Banksy strikes again - does art justify breaking the law?

I feel a rant coming on.

It's a reaction to an article on the Daily Mail’s website today about “street artist” Banksy, or in my opinion, graffiti nuisance Banksy.

The article announced his latest creation – a sketch of  an origami heron holding a goldfish in its beak next to the River Lym, in Dorset.

The mysterious and elusive Banksy, who no-one knows the identity of, later confirmed on his website that it was his handiwork.

This came, I imagine, to the delight of those living nearby as an original Bansky can send house prices through the roof.

For anyone unfamiliar with his work - he paints, sprays, sketches (I don’t know which) drawings on the sides of buildings and walls around the country.

Usually in the form of a stencil image, his work is known for its anti-establishment message, in other words a two-finger salute to the law.

He has been doing this for years, proudly publicising his work on his website and in public exhibitions, although he keeps his identity hidden behind a veil of secrecy.

He (and again, I am assuming it is a he)  regularly daubs streets around the country with his artwork, which can also be seen on T-shirts, post cards, posters and in art books.

But rather than prompting neighbourhood watch meetings in the areas he targets, he seems to be revered for his contribution to the city landscape.

He is extremely popular among celebrities and the super-rich, unsurprising as they are another section of society who somehow consider themselves to be a cut above the rest of us.

He has even made a film - Exit Through The Gift Shop – which was nominated for an Oscar.

My issue is this.

If you or I were to take a paintbrush and can of Dulux to the side of a wall in London, it would not be too long until we felt the strong arm of the law on our collar.

If not there and then, doubtless nearby CCTV would have caught us in the act and we could expect a knock at the door.

But apparently Banksy is exempt from the law.

Every time he paints a wall, his work appears in the papers and the arty fraternity all flock to praise his latest “message”.

Like this time, experts are already speculating the extent to which the value of the wall has shot up by.

But why hasn’t he been arrested and prosecuted for criminal damage?

The police are quick to catch speeding motorists and litter-bugs dropping a fag end on the pavement, but someone who has blatantly flouted the law for years seems to have been left alone because people like his drawings.

Graffiti is defined in law as “ Drawings, Scribbles Messages or tags”.

Legislation states:

“Section 6 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 provides for offences in relation to graffiti. 

“Someone caught doing graffiti will be guilty of a criminal act and can be fined up to £5,000 if the damage they have caused is less than £5,000. 

“Alternatively they may be given a community service order rather than a fine which is often the case in relation to young offenders.”

“If the cost of the damage is over £5,000 then the case will be referred to the Crown Court which has the scope for tougher sentences.

“Section 6 of the Criminal Damage Act is also used for searches of people’s homes in very serious cases which includes searching computer records. 

“Often it is the case that there will be photographic evidence of the graffiti undertaken by the perpetrator in their own home.”

So how is it that Banksy is exempt from all this. Apparently immune from the jurisdiction that applies to the rest of us.

Art experts Inspired Heads told me: “What Banksy does is street art, it involves an idea... but tagging and general defacing of property is what gets prosecuted.”

That some may consider this  art means he is above the law?

Does that mean if I drove at 60 down a 30-mile zone and called it “an artistic street performance” I would not get a £800 fine and six points on my licence?

I think not.

What really gets me is not the graffiti, although it is not my cup of tea and I would not want it splattered across my walls, but the clear double standards.

Either it is illegal, or it isn’t, and if it is, it is high time the police caught and dealt with him.