In some way it's erased in malicious compliance, because the message is still showing, doubly because of the censorship.
this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2025
1063 points (98.7% liked)
Microblog Memes
9356 readers
2326 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Knowing Banksy, the image itself, while powerful in its message, was never going to be the main message of the art. The actions that followed were what it was all about. When your government is so predictable, it's easy to troll them.
Do you remember what the artwork was that was shredded after the auction? Few would. The message was always the shredding. Just like this, it was always the censoring. Government fell right into it and what was once some graffiti on a wall in a local area is now international news provoking discourse. That's art doing its thing.
Yeah, that mural was very clever.
The gov really had no winning move either way, and realistically leaving it up was never an option anyway.
I'd argue it had one winning move, but it wasn't going to happen. They could have protected it and said they agree with his right to speak (or something more UK; since there is no freedom of speech). The winning move is to recognize that people have issues with the actions and are discussing it —even if this is bullshit.
That would have invited more graffiti. Which IMO wouldn’t be a bad thing, but I can also understand the potential problems with it.
If I were in charge of it, and had the freedom to do anything, I'd do something like saying: "We recognize people's frustration. We will protect this piece for [some amount of weeks] but any further vandalism will be removed. However, we will host an exhibit for others to produce art expressing their opinions and will display them, within reason and legal boundaries."
This would remove almost all the power and give people a place to vent. However, it's not very fascist, which is about controlling people's ability to speak against you, so it's not going to happen. This piece is only powerful because it isn't allowed. As soon as it is then people stop giving a fuck. If they were actually intelligent then this is what they'd do. However, if they were intelligent they wouldn't have gotten into this mess to begin with.
It really does feel more powerful half-erased lol
The final form of the art piece. Honestly, I wouldn’t even be surprised if Banksy anticipated this. It wouldn’t be too tough to predict that the government would respond this way.
It's far more poignant like that. Whoever did this is either very stupid or very clever.
The ground is wet there like it just rained, I wonder if this is the first time it’s rained after he put it up. Maybe he used paint that washes away, exactly for this reason.
Just a thought though. Unlikely.
They completely covered it in plastic foil, put barricades in front of it and two guards to prevent anyone seeing it. It did definitely not get washed away by the rain. It existed for 3 days and was covered for most of that time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/10/arts/design/banksy-destroyed.html
Here is a pic of the removal process this morning:
lol now I’m hoping another mural shows up with this on the other side
Yeeah. A painting of those guards standing infront of a pile of food and infront of the guards a group of starving kids. Thats the kind of grin im seeing here. "Aww you wanna live? You wanna not get genocided? Well guess what, we dont give a fuck!"
load more comments
(1 replies)
Same sort of vibe as the nuclear shadows, you can still tell what was supposed to be there.
The worst part is that it's the more progressive party that is doing this.
I’m not sure “progressive” is the right term for the neoliberal war machine doing what it does to manufacture consent, but also not living in the UK so take that with a grain of salt I suppose.
I said "more progressive". Their are definitely more progressive then the alternatives.
Certainly less progressive than the greens
load more comments
(1 replies)
I think it is pretty clear by now that Keir Starmer is a seat warmer for Nigel
He's behaving like that's his goal even. It's just hard to fathom. Like is he a plant? I don't see how you could set the table better than what he's doing right now.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Whoever thinks that twat will make things better in stad of worse is delusional
New Labour are regressive as shit.
It's just that the Tories are even more regressive and Reform are complete total nutters.
load more comments
(2 replies)
It's an admission of guilt.
Am I the only one bothered by the fact that the most recent picture is not on the right side?
load more comments
(4 replies)
Banksy used something to etch the stone before applying the paint knowing they'll try to wash it off.
Edit: more context, the building that has the art is 150 years old so they can't just replace the tiles. They are going to have to take some layers off.
They only did more damage by erasing it, they just proved the point Banksy was making.
I don't know, it seems quit obvious that that was the whole point. He might even done it himself
It's still pretty artsy. You can totally get the message without the finer details.
Calculated?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Left panel: the person on the ground is defending themselves with a berserker sword from the attacking wraith wielding a hammer of unjust suffering.
*Broken berserker sword
Removing it, of course, creates a Streisand effect and add more fuel to the Palestinian cause.
The people removing the graffiti couldn't even be bothered to change the border. Still clearly an outline of a power imbalance.
Banksy knew that it would look like this if they tried to remove it. He put it on a building where they couldn't just break a chunk of wall off, but they had to remove it. He understood exactly what kind of commercial removers were out there, he understood that it would leave a shadow.
Banksy has experimented with this theme before, of the art being destroyed, where the act of destruction is like a transaction.
One of his paintings was sold at auction, and when the bidding was closed, the big frame the work was displayed in began shredding the drawing. Except with the murals the "destruction" of the art was carried out by the state bureaucracy that the work is critiquing. But its a mundane, meaningless sort of removal. Human creativity and expression of injustice, likely worth millions, wiped away because of faceless, mindless state bureaucracy.
This is what makes Banksy an incredible artist. The after shot is the art.
That's a 4D chess move, if that's true. I do remember the Bansky shredded artwork event, that was wild.
load more comments
(4 replies)
all this does is amplify the message. Banksy is brilliant.
What are the chances banksy was the masked person who covered up the mural it seems to be done with intent to keep the silhouette perfectly. The banksy crew had to have known it was going to be covered up and they planted someone to be the cleaner-upper? Or this whole thing is a sanctioned stunt... It seems there is people within the system that want it to change.
why clear it and leave a silhouette?? why just don't leave an entire square silhouette to no one ever knows what was there.
view more: next ›