Middlesex University Research RepositoryAn open access repository of

Middlesex University research

http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk

Hansen, Susan (2018) Banksy’s subversive gift: a socio-moral test case for the safeguarding ofstreet art. City: analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action, 22 (2). pp. 285-297.

ISSN 1360-4813

Final accepted version (with author’s formatting)

This version is available at: http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/22179/

Copyright:

Middlesex University Research Repository makes the University’s research available electronically.

Copyright and moral rights to this work are retained by the author and/or other copyright ownersunless otherwise stated. The work is supplied on the understanding that any use for commercial gainis strictly forbidden. A copy may be downloaded for personal, non-commercial, research or studywithout prior permission and without charge.

Works, including theses and research projects, may not be reproduced in any format or medium, orextensive quotations taken from them, or their content changed in any way, without first obtainingpermission in writing from the copyright holder(s). They may not be sold or exploited commercially inany format or medium without the prior written permission of the copyright holder(s).

Full bibliographic details must be given when referring to, or quoting from full items including theauthor’s name, the title of the work, publication details where relevant (place, publisher, date), pag-ination, and for theses or dissertations the awarding institution, the degree type awarded, and thedate of the award.

If you believe that any material held in the repository infringes copyright law, please contact theRepository Team at Middlesex University via the following email address:

eprints@mdx.ac.uk

The item will be removed from the repository while any claim is being investigated.

See also repository copyright: re-use policy: http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/policies.html#copy

Banksy’sSubversiveGift:ASocio-MoralTestCasefortheSafeguardingof

StreetArt

Abstract

Thispaperdiscussesasocio-moralprecedentforthesafeguardingofstreetart.

Thisincidentrepresentsanovelrecognitionofthewishesofthecommunityand

theintentionsoftheartistindeterminingthefateoflocalstreetart,andarare

acknowledgementofthemoralrightsofstreetartiststodeterminethefirst

distributionoftheirwork,overtherightsofpropertyowners,whoareotherwise

abletoclaimthetangibleartworksontheirwallsasindividual,ratherthan

community,property.ThecasediscussedisthatofBanksy’s(2014)MobileLovers

which,byitssite-specificplacement,thwartedthepossibilityofacquisitiveremoval

forprivateauction.Despitethehighprofiledisputeoverwhoshouldbeconsidered

theproperbeneficiaryofthework,itwasagreedthatitshouldbeconsidereda

‘gift’tothecommunityandshouldthusbeprotected.Theremovaloftheworkfor

safeguardingintheBristolMuseumaffordedaseeminglyneutralzoneof

protectionforMobileLoversduringthisperiodofconflict.However,themuseum

wasalsorepresentedasanagentofthecity,andasademocraticspace,where

visitors,as“thepeople”,wereencouragedtorecordtheirownpreferencesforthe

futureofthework.Rancière’sconceptualizationofdemocracyasadisruptive

process,ratherthananestablishedconsensualstateofaffairs,isemployedto

challengeanunderstandingofthemuseum’sstrategiesasself-evidently

democratic.Ultimately,theperceptionofstreetartinsocio-moraltermsasa‘gift’

enabledanorientationto,andsubversionof,thelegalstricturescurrently

prohibitingtherecognitionofthemoralrightsofstreetartists.

Dowhatyoufeelisrightwiththepiece(Banksy,inMetro,2014:n.p.)

Onthe14thofApril2014,twoworksofstreetartapparentlyproducedbyBanksy

appearedovernightintheSouthwestofEngland,atsites43milesapart.Theyeach

setanewprecedentforthepreservation,safeguardingandownershipofstreetart.

Throughtheirsite-specificplacement,thesepiecessubvertedtherecenttrendfor

theacquisitiveremovalof‘valuable’streetartfromitsin-situlocationforprivate

auction–withouttheconsentofeithertheartistorthecommunityinwhichthe

streetartislocated(Bengsten,2014).Thetensionatthebasisofthislawfulyet

morallyproblematicpracticeisgroundedinthelegalrecognitionoftherightsof

propertyownerstothetangibleworksontheirwallsoverthemoralrightsofstreet

artiststocontrolthefirstdistributionoftheirwork,andtherightsofcommunities

toassertownershipoverworkstheyregardaspublicartintendedfortheir

enjoyment.Thistensioniscompoundedbythefactthatthecreationof

unauthorizedpublicworkstechnicallyconstitutescriminaldamage,andthusstreet

artistsmaynotpubliclyacknowledgeauthorshipforfearofprosecution(Young,

2014).

Banksy’sSpyBooth(2014),locatedontheexteriorwallofaGradeIIlistedproperty

inCheltenham,representsthefirstcaseofaworkofstreetartbeingextended

heritageprotectiontopreventthework’sremovalforprivateprofitandsaleonthe

artmarket,andtoenablethemaintenanceoftheworkin-situforthebenefitofthe

communitytowhomithadbeen‘gifted’(formoreonthiscase,seeMacDowall,

Merrill,andHansen,forthcoming).However,inthecaseofBanksy’sMobileLovers

(2014),locatedonanexteriordoorofayouthclubinBristol,theprecedentsetwas

notfortheprotectionofworkin-situ.Indeed,thisphilanthropicallypositioned

workappearsdesignedtobereadilyremovedforresale,butnotforpersonal

financialgain.MobileLoversthusreworksthenowestablishednotionofstreetart

asa‘gift’tothecommunity,inthatitappearstohavebeenproducedasadonation

–or‘gift-in-kind’–inresponsetoacallforfinancialhelpfromthisendangered

communityservice.Althoughtheseworksaregeographicallyseparate,theyare

interlinkedthroughboththeirtemporalcontiguity,theirinterwovensignification,

andviatheparallelprecedentsfortherecognitionandprotectionofstreetartthat

theyestablished.Despitetheclearsignificanceoftheseworksconsideredin

tandem,theprimaryfocusofthispaperisonthegeographicalandinstitutional

trajectoryofBanksy’sMobileLovers,andinparticular,theroletakenbytheBristol

Museuminsafeguardingthisworkduringthehighprofilemediadisputeregarding

itsownershipandintendedfate.

AsDickens(2009)hasnoted,Banksy’sworkhashadasignificantandongoing

influenceinprovokingcommunitydebateonthevalue(andcommodification)of

streetart.Hisuncommissionedstreet-basedworkhasbeenattheforefrontof

streetart’schallengetoexistingaesthetic,legal,andheritageframeworks,andhas

providedtheconditionsofpossibilityforkeyshiftsinsocio-moralurbancodes

(Hansen,2015).Here,myapproachtothesocio-moralfollowsRancière’sfocuson

“instance[s]ofnormativitythatenableonetojudgethevalidityofpracticesand

discoursesoperatinginparticularspheresofjudgmentandaction”(Rancière,

2007:27).Further,Iadoptapragmatic,ethnomethodologicalorientationinmy

attentiontotheactivitiesoftheparties,andthetrajectoryofthework,injustthis

particularcase–ratherthanamoreabstractapproachtothecreationand

subversionofsocio-moralnormssuchasthatadoptedbysocio-cognitivescholars

(e.g.,KellerandEdelstein,1991).Thisethnomethodologicalapproach“require[s]

bracketingoffthecategory‘morality’initsphilosophicalsense,infavourof

studyingtherangeofmundanepracticesinwhichpeoplejudgeeverydayactionsin

relationtowhatpeopleshouldorshouldnotdo”(StokoeandEdwards,2012:167).

Althoughatfirstblushtheseapproachesmayseematepistemologicalodds,an

ethnomethodologicalorientationisnotentirelyincongruentwiththemodeof

analysisfollowedbyRancière.Rockhill(2016)assertsthatmuchofRancière’s

workisfocusedatjustthislevelofpracticalmundanedetail,inthathe“pushed

forwardaparticulartypeof…analysis.Thisconsists,amongotherthings,in

inspectingconcretepracticesandhowtheyoperateinsteadofassumingthatthere

mustbesomeformofgeneralgoverninglogicoruniversalinternalorderbehind

them.”Tanke(2011:3)notesfurtherthatRancièretendsto“framehisanalysisas

beingverifiableintersubjectively”–alsoakeytenetofanethnomethodological

approach–priortocloselyevaluatingtheseobservationsintermsoftheversionof

thepossibletheydefine.

Accordingly,myapproachtothesocio-moralhereassumesthat:thesocio-moral

orderisalocal,pragmaticallyaccomplished,alwaysunfolding,phenomenon

(Stokoe&Edwards,2012);thatsocio-moralnormsaremostclearlyrevealedwhen

theirlimitsaretransgressed(Garfinkel,1991);thatindividuals,communities,and

otheragentsformthemselvesas“ethicalsubjects”–andareaccountableassuch–

withreferencetothemutuallyintelligibleelementsofsuchnorms;thatemergent

socio-moralnormsmaybeatoddswithexistinglegalrules,andmaycontributeto

theconditionsofpossibilityforeventuallegislativechange(Mattless,1994;

McAuliffe,2012).Thus,itmaybefruitfultostudythesocio-moralprecedentssetby

particularcases,suchasthatofMobileLovers,whichchallenge,transgress,or

otherwisedisruptestablishedlegalboundariesandotheraspectsofour

commonsensical‘divisionofthesensible’(Rancière,2004).

AphotographofMobileLoversfirstappearedonBanksy’swebsiteintheearlyhoursof

Mondaythe14thofApril2014,withoutanydetailsastoitsgeographiclocation(Banksy,

2014).Theworkthusexistedfirstasanintangiblecopy,priortothe‘discovery’ofthe

tangibleoriginal.Indeed,adefiningfeatureofcontemporarystreetartistheroleofthe

internetasavirtual“fieldofaction.”(Ganz,2004:p.21)Manyworksofstreetartmaynow

onlybeviewedasphotographsuploadedtosocialmediaandonlineforums,asthese

ephemeralworksarecommonlysubjecttoremovalbyauthoritiesorbeingwrittenover

byothersandthusmayhaveonlyaverybrieftangibleexistenceinthematerialworld.

Thisstrategy–ofreleasinganimageofanewworkwithoutconfirmingitsgeographic

location–haslongbeenafeatureofBanksy’spractice.ForBanksy’sfans,thisappearsto

encourageaplayfulengagementwithbothmaterialandvirtualspacesinfindingawork

thusfarinvisibletothegeneralpublic.

Streetartfansandcollectorsarelongstandingkeyculturalintermediariesinthe

relationshipbetweencommunities,streetartandcommerce(Dickens,2010).In2005,

Banksy’sPeckhamRockremainedundetectedforthreedaysonaninteriorwallofthe

BritishMuseum,beforebeinglocatedbyBanksy’sfollowers.Neitherthemuseumstaffnor

itsvisitorshadnoticedanythingoutofplacepriortothembeinginformedofthework’s

existence(Dickens,2008).Banksy’sphotographofMobileLoverssimilarlysparkedan

immediatetreasurehuntamongsthisfollowers,whousedapplicationssuchasGoogle

Streetviewtonarrowdownpossiblelocationsuntilthecorrectgeographicalsitewas

identifiedseveralhourslater(TheTelegraph,2014.SeealsoFigure1).However,this

locationwasnotinitiallyreleasedtothewiderpublic,asthefindersnotedthatthework

seemedinsecurelyplacedandhighlyvulnerabletoremoval.

Indeed,MobileLoversremainedin-situforlessthan24hoursbeforetheyouthclub

removedtheplywooddooritwaspaintedonandplaceditinsidethebuilding.It

wasreplacedwithahandwrittennoticeadvisingthatthepiecehadbeenremoved

to“preventanyvandilism[sic]ordamagebeingdone.”(BBC,2014:n.p.)Thenote

invitedthepublictoviewthework,butinexchangerequestedasmalldonation.

MobileLoverswasdisplayedinsidetheyouthclub,withsomepressreports

implyinganimproprietyinitsdisplayindescribingitspositioningasbeinglocated

“nexttothetoilets”whilstotherreportsnotedthattheclubhadbeenaccusedof

“kidnapping”theworkandholdingit“toransom.”(TheIndependent,2014:n.p.See

alsoFigure2)Themanageroftheclub,DennisStinchcombe,declaredthatMobile

Loverswasintendedasagifttotheclub,andthatheintendedtosellittoraise

funds.

However,TheCityofBristolcontestedtheclub’sactionsinremovingtheworkasit

wasoriginallypositionedoncouncilproperty.TheMayor,GeorgeFerguson,

assertedthatMobileLoverswasclearlyintendedasagiftforthecitythat,assuch,

shouldremaininthecity(BristolPost,2014).Thattheworkasintendedasagift

wasnot,however,contested,andindeedasYoungpointsout,thisisnowhow

streetartiscommonlyreceivedbycommunities–incontrasttolessaesthetically

palatablegraffiti,whichtendstoberegardedassomethingwhichdiminishes,

ratherthanenhances,thevalueandsocialcapitalofacommunity(Young,2014).

Theparties’consensusthatMobileLoverswasintendedasa‘gift’reflectsan

increasinglyestablishedsocio-moralurbannormregardingthevalueofstreetart

tocommunities,whichinturnsetsparametersfortheactionsperceivedasbeing

appropriateresponsestoitscreation/discovery,althoughitshouldbenotedthat

thisisanhistoricallyrecentunderstandingthatisstillcontested.1Asa‘gift’Mobile

Loverswasaccordedwithaself-evidentsocio-moralpurpose–whichlocatesit

bothwithinandoutwiththeaestheticregimethat,accordingtoRancière,

characterizeswhatweconsiderasarttoday.Hearguesthatthesocialpurposeof

artfromtheaestheticregimeisitsverypurposelessness(Highmore,2011);

howeverhealsonotesthatadefiningelementofthisregimeisitsincorporationof

remnantsofearlierregimes,whichmay“co-existandintermingle”(Rancière,2004:

50).Atthelevelofbothproductionandreception,MobileLoversprovidesalinkto

anearlier,ethicalregimeofimagesevaluatedintermsoftheirutilitytosociety–as

perhapsdoesstreetartitself,theliminalartisticgenreforwhichBanksyis

currentlythemostprominentfigurehead.

Onthe17thofApril,ontheinstructionsoftheMayor,theBristolpoliceremoved

MobileLoversfromtheyouthclub.TheworkwastransportedtotheBristol

Museumforsafeguardingduringthedispute.Theapparentlyneutralzoneof

protectionaffordedbythemuseumdrawsonthehistoricalroleofmuseumsas

liminalspacesthatpreserveandprotectculturalartifactsviaremovalfromtheir

1SeeHansen(2015)foramoredetaileddiscussionofcommunityattitudesinthemediatowardsstreetartanditsremoval.

originalgeographiclocationtoaspaceseparatefromboththesocio-moral

coordinatesofeverydayexistenceandfromtheusualparametersoftemporal

experience(Duncan,1995).Morethan10,000visitorscametoviewtheworkon

theopeningweekend.TheBristolMuseum’swebsitereportedthat:

The…cityofferedtodisplay[thework]securelyattheBristolMuseum

&ArtGallery,whileallsidessoughtclarityovertheartist’sintentionsfor

thework(BristolMuseum&ArtGallery,2014:n.p.).

Thedisputeovertheworkwasthuscouchedintermsofelucidatingtheartist’s

intentions.Notablythisdiffersfrommoreusualdiscussionsofauthorialintentions,

whichtendtobeconstruedwithintheframeworkoftheartist’saimsinprovoking

aparticularaestheticresponse,orconveyingsomeaspectoftheiridentityor

historythroughtheirwork(Pollock,1980).Indeed,the(intended)significationof

theworkdoesnotfeatureinanydiscussionsatthetime–itwouldappearthat

MobileLoverswasalmostimmediatelyobjectifiedas“aBanksy”–orasaworkof

higheconomicandsocialvaluebyarecognizedartist.Thedisputewasthusfocused

ontheparties’divergentclaimsregardingBanksy’sintentionsfortheownership

andfinaldestinationofMobileLovers–orwhoshouldbenefitfromthisgift.This

debatewasintensifiedbythegeographiclocationofthework,inBanksy’s

hometownofBristol.EachpartyclaimedanestablishedconnectionwithBanksy’s

identityandlife-history,withthemanageroftheyouthclubassertingthatasa

youngmanBanksyhadbeenamember,andwiththeCityandtheBristolMuseum

remindingthepublicoftheirmorerecentcollaborationwithBanksyforthe

‘Banksyvs.BristolMuseum’showin2009,whichattractedover300,000visitors

andraisedsignificantrevenue(Dickens,2009).

MobileLoverswasdisplayednexttotheinformationdeskonthegroundfloorfoyer

ofthemuseum(seeFigure3).Theworkwaspositionedinahightrafficlocation

thatvisitorshavetopassthroughuponentry.Theplacementoftheworkdrewon

thepanopticinternaldesignofthemuseum,whichensuredthatitwasalsovisible

fromtheupperbalconiesoftheotherfloors,andfromthestaircasesconnectingthe

floors.MobileLoverswasinitiallyhungaboveaportableradiator,asthewoodof

theexternaldoorwasdampandinneedofconservation.Topdownillumination

wasusedtopickupontheglowofthewhitepaintinthepiece.Thisrepresents

verydifferentlightingconditionstotheworkin-situ,andtothelightingofthe

photographdisplayedbyBanksyonhiswebsite(SeeFigure1).Indeed,the

nighttimelightingconditionsofBanksy’sphotographofMobileLoversemphasizes

theclandestinenatureoftheencounterpicturedbetweenthecouple,onlyoneof

whomwearsaweddingring.Thecoupleareilluminatedbythelightfromtheir

mobilephones,towhich,despitetheirembrace,theirattentionisdirected.The

guidancenotesprovidedbythemuseumencouragedvisitorstophotographthe

work,andindeedthe‘selfies’takenbyvisitorstothemuseumandpostedonsocial

mediaappeartomimictheposeofthecouple,inincorporatingviewers’mobile

phonesasactorswithintheframe.Thisisadeparturefromthemundanepractice

ofvisitorphotography,wheremobilephonesareusuallyinvolvedinimagecapture,

butnotordinarilyfeaturedintheresultantimages.Thisaspectofviewer

engagementhighlightstheubiquityandinvisibilityofmobiledevicesinour

everydaylives–apointhighlyresonantwiththework’sapparentcommentaryon

ourapparentlackofconcernregardingthesanctityofourpersonal

communications.

MobileLoverswasropedoffwithalowbarrierthatdidnotobscuretheworkbut

keptviewersata‘safe’distance,prohibitinganyphysicalengagementwiththe

work.TotherightofMobileLovers,anoticewasplacedonalowstand.This

describedthebriefhistoryofthework,thecurrentuncertaintyoveritsfutureand

thefinancialpredicamentoftheyouthclub.Visitorswereencouragedtomakea

cashdonationforthebenefitoftheclub,andalsotomakesuggestionsforthe

futureofthework.Thisnoticedepartsfromthenormativeformatofmuseum

informationplaquesinthatitisvoicedbyaparticularinstitutionalauthor,the

Mayor,andisaddressedtotheconstituentsoftheCity,the“people”(asopposedto

anonymouscuratorsaddressingunnamedvisitors).Thisdirectaddressinvokesa

senseofdemocracyandinvitesviewers’activeparticipationandengagementwith

thefateofthework.Indeed,itpositionsthepeopleofBristolashavingtherightto

decideonthefutureofMobileLovers.TheMuseumisdesignatedhereasanagentof

theCity,andasseekingsimplytorepresentthepeopleofBristol(andthusnotas

makinganillegitimateclaimtoownershipofthework).Thenoticealsoreferences

Banksy’sPaintPotAngel(2009)retainedfromtheBanksyvsBristolMuseumshow

in2009,whichitdisplayedinthegroundfloorfoyeratashortdistancefromMobile

Lovers.Displayingthisassociatedworkenhancedthemuseum’sclaimtoownership

of,oratleasttobeingtheproperinstitutionallocationfor,Banksy’sMobileLovers.

Themuseumheresimultaneouslydrewonaseriesofoverlappingyetstillevident

historicaldiscoursesinformingitsroleandrelationshiptothepublic.Inreceiving

theworkfor‘safekeeping’duringthedispute,itinvokedmucholderideasofthe

museumasasanctuary,refuge,orsafedepositboxforvaluableculturalobjects.

Priortotheearly1900s,thisrolewasundertakenonbehalfofaneliteandalready

educatedaudiencecapableofappreciatingtheworthoftheseobjects(Colwell,

2015).However,initscommunicationsdirectedat“thepeople”ofBristol,the

museuminvoked20thcenturyideasofthemuseumasademocraticagentforthe

commongoodandforpubliceducation,andasaninclusiveinstitutionforeveryday

citizens(Barrett2012).Further,themuseum’spromotionanddisplayofMobile

Loversasahighprofilevisitorattractionreferencedthemosthistoricallyrecent

discourseonitslatemodernroleasa‘culturalsupermarket’,whichpositions

viewersasneo-liberalconsumerswiththerighttoexerttheirindividualpreference

overtheobjectsondisplayinthemuseum(vanAalst&Boogaarts,2002).

Thehistoricaldiscoursesinvokedbythemuseumappearself-evidentlydemocratic

inthattheypositionthemuseum(andthecity)asrepresentativeof,and

responsiveto,“thewillofthepeople”.Thisdemocraticrhetoricisdefensively

designedinthatitisdifficulttocontestwithoutappearingtoalsodisregardthe

wishesofthecommunityonbehalfofwhomitclaimedtobeacting.However,this

notionofdemocracy–asanestablishedformofrepresentation,beyondquestion–

hasbeenrecentlychallengedbyRancière,whoarguesinsteadthatdemocracyis

evidentinthedisruptiveprocessthatunsettletheveryformsofconsensusthatset

thelimitsforourinvolvementindemocraticactivities.AccordingtoRancière

(2004)thedemocraticactsweengagein,orareexcludedfrom(e.g.,registeringto

vote,voting,enactinglegislation,lawenforcement–orinthiscase,placingsolicited

suggestionsinabox)reflectthelimitsoftheparametersofourpossible

participationinpubliclife.

Onthe28thofApril,inafurtherapparentlydemocraticstrategy,theBristolPost

conductedapollofBristolresidentstoascertainthepeople’swishesforthefuture

ofMobileLovers.Residentswereevenlydivided,with49%supportingthework

goingtotheBroadPlainsYouthClub,and51%preferringthattheworkremainin

BristolMuseumasthepropertyoftheCity(BristolPost,2014).Whilebothparties

hadinitiallysupportedtheideaofbeingguidedbysuchapoll,giventhealmost

equalsupporteachreceived,boththeMayorandtheyouthclubthenappealedto

Banksy,viaonline,printandtelevisionmedia,to“sendsomekindofsign”astohis

intentionsforthefutureofthework(BristolPost,2014:n.p.).Perhapsasamarkof

theesteemandmystiqueaccordedtoBanksy–asaninfamousyetanonymous

artistwhoseenigmaticcommunicationsareofteninseparablefromhiswork–the

formtakenbytheparties’mutualpleaforarbitrationandguidance(“tosendsome

kindofsign”)ismorecommonlyemployedinourappealstoparanormalentities,

ratherthanactualpersons.

Accordingly,theweekaftertheinconclusivepollandpleaforguidance,aletterwas

receivedbyboththeMayorandbythemanageroftheyouthclub.Theletterwas

signedwithBanksy’sdistinctivetag.ItauthenticatedMobileLoversandindicated

thatMrStinchcombe,astheintendedbeneficiary,should“dowhatyoufeelisright

withthepiece”bestowinghimwiththerighttodecideonthefateoftheworkby

engaginginwhatheconsideredtobeanaccountablymoralcourseofaction(Metro,

2014:n.p.SeealsoFigure4).Onreceiptoftheletter,whichwasalsopublishedin

theBristolPost,theMayorpublicallyaccededtoBanksy’swishesastotheintended

beneficiaryofhiswork.

TheMayor’sconcessionrepresentsanimportantprecedent,asthiswasinessence

asocio-moralformofrecognitionthathasyettobetestedbythecourts.Street

artistsoccupyauniquepositionwithregardtotheirabilitytoasserttheirrightsto

ownershipoftheirwork.Theownershipoftangibleartworksisusuallydetermined

bywhoeverownsthecanvasormaterialtheworkappearson(Bentlyand

Sherman,2009:p.311).Inthecaseofstreetartandgraffitihowever,workappears

notoncanvasoriginallyownedbytheartist,butonthewallsofalreadyowned

privateandpublicpropertieswithouttheconsentofthepropertyowner.Thus,the

tangibleworklegallybelongstothewallowner,eventhoughthecopyrightand

intellectualpropertyrightstotheworkremainvestedwiththeartist(Verrell,

2014).Furthermore,theactofcreatingsuchworkconstitutescriminaldamage,

which,whileitdoesnotprecludetherecognitionofartists’rights,mayinhibit

streetartistsfromcomingforwardinanattempttohavetheirrightsrecognised,

forfearofprosecution(Young,2014).Banksy’srighttoclaimownershipofhisown

workdoesnotthenoverridetherightsoftheownersofthetangibleworkonthe

wall(inthiscase,theCityofBristol)toremovethisunauthorizedwork.

Consequently,despiteBanky’spublicletternamingtheyouthclubastheintended

recipientofMobileLovers,hedidnotlegallyownthetangiblework,thusitwasnot

agifthecouldlawfullygive.

WereBanksytowaivehisanonymityandattendacasehearing,itispossiblethat

hismoralrightstopaternity(therighttobeidentifiedastheauthorofawork)and

integrity(therighttoobjecttoderogatorytreatmentofawork)mightbe

recognisedduetothehigheconomicandculturalvalueofthetangibleartwork

(BentlyandSherman,2009).Ordinarily,copyrightgivesartiststherighttocontrol

thefirstdistributionoftheirworktothepublic,butinthecaseofillegallypainted

streetart,asnocopieshavebeensold,theworkhasnotlegallybeendistributed.

Furthermore,giventhecriminalactinherenttothecreationofunauthorizedpublic

art,itispossiblethatcopyrightmightevenbedeniedtostreetartists,asunder

Section171(3)oftheCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988thiscouldbeargued

toconstitute“aworkcreatedinimmoralcircumstances.”Thustheillegalityofthe

creationofstreetart,notwithstandingitspotentialsocialandeconomicvalue,

underminesstreetartists’abilitytoclaimtheirmoralrights.TheCityofBristol’s

recognitionofBanksy’srighttodeterminetheownershipofhis‘gifted’work,

despitetheirlegalentitlementaspropertyownerstodisregardBanksy’swishes,

thussetsasocio-moral,ifnotlegal,precedentintherecognitionofthemoralrights

ofstreetartists.TheconsensusthatMobileLoverswasa‘gift’undoubtedly

informedthisprecedent,asevenwhenindisputeoverthefateofthework,the

partiesorientedtotheactionsappropriatetothisformofsocio-moralpracticein

preferencetothecourseofactionprovidedbythelaw.UnderstandingMobile

Loversasa‘gift’enabledthepartiestopresentthemselvesasaccountable“ethical

subjects”withreferencetoanexistingrecognizablesetofsocio-moralpractices,

rightsandobligationsaroundgiftgivingandreceipt.

TheCity’ssocio-moralrecognitionoftherightfulownershipofMobileLoversin

turnrepresentsanovelyetfamiliarcircumstanceformodernmuseums.Art

repatriation,ortheprocessofreturningcontestedculturalpropertyorarttoits

formerowners,orgeographiccommunityoforigin,isaregularsourceofmoraland

practicaltensionforthecontemporarymuseum,astheactofdoingsoislikelyto

infringetherightsofatleastonesectionofthecommunity(Colwell,2015).

Repatriationencouragespartiesto:

move beyond the legality of the current ownership and consider ethical

issues…orwhatisbestfor…claimants…currentcustodians,andsocietyat

large(Corsane,2006:p.7).

However,ordinarilythisprocessinvolvesthenegotiatedreturnofancientorlooted

objects,anddoesnotsensiblyapplytocontemporaryartthathasnotbeenreceived

asanhistoricalproductofacquisitivecolonialismorwar.MobileLoversthus

presentsaspecialcaseofthemodernrepatriationofcontemporaryarttoarightful

owner–albeitenroutetotheartmarket.

DuringthedisputeovertheownershipofMobileLovers,theworkremainedon

displayintheBristolMuseum.However,onthe29thofMay2014,aftertheMayor’s

publicacceptanceofBanksy’sintentionsforthework,MrStinchcomberemoved

MobileLoversfromdisplayatthemuseumandtransportedittotheoutskirtsofthe

city,whereanepisodeoftheBBC’sAntiquesRoadshowwasbeingfilmed.2In

apparentrecognitionofhisrightsastheownerofthework,themuseumdidnot

preventhimfromremovingitfromformaldisplayatshortnotice.Atthetime,the

BristolMuseum(2014b:n.p.)tweetedapublicapologyforthetemporaryabsence

ofthepiece,andpointedtotheavailabilityofotherpotentialattractionsofinterest

tovisitorsinlieuofthepresenceofMobileLovers:

AfterashortvisittotheAntiquesRoadshowatAshtonCourt,Banksy’s

MobileLoversissafelybackatthemuseum…sorryaboutthat-itall

2TheAntiquesRoadshowisaweeklyBritishtelevisionshowwithanationalviewershipof8million.

happenedabitsuddenly.Hopeyouenjoyed#EnglishMagicand#Turner

exhibitionsthough.

DespitefeaturingonAntiquesRoadshow,theworkwasatthispointlessthansix

weeksold.Thisirregularandinformalrouteforvaluationdepartsfromthe

formalizedclosedsystemsofthecommercialartmarket.MrStinchcombe’sstrategy

intakingMobileLoversforindependentvaluationviaapopulartelevisionshow

thusrepresentsadisruptivelydemocraticapproachtocircumventingaspecialized

communityofpracticethatheapparentlyhadscantknowledgeof,andlittlepower

normeaningfulvoicewithin:

Ijusttookitdowntogetanexpertopinion.I'mnotanartdealerandI'vegot

noideawhatIamdoing(DailyMail,2014:n.p.).

ThisstrategyisdemocraticinRancière’s(2004)sense,inthatthishighlyirregular

actioncreatedaruptureinthedivisionofthesensible,orourordinaryperceptions

ofwhatispossible,andwhomayspeakandbeheard.ForRancière,democracy

doesnotrefertoanestablishedstateofaffairs,butconverselytoparticular

challengesordisruptionstothestatusquo.Itisaprocessthatcanonlybefoundin

theparticular,fleeting,andoftenultimatelyunsuccessfuldisruptiveactivitiesthat

temporarilyconstructaformofdemocratizingdissensus,oragapinthesensible,

withinthesocialorder.

Theconditionsofpossibilityforthisotherwiseunauthorizedactaregroundedin

theCity’snovelrecognitionofBanksy’smoral(ratherthanlegal)righttodetermine

thefirstdistributionofthepiece.Despitehavingscantlegalrightstomakea

legitimatedemand,theyouthclubwereabletoclaimrightfulownershipofthe

work.InthissenseitmaybearguedthatMobileLoverswaspoliticalart.Notinthe

romanticsense,as“artthatestablishesautopiancultureinwhichallareequal”

(Lampert,2016:15)butratherasartthat,howevermomentarily,operatedto

democratizeanotherwiseapparentlyfixedandinflexiblestateofaffairs,withset

legalandconventionalparametersforaction.

Onthe24thofAugustitwasannouncedthatMobileLovershadbeensoldfor

£403,000–asumremarkablyclosetothevaluationgivenattheAntiques

Roadshow.Asmallartdealershipwithafocusonurbancontemporaryartand20

yearsexperienceworkingdirectlywithstreetartistswasawardedthebidtosell

theworkovermoreestablishedauctionhouses.Notably,thebuyerofthepiecewas

notdescribedasa“privatecollector”,butratherinsocio-moraltermsasa

“philanthropist”concernedwith“investinginyoungpeople’sinstitutions.”

(McCarthy,2014:n.p.)Theproceedsweredescribedasa“littlenestegg…to

support[theyouthclub]…forafewyears.”(McCarthy,2014:n.p.)Theofficial

handoverofMobileLoverstookplaceattheBristolMuseumonthe27thofAugust.

AllproceedsfromthesalewereawardedtotheBroadPlainsYouthCluband

affiliatedyouthprogramsintheCityofBristol,inlinewithBanksy’sstated

intentionsforthework.

Theoriginalsite-specificplacementofMobileLoversenableditsrapidremovalby

theoccupantsofthesite,whichthwartedanyoutsideattemptatacquisitive

removalforprivateauction.Notwithstandingthedisputeoverwhoshouldbe

consideredtheproperbeneficiaryofthework,neitherpartycontestedthatthe

socio-moralfactthatitshouldbeconsidereda‘gift’tothecommunityandshouldas

suchbeprotected.ThesubsequentplacementofMobileLoversforsafeguardingin

theBristolMuseumduringthequarreloveritsintendedownershipprovidedan

apparentlyneutralzoneofprotectionforthework.Althoughthemuseumwas

representedasanagentofthecity,andasademocraticspace,wherevisitors,as

“thepeople”,wereencouragedtorecordtheirpreferencesforthefutureofthe

work,theself-evidentlydemocraticstrategiesofthemuseumwerelimitedinonly

offeringfixedparametersofpossiblepoliticalaction.Incontrast,thedisruptiveand

improperremovalofthispiecefromthemuseum,withoutformalauthorization–

savealetterapparentlysignedwithBanksy’stag–isdemocraticinRancière’s

sense,inthatthisextraordinaryunprecedentedactionunsettledthestatusquo.

Theprioritygivenbybothpartiestothewishesofthecommunityandtothe

intentionsoftheartistindeterminingtheproperowneroftheworkishighly

unusual,andrepresentsasocio-moralprecedentfortherecognitionoftherightsof

streetartiststodeterminethefirstdistributionoftheirwork,overtherightsof

propertyowners,whoarecurrentlyabletolawfullyclaimthetangibleartworkson

theirwallsasindividual,ratherthancommunity,property.MobileLoversthus

temporarilysubvertedtheformalmechanismsoftheacquisitiveurbanartmarket,

evenifitwasultimatelyincorporatedintothestatusquo.Nonetheless,thesocio-

moralprecedentsetduringthiscaserepresentsatemporarygapinthedivisionof

thesensible(Rancière,2004)thatcouldprovidetheconditionsofpossibilityfor

alternativeformsofpossibleactionforstreetartists,whohavehad,untilnow,few

rightstospeakandbeheardinthedeterminationofthefateoftheirunauthorized

work.Paradoxically,perhapsitistheveryperceptionofstreetartinsocio-moral

terms,asa‘gift’,ratherthananartobjectproper,thatmayenablethesubversionof

thelegalstricturescurrentlyprohibitingtherecognitionofthemoralrightsof

streetartists.Itremainstobeseenwhetherthissocio-moralprecedentwill,inturn,

providetheconditionsofpossibilityforlegislativechangethatmightbetter

recognizeboththewishesofthecommunityandthemoralrightsofstreetartists.

Bibliography

Banksy(2014)“MobileLovers.”http://banksy.co.uk(accessed20May2016)

Barrett,J(2012)Museumsandthepublicsphere.Malden,MA:Wiley-Blackwell.

BBC(2014)“NewBanksyartworkinBristolremovedwithcrowbarbylocalclub”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-27033079

(accessed20May2016)

Bengsten,P(2014)TheStreetArtWorld.Lund:LundUniversityPress.

Bently,L&Sherman,B(2009).IntellectualPropertyLaw(3rded.)

Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

BristolMuseum&ArtGallery(2014a)“Banksy:MobileLovers.”

http://www.bristolmuseums.org.uk/bristol-museum-and-art-

gallery/whats-on/banksy-mobile-lovers/(accessed20May2016)

BristolMuseum(2014b)“BristolMuseum@bristolmuseum.”29May,2014.

https://twitter.com/bristolmuseum/status472012675589742592

(accessed20May2016)

BristolPost(2014)“It'sdowntoBanksynowtosortoutownershipofMobile

Lovers,saysBristolboys'clubmanager.”BristolPost,29April2014.

www.bristolpost.co.uk/s-Banksy-sort-ownership-Mobile-Lovers-

says/story-21027409-detail/story.html(accessed20May2016)

Burnham,S(2010)Thecallandresponseofstreetartandthecity.

City,14,(1-2),137-153.

Colwell,C(2015)Repatriation,KnowledgeFlows,andMuseumPowerStructures.

CurrentAnthropology,56:S12,S263-S275

Copyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988Section171(3)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents

(accessed20May2016)

Corsane,G(2006)Heritage,museumsandgalleries.NewYork:Routledge.

Cresswell,T(1992)“Thecrucial“where”ofgraffiti:ageographicalanalysisof

reactionstograffitiinNewYork.”EnvironmentandPlanningD:Societyand

Space10,329–344.

DailyMail(2014)“BanksyartworkthatwasleftonBoys'Clubdoorisvaluedby

AntiquesRoadshowfor£400,000.”DailyMail,31May2014.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2644577/Banksy-artwork-left-

Boys-Club-door-valued-Antiques-Roadshow-400-

000.html#ixzz3bAmTTImX(accessed20May2016)

Dickens,L(2008)“Placingpost-graffiti:thejourneyofthePeckhamRock.”Cultural

Geographies,15(4):471–496.

Dickens,L(2009)TheGeographiesofPost-Graffiti:ArtWorlds,CulturalEconomy.

London:RoyalHolloway.

Dickens,L(2010)Picturesonwalls?Producing,pricingandcollectingthestreetart

screenprint.City,14,(1-2),63-81.

Douglas,M(2002)PurityandDanger:AnAnalysisofConceptsofPollutionand

Taboo.London:Routledge.

Duncan,C(1995/2009)“Theartmuseumasritual.”InD.Preziosi(Ed.)TheArtof

ArtHistory:ACriticalAnthology.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.424-434.

Ganz,N(2004)GraffitiWorld:StreetArtfromFiveContinents.London:

ThamesandHudson.

Garfinkel,H(1991)StudiesinEthnomethodology.Cambridge:PolityPress.

Hansen,S(2015)“Pleasurestolenfromthepoor”:Communitydiscourseonthe

‘theft’ofaBanksy.Crime,Media&Culture.DOI:10.1177/1741659015612880

Highmore,B.(2011)OutofPlace:UnprofessionalPainting,JacquesRancièreand

theDistributionoftheSensible.InP.BowmanandR.Stamp(Eds.)Critical

Dissensus:ReadingRancière.London:Continuum.

Iveson,K(2014).“PolicingtheCity.”InM.Davidson&D.Martin(Eds.)Urban

Politics:CriticalApproaches.London:Sage.

Lampert,M(2016)Beyondthepoliticsofreception:JacquesRanciereandthe

politicsofart.ContinentalPhilosophyReview.DOI10.1007/s11007-016-9369-1

Keller,M&Edelstein,W(1991)TheDevelopmentofSocio-MoralMeaningMaking:

Domains,Categories,andPerspective-Taking.In:W.M.Kurtines&J.L.Gewirtz

(Eds.)HandbookofMoralbehaviorandDevelopment:Vol.2.

Research(pp.89-114).Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.

Matless,D(1994).MoralgeographyinBroadland.Ecumene,1(2),127–155.

McAuliffe,C(2012)Graffitiorstreetart?Negotiatingthemoralgeographiesofthe

creativecity.JournalofUrbanAffairs,34(2),189–206.

MacDowall,L,Merrill,S,&Hansen,S(forthcoming).TheContestedHeritagesof

GraffitiandStreetArt.London:Routledge.

McCarthy,M(2014)PressRelease:Banksy’sMobileLoverssoldtobenefitBroad

Plain.http://www.mmcontemporaryarts.com/press/

(accessed20May2016)

Metro(2014)“BanksyletterconfirmsBristolyouthclubcankeepMobileLovers

painting.”Metro,8May,2014.http://metro.co.uk/2014/05d/08/banksy-

mobile-lovers-letter-bristols-broad-plain-boys-club-to-keep-painting-

4721191/#ixzz3bNcX4jlF(accessed20May2016)

vanAalst,I&Boogaarts,I(2002)EuropeanUrbanandRegionalStudies9(3):195–

209

Young,A(2014)StreetArt,PublicCity:Law,CrimeandtheUrbanImagination.

London:Routledge.

Young,A(2010)Negotiatedconsentorzerotolerance?Respondingtograffitiand

streetartinMelbourne.City,14,(1-2),99-114.

Pollock,G.(1980)“Artists’MythologiesandMediaGenius,MadnessandArt

History.”Screen,Vol.21,No.3:57-96.

Rancière,J(2009)TheEmancipatedSpectator.London:Verso.

Rancière,J(2004)ThePoliticsofAesthetics.London:Continuum.

Rancière,J(2007)TheEthicalTurnOfAestheticsAndPolitics.Recognition,Work,

Politics.BrillE-book.ChapterDOI:10.1163/ej.9789004157880.i-316.9.27-46.

Rockhill,G(2016)Pullingtheemergencybreakoncriticaltheoryinretreat:

InterviewwithGabrielRockhill.

https://thecriticaltheoryworkshop.wordpress.com/2016/02/06/pulling-the-

emergency-break-on-critical-theory-in-retreat-interview-with-gabriel-rockhill/

(accessed20May2017)

Stokoe,E&Edwards,D(2009)Mundanemorality:Gender,categoriesand

complaintsinfamilialneighbourdisputes.JournalofAppliedLinguisticsand

ProfessionalPractice,9(2):165-192.

Tanke,J(2011)JacquesRancière:Philosophy,Politics,Aesthetics.London:

Continuum.

TheIndependent(2014)“NewBanksyseesloveandsmartphonesatoddsbut

whereintheUKisit?”TheIndependent,14April2014.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/new-banksy-

art-sees-love-and-smartphones-at-odds-but-where-in-the-uk-is-it-

9259358.html(accessed20May2016)

TheTelegraph(2014)“Banksy'sMobileLoverslocatedinBristol.”TheTelegraph,

15April2014.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-

news/10767705/Banksys-Mobile-Lovers-located-in-Bristol.html(accessed

20May2016)

Verrell,S(2014)“WhoownsaBanksy?”HuffingtonPost,5June2014.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/salome-verrell/banksy-art

ownership_b_5451340.html(accessed20May2016)

Waclawek,A(2011)GraffitiandStreetArt.Thames&Hudson:London.

Waldner,L&Dobratz,B(2013)“GraffitiasaFormofContentiousPolitical

Participation.”SociologyCompass7/5:377–389

Young,A(2014)StreetArt,PublicCity:Law,CrimeandtheUrbanImagination.

London:Routledge.

Figures

Figure1.Banksy,MobileLovers2014.MainimageGoogleStreetview,insetphotographofMobileLoversbyBanksy(www.banksy.com).ExteriorofBroadPlainsYouthClub,ClementStreet,Bristol,England.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/banksy/.jpg(accessed15May2016)

Figure2.Banksy,MobileLovers2014.InteriorofBroadPlainsYouthClub,ClementStreet,Bristol,England.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=846D5UipfIs(accessed15May2016)

Figure3.Banksy,MobileLovers2014.BristolMuseum&ArtGallery.Bristol,England.http://www.bristol-culture.com/2014/04/18/banksy-vs-bristol-museum-buggy-park/(accessed15May2016)

Figure4.LetterofauthenticationconfirmingtheintendedbeneficiaryofMobileLovers(2014)Banksy6thMay,2014.http://metro.co.uk/2014/05/08/banksy-mobile-lovers-letter-bristols-broad-plain-boys-club-to-keep-painting-4721191/(accessed15May2016)