinion on this matter has absolutely changed throughout this course. Before this class, I knew who Banksy was, but I would have never thought that balloons could be considered art, and the idea that they’d be worth more money than the typical Party City price would have seemed absurd. Yet now, I can honestly say that I believe these balloons are art (although the fact that they’re worth that much money still seems a little crazy to me). Art certainly does not have to mean ‘something I would expect to see in the Met’ – a pre-conceived notion I had before this IDC course.
I found it a bit comical that the police department has a much more objective opinion on art, although it does make sense. My question to each of you is, what do you think about this matter? Are the balloons art? Does the NYPD have the right to determine what is and isn’t art?
Works Cited:
Buckley, Cara, and J. David Goodman. “Police Confiscate Banksy Balloons and Say They’re Not Art.” New York Times. N.p., 5 Nov. 2013. Web. 5 Nov. 2013.
I think that balloons can definitely be considered art. Just consider balloon animals–those take some skill to make, even if it’s not the most impressive kind of skill. I personally have seen some pretty elaborate balloon animals and arrangements, so I would agree that balloons can be art.
I don’t think they should be valued so highly, though. Balloons are only temporary, and even if you keep refilling them with helium, they won’t last very long. You could argue that something like blowing up a piano is temporary too, but the difference is that that’s more of a performance; you’re paying to see the destruction of the piano, whether it’s at the end of a performance or IS the entire performance. Balloons don’t do anything. They simply exist as a display, like a painting. So while I think they can be art, I don’t think they ought to have a high value placed on them since it’d be a waste of money to buy a piece of display art that won’t last very long.
I find this to be quite the coincidence as someone in my speech class made a presentation about Banksy. From what I learned in that presentation, there can be a lot of controversy around his art. I know that he came to New York City and made a new piece everyday for the entire month of October, and apparently not everyone thinks his works are art. With some of his work being graffiti, other artists destroy his works, claim them as their own, and sometimes get people to pay them to see his work. I do believe that what he makes is art, but I cannot get my head around ho expensive his pieces sell for. It is graffiti after all and I can only assume that the value comes from his mysterious personality. I found an article by CNN on theis as well. It describes how some of his works have either become completely treasured like the ones people bought for $60 on a cart or taken away like his “Great Sphinx”.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/24/us/new-york-banksy-art/
First off, this write-up is so interesting. Thank you Nicolette! I too wonder about what constitutes something as art considering that the allure of the field are the wide parameters. If you look at the work as “Banksy’s Balloons” then I think popular consensus would consider it art. This is because Bansky is a well known artist therefore anything he makes is considered art. Though this thinking is quite singular; it is how our world works. I would side with you in considering that the balloons are art not simply because Banksy allegedly made them, but because they have a unique look to them. The metallic color combined with the bubble letters makes the balloons very different from others. Also, they match with the background, showing that this image was well thought-out. I like how you mentioned the disagreement in value of Banksy’s art. A few weeks ago, a vendor was selling his real art on the street for $60 a piece. The pieces are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in an art exhibit. Only a few people bought them, not understanding their sheer value. Link to article: http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/14/living/banksy-street-art-sale/
Therefore, I think the value of art comes from brand name and name recognition.
I recently discovered the whole Bansky obsession and while I think his work is original and creative, for his balloon piece to be worth that exorbitant amount of money seems crazy to me. While I would consider the balloons art, the fact that there are people out there willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on it is absurd. I do think the police should have categorized the balloons as art; something that expensive should not just be left in an abandoned area for a year and a half. I guess in this case, like in areas all over the world not limited to art, the consumers set the price of the object through their interest.
This brings me to a gripe I’ve had with the art world for a long time. The prices of certain works of art are insane. I don’t think anybody should be allowed to spend tens of millions of dollars on a painting unless they match their price with a donation to a charity of some sort. The most expensive piece of art on sale on Amazon.com is for $4.85 million; I hope the future buyer gives at least that amount to a good cause as well.
Link to article: http://www.visualnews.com/2013/08/13/this-is-the-most-expensive-piece-of-art-on-amazon-com-right-now-spoiler-4-85-million/
That actually sounds like such a good way to offset the crazy price tags. It would really be cool if there was a mandatory 5-10% rate of charitable contribution for all paintings sol with price tags of $200,000 or more because it could go a long way in helping out any organization. I agree with you that art it really something that only rises in price because people want it so much, but I sometimes feel that is a good thing because it gives an even greater reason for people to paint because they could leave their legacy behind. Paintings so monumental that they cost dozens of homes would probably last as long as religion will, and that is what makes me love the thought of million dollar paintings; however, with a charitable contribution added to that sort makes it sound even better.
Whoah. I like this concept. It really examines the art business from both a business and social perspective. I do think the prices of these art pieces is ridiculous. Honestly, sometimes I do believe there is a superficial value to artwork. But from a business and marketing perspective, I understand it. Banksy, despite his resistance to the commercialization of his work, and important social themes, is a brand. Whether he accepts it or not (which I think he knows and does accept) Banksy represents an brand, and idea. What is a brand but an idea. It doesn’t even matter if Banksy is one person, five or ten. I think Banksy is an idea. What people are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for, aren’t simply the value of the canvas or paint, but the idea. Those balloons aren’t simply balloons as some of you say, they are IDEAS. Sorry to sound repetitive but I’m just trying emphasize my point. Perfect example is the $60 pieces Banksy offered in Central Park. Once it was discovered that they were in fact Banksy pieces, the prices shot-up tenfold! But how this different from a Picasso or any other famous artist. How is this different from ANY business. People pay more for BRAND-NAME clothes, so why not pay more for BRAND-NAME art. You feel me?
I think first off what the police did was rather stupid. How can they categorize something as not being art if it was made with just that intention. This reminded me of an article I saw. It’s from a few years ago, “On learning of the arrest, the police said, his mother chopped up the oil paintings, which were left for trash collection, and dumped other art objects in a canal…case has stunned art experts because the 60 paintings and 112 objects….stealing were estimated to be worth at least $1.4 billion.” It is stupid that people don’t know the value of art and what it is. Thanks for bringing up such an interesting point.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/17/arts/your-stolen-art-i-threw-them-away-dear.html
Two-hundred to three-hundred thousand for a couple of balloons? This basically sums up the subjectivity of art in a nutshell; those who view Banksy as in icon are more than willing to shell out double the amount, those (eg. the NYPD) who have no regard for his works view it as trash and vandalism.
But I think the fact that Banksy’s art is going for a price tag at all given what he said in an interview,”I know street art can feel increasingly like the marketing wing of an art career, so I wanted to make some art without the price tag attached. There’s no gallery show or book or film. It’s pointless. Which hopefully means something.”, just says something about the pretentiousness and ludicrousness of the art world. I’m all for paying for a piece of art that I fall in love with but how many people buy art for the name that’s attached to it? For the sake of reselling it? This article (http://mag.newsweek.com/2012/12/09/blake-gopnik-pop-goes-the-art-bubble.html) which talks about the increasing instability of the art bubble makes several points but one line struck me, “the (art) boom is being fueled by the pleasure found in buying art rather than in contemplating it.” The exorbitant price that’s been stuck to Banksy’s balloons is proof of this.
Im glad the police stepped in and took away the art piece before other people attempted to steal it. I am completely baffled by the outrageous amount that someone would go to buy balloons, but then again beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. What I find even more profound is that Banksy actually touched up a recent art piece that was originally on sale for $50, but was resold and auctioned of for $650,000 because he touched it up. That’s RIDICULOUS. Anything Banksy touches seems to be worth well over six figures, and it just baffles me to think that his doodles would probably sell for millions. I love the artist and I love how we presents his views through his work, but I especially like him because he doesnt make the money for these paintings. Instead he just does it to show what he is thinking and to engage us into his framework.
I do think that the NYPD has to declare what is art or isnt art because then vandalism could easily be accepted to easily being rejected although there are commissioned and licensed pieces. So in order to keep the codes of conduct and the system better to understand the NYPD has to choose specifically what condones art and what doesnt in order to not create misunderstandings nor faulty arrests. I think the NYPD know what theyre doing so far anyway since they do live at the epicenter of art.
http://www.pressherald.com/life/Banksy_s_gone_but_the_N_Y__buzz_goes_on_.html
I am really captivated by this topic of Banksy’s art. I definitely like the way you presented the article and your overall ideas on this topic. For instance, I don’t think art is only comprised of those pieces that are at The MET, but I wouldn’t pay insane prices for Banksy’s pieces. The balloon writing he made is surely art, and I can see why a bunch of people would like to take a look at this piece. Meanwhile, I don’t see the whole hype and price inflation. What is the point of buying this piece for so much money? I really don’t think someone should buy this, put it in a gallery, and then charge admission for others to see it, that seems completely against Banksy’s work in the first place. He displays his work publicly and online for all to see, so it seems unnecessary to take his art and put an expensive price tag on it. Overall, there is surely no concrete definition of art, and Banksy’s disappearing act is quite captivating, but charging way too much money for his art seems completely unnecessary.
I really don’t think the police should have the option to deem whether these balloons are or are not art. Like you said, art is subjective and just because someone doesn’t like the object in question, that doesn’t stop it from being art. It is simply art that appeals negatively to that person. I can definitely see balloons being art. The clown at parties who makes balloon animals is definitely an artist. A balloon is just another form of canvas which can be molded into many different ideas. It is unfortunate that the Banksy ballon sign had to be taken down because part of what made it art was the expression on the wall. Because of their assumed value however, the police felt obligated to get involved and close the idea of it as something worth stealing out the window to stop the drama.
if this is art:
http://twentytwowords.com/2013/05/16/canvas-painted-blue-with-a-white-line-sells-for-nearly-44-million-4-pictures/
than anything can be. (Solid for $44 million)
I think what Banksy did with the balloons is considered art, and since he was not creating a disturbance or loitering the streets then he did nothing illegal. The police are not accustomed to this type of artist roaming the streets of New York so I’m not surprised they would react this way. But I do think they are taking it too far and not allowing his work to be displayed for the public to see. At the Long Island Children’s Museum, there is an exhibit teaching children to fix broken objects, explained in this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/nyregion/broken-fix-it-exhibition-at-long-island-childrens-museum.html?ref=design
Even broken objects can be considered art, which I find really interested because they are not put together or not functioning, but can still be exhibited for others to learn more about. Learning is just another aspect of art, just like how putting balloons on a wall can be art. Banksy is just trying to express his unique creativity and the police don’t have the right to stop that; the police should only interfere if he is breaking the law.
That’s so weird that some balloons are worth so much money. HE is a celebrity and he knows how to make himself remembered but I feel like Banksy recently is becoming more arrogant in his messages. He is less about the message itself and more about his own name. He is still a good guy and makes good contributions to society as a whole. If you look at this recent article in New York Times about Banksy
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/nyregion/bidders-cry-foul-over-auction-of-banksy-painting.html
it is apparent that he still is doing good in the world. He donated all the proceeds from the sale of the painting for 615,000$ which I think is truly commendable. If he continues to publicize himself this way and continues to sell his paintings for charity I would not mind him continuing what he is doing.
I think that these balloons are considered art only in the sense that they were created by an artist. If they were put up by someone unknown the issue would just be swept under the rug. Banksy has become famous now and that is the reason for this media attention. What I find hilarious about this situation is that the police are holding the balloons as if they were hostages and Banksy was a vigilantly on the loose that needs to be stopped. All the police have done was bring more media and attention to an artist with massively growing popularity. Art is extremely subjective, no one person can determine what is considered art or not. Everyone is unique and has their own opinion and taste, so I do not think the police should have the final say in what is considered art or not. Here is an interesting take on the idea of art: http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6117
As we mentioned in class art can really be anything, but some people push that to far. I don’t think balloons should be worth 200,000 dollars, I think people are just crazy and would buy them for status. Some people are willing to spend this type of money just to say they did and don’t realize that they just bought a bunch of stupid balloons. This is the reason why I look at art very critically. I do not automatically think all pieces of art are great, instead I analyze it and see if I can understand the deep message of the piece. If I do understand than the creator did a great job in portraying his message but if I am looking at a bunch of balloon I am sorry but I do not believe that is art. The only reason they are worth money is because of their creator, but that does not make it art it just makes it valuable to some people who appreciate Banksy.
Here is an article about an artist who is considering if everything she does is art since she is an artist. http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewArticle.asp?id=65619. It is a very interesting question but in my opinion the answer is definitely no. An artists intention is not always to portray messages in everything he does.
I found the point that you brought up, of art being worthless to some and priceless to others, to be very interesting. Its amazing how some would pay hundreds of millions of dollars for a painting that others wouldn’t even what to have in their living room. For example, just yesterday, a Francis Bacon painting was auctioned at Christies in NYC for $142.4 MILLION! (http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/us/francis-bacon-painting-art-auction/)
In the case of the NYPD, I think that they are doing their best in a situation that really is difficult. On one hand, the balloons are being considered highly valuable at over $200,000, however on the other hand, the police feel as though they should be valuing the gallons based on their material with, which is only a few dollars.
I just read an article two weeks ago on Banksy’s work and I think what he has accomplished is actually incredible and I love his gallery. I thought it was spontaneous and definitely unique in the sense that we wouldn’t expect some things he does in a “traditional” gallery. I do think the balloons are art, because they were created as artwork. I think intention has a lot to do with how art should be determined. If something was created with the intention of making their work art, it shouldn’t be looked upon otherwise. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion about it, but no one should be forced to take down or throw away something they value because others don’t see it as art. It’s easy to see how authorities get involved, however, and their enormous impact on the art world. In the article, “Russia’s ‘Stalingrad’ Is a Hit on Screen” by Andrew Roth, it discusses the new Imax 3D movie that just came out in Russia that has become very successful. It probably helps that “nearly the entire budget of the movie was provided in grants and investment by the government and state-backed companies.” With government support like that, it’s easier to obtain the resources needed for a successful film. That’s why it certainly helps to have authorities on your side.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/arts/international/russias-stalingrad-is-a-hit-on-screen.html?ref=international&_r=0
You chose such an interesting article because the controversy of what can or cannot be considered art has been going on for so long. While reading your blog, I was shocked to find out that the Banksy balloons are worth $200,000 to $300,000. I don’t understand why they wouldn’t be considered art when sculptures and other objects are considered art in museums. I think what makes people hesitant to consider the balloons art is the fact that they aren’t in a professional setting and almost seem abandoned. I think the NYPD wouldn’t have gotten involved if the three men weren’t caught trespassing. I can understand where the police are coming from because unless someone claims the balloons people are just going to keep trying to steal them.
I think the location of a piece of artwork is important because it changes the way people look at it. A painting Banksy donated to a New York charity sold for $615,000. What makes the painting more a form of art than the balloons? Since the painting was at a store, it makes people view it as something more professional than the balloons, which were left out in the open. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/nyregion/bidders-cry-foul-over-auction-of-banksy-painting.html?_r=0)
The subjective aspects of art has really become a point of contention, it seems. I find that its conflicting-with-the-law nature is very similar to that of religion. Both religious faith and art are extremely subjective and are quite dependent on the point of view of the person. For example, one may consider their clothing to signify something religious, while for someone else, that same article of clothing is meaningless. The same goes for art – one might find a picture of a house to be artful, while someone else considers the same picture to simply be a picture of a house. A lot of this depends on context – is the picture of the house in a real estate advertisement? Or is it in a museum? The difference, at least in American law, lies in the protections that religions get, while artwork doesn’t get many protections. Sometimes our views on religion or art may coincide with the laws’, other times our views might oppose the laws’. The difficulty lies in the question of which is actually right.