Thursday, December 5, 2013


Whilst in certain forms graffiti can be spectacular, thought provoking, occasionally beautiful, generally it's just tags and mindless vandalism, pretty much on property which isn't owned by the 'artist' if artist isn't too generous a term for a vandal.
A grafitti ‘artist’ who caused thousands of pounds of damage has been spared jail after a magistrate described him as ‘the next Banksy’.
Tom Dewhurst, 22, is responsible for spraying more than 50 locations across Manchester but magistrate Leslie Bottomley chose to focus on his potential talent rather than the acts of vandalism, handing him only a fine and community service order.
Admitting the decision might raise eyebrows, Mr Bottomley told him: 'I will probably get my wrists slapped for this but you seem to have talent and could be the next Banksy.'
Not exactly a talent worth keeping out of jail.
 Why is it that a judge has decider to be a talent scout rather than applying the law to a little scroat whose talent is dwarfed by my 3 year old granddaughter when it comes to art?
Banksy at least has talent and imagination (even if he is breaking the law), the few examples of Mr Dewhurst art appear to show that he lacks either. Essentially the guy is a tagger, he has some talent, but mostly uses it to scrawl a signature of a sort around Manchester. As it is he's supposed to have done thousands of pounds worth of damage, yet only gets a £1000 fine. His mates are trying to raise the cash for the fine by selling graffiti...
One does wonder where he gets the money for the paint too...

1 annotations:

Kath lissenden said...

I agree with you and this guy certainly IS NO BANKSY.
The Magistrate was clearly after her 5 minutes of fame. It's one of those things like the crappy turner prize that drives me nutts I love good art this and the likes of Shed Boat Shed and that tripe messy bed are NOT art. When the Tate paid millions for a pile of bricks i wanted to cry. This s1t is NOT art.