Is it a crime to deface traffic signs?

I don’t know, but during his misspent youth (before I met him) dh once nicked a London Underground sign and kept it under his bed.
It eventually disappeared, so I dare say my horrified MiL managed to dispose of it without revealing the criminal facts.

The purpose of art is not just to produce an acceptable image, or object, that some people find aesthetically pleasing, it is also to challenge ideas and norms. Banksy does that, so do other graffiti artists. The whole concept of the question is wrong. It should not just be is it a crime? but also is a crime sometimes justifiable?.
In the case of street art it undoubtedly is.
And councils could be erasing works potentially worth thousands from streets. The absurdity of the monetary value placed on works is recognised by Banksy whose work sold for over £1million and then shredded itself.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyQMJ-RmYcQ
One of the purposes of his art is to make you think. It works.

Grantanow

Trivial issue.

Absolutely

The law has never attempted to prosecute Banksy so l live in optimistic hope that it realises what an ass it would be if it tried.
It is Banksy so let's not muddy the water

Trivial issue.

You don’t need to deface a road sign to send a message, you could attach a duplicate sign below, we all see unofficial signs frequently and LAs tolerate short term signs advertising local events all the time.

Tens of thousands of people viewed Banksy's exhibition in Glasgow I was amongst them.It was very powerful and moving,many left in tears.I don,t think YOUR issue is the art its the message !If goverment's are working AGAINST peoples beliefs and Banksy is balancing it with his statement art all well and good in my view.Of course in a lot of minds on here I'm very left wing...I'm not but I think we need to see BOTH sides of the story of War and that doesn't always happen in plain sight

Bridie22

Awh but Banksy succeeded with his message, it certainly made people STOP and think if only for a moment...

Very well said

Awh but Banksy succeeded with his message, it certainly made people STOP and think if only for a moment...

Suspect there may be a bit of a metropolitan/non metropolitan split going on here. I live about ten minutes away from the scene of the "crime" (whatever you consider the crime to be) and love it.

They have now arrested someone for the theft of the enhanced stop sign and the council has installed a new regular sign. It has been joined by a duplicate of Banksy's sign installed by a local artist who says art is for everyone.

I hope Southwark Council, who surely are the legitimate owners, retrieve Banksy's sign and is able to sell it to boost much needed council funds.

I'm loving the narrative which I think will be ongoing. I'm curious about why Banksy chose this location - did he foresee the theft?

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202312/medium-289691-77ee3206-fbbd-484a-b800-253dee106737.jpeg https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202312/medium-911948-7086f3d0-1863-4a5d-a998-a819d8cec49e.jpeg

Pics didn’t post- try again

The one with the child and doll is particularly powerful and packs a strong message. But as it's not by Banksy, I suppose it's valueless monetarily
Banksy is not the only talented or famous street artist in the world (even if he is the most famous). You may recognise Keith Haring who came to prominence in the 80’s. Or Jean Michel Basquiat whose graffiti art influenced artists in the genre such as BLU in Berlin.
And street art isn’t generally judged by its monetary value - because it is visible to all, its message is what makes the impact.

Yes it is wrong, no matter who the ‘artist’. Dangerous precedents can be set by tolerating this.

It’s downright wrong - defacing road signs is distracting and dangerous and could cause accidents

OldFrill

As per my previous responses l believe Banksy has enhanced this sign by £500,000 which l assume now belongs to whatever authority owns the sign. I think any attempt at prosecution due to the sign having been 'defaced' (as this is the term used in the OP) ludicrous. As I've also previously stated no other street artist can achieve a similar enhancement.

I've already explained that your opinion and your beliefs are not relevant to matters of law. Just as mine are not relevant. No matter how many times you tell us what you believe it won't change the law.

Then you have to consider the unthinkable.....what if this was a copy cat artist and not Banksy? In your opinion would it still be an enhancement if he was a nobody and had not actually increased its value? Or does it actually matter as long as people think it's done by Banksy?

This!

OldFrill

As per my previous responses l believe Banksy has enhanced this sign by £500,000 which l assume now belongs to whatever authority owns the sign. I think any attempt at prosecution due to the sign having been 'defaced' (as this is the term used in the OP) ludicrous. As I've also previously stated no other street artist can achieve a similar enhancement.

So because Banksy works command a high price you consider him above the law that pertains to ordinary mortals. Does that mean that should Banksy lose that prestigious status you'd then consider him subject to the same laws that pertain to other graffiti artists... fines etc?

Obviously, check my commemts

Does anyone else have trouble with quotes being included when responding?

From my previous answers you can deduce my answer to this.

As per my previous responses l believe Banksy has enhanced this sign by £500,000 which l assume now belongs to whatever authority owns the sign. I think any attempt at prosecution due to the sign having been 'defaced' (as this is the term used in the OP) ludicrous. As I've also previously stated no other street artist can achieve a similar enhancement.

RosiesMaw

Whenever people start pontificating about “the law of the land” (as if there were any other sort, I just switch off.

Tell that to the judge next time you're in court.

The one with the child and doll is particularly powerful and packs a strong message. But as it's not by Banksy, I suppose it's valueless monetarily. Maybe it's similar to the annual Turner Prize: I think that an unmade bed is simply that. Someone else considers it a work of art

I wonder how much tolerance there would be for street art that opined a message that didn't accord with some poster's preferred views. Anti-semitism is raising its ugly head yet again (that doesn't imply support for either side in the present conflict) so would anti-semitism "street art" be acceptable as a political art form?

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202312/medium-464846-eecef0d3-23c7-48b9-859b-e69206cf7071.jpeg https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202312/medium-742241-2574446b-9c0a-4d45-9d23-55235db9813c.jpeg https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202312/medium-922528-ed5676ba-50c1-4ba7-be8e-3d367341cf37.jpeg

No, Chestnut he is a pavement artist something altogether different, often not unconnected with begging for money.
Street art is visual art created in public locations for public visibility. It has been associated with the terms "independent art", "post-graffiti", "neo-graffiti" and “political art”.
Some of the most famous examples were on the Berlin Wall . It is an international art form, generally associated with protest. Or at least making a statement.