Artless Capitalism

That whole business about the abandoned sale at US auction of a supposed Banksy painting, prised from a Poundland wall in London, raises some interesting questions as to the nature of public art.  OK, I know this isn't exactly topical anymore, but I had intended to talk about this last week, but I got distracted by a shitty work week and other stuff.  Anyway, getting back to the point, the main issue raised here is that of 'ownership'.  When art is created in this 'geurilla' fashion, using public areas (in this case the wall of a shop), who does it actually belong to - the artist, the owner of the wall, or its presumed intended audience, the public?  Clearly, the owners of the building the wall was attached to think that the answer is simple - they own it by virtue of it being on their property.  Which consequently gives them the right to remove and try to sell it.  But I don't think that it is that simple.  Regardless of where the art appears, surely the artist has retains some kind of intellectual property rights over it, particularly if they haven't actually formally sold it to anyone?  Moreover, surely the intent of the original artist must count for something?  When an art work is posted publicly like this, doesn't it imply that the artist intends it to be freely accessible to all?

But, of course, we live in an age when wealth and corporate interests seek dominion over everything.  All things must have 'ownership', they must be commodities which can be bought and sold.   Especially art, which capital insists must be 'privatised' and taken out of the public arena wherever possible.  But is something like the Banksy in question actually continue to be art when removed from its original context?  Arguably, once it is removed from that wall, it is divorced from its original meaning as public art and becomes just a piece of painted plaster.  Also, the attempt at auctioning it was predicated on the assumption that it was created by Banksy.  But what if it wasn't, would it still have had monetary value?   Surely art should have intrinsic artistic value, regardless of its origin?  But, like I said, we live in a world where the wealthy believe only in materialistic values.  The whole concept of art being a free public resource, without any actual monetary value or ownership, is completely alien to them.  Rather than being something to experience and enjoy, it is merely an investment to be locked away and consumed privately.  Bastards.