šØ They spent more than Ā£85,000 trying to remove a Banksy from the Royal Courts of Justice. āļø A judge beating a protester. šļø On the wall of a court. š§± Then the court covered it. š· Then public money was spent trying to erase it. The obvious question is whether Banksy had the right to paint there. Probably not. But that is not the interesting question. š **Does the fact that an artwork was made illegally automatically give us the right to destroy it?** Banksy cannot have a veto over the city. Fame cannot mean that every wall he touches becomes untouchable heritage. But the opposite is also dangerous. Because sometimes history appears before anyone gives it permission. šØ At what point does vandalism become cultural memory? šļø Who decides what deserves to survive? š° The owner? The state? The market? A museum? Us? And when removing an artwork makes its meaning even stronger, have you really erased it? Or have you just completed it? š š„ New article on my Journal: **They Spent Ā£85,000 to Erase a Banksy. But Who Gets to Decide What Art Survives?** š http://www.antoninolavela.it/banksy-mural-removal-royal-courts.html #Banksy #StreetArt #ContemporaryArt #PoliticalArt #PublicArt #ArtAndPolitics #UrbanArt #ProtestArt #ArtCriticism #ContemporaryCulture