By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A Banksy mural, depicting a protester and a judge, was removed from the Royal Courts of Justice in London. The artwork, confirmed by Banksy, appeared on a listed building, necessitating its removal by the HM Courts & Tribunals Service. The piece, interpreted as a commentary on arrests related to Palestine Action, aligns with Banksy’s history of politically charged street art. This follows the Lady Chief Justice’s concerns for judge safety and the mural’s initial reporting as criminal damage.
Read the original article here
Banksy’s ‘judge’ mural scrubbed from Royal Courts of Justice wall, and honestly, that just elevates the artwork even further, wouldn’t you agree? It’s like, they did such a good job, or maybe I should say, they got the job done. It was probably a little too on the nose for their liking, that’s for sure. I can imagine that stings. On one hand, the piece was worth a fortune, likely millions of dollars. But on the other hand, it was directly criticizing a system that is worth, well, trillions of dollars. But the point was already made. The removal, the scrubbing, that actually makes the statement hit even harder.
They’ve scrubbed the details, sure, but the outline remains. Poetic, isn’t it? Now, the wall looks like a nuclear dead shadow, an eerie ghost of what was. It’s a chilling image, and honestly, it works. Gg, as they say. Game over. All it does is increase its fame and amplify its message. I can see why people resonate with it, but did anyone really expect them to keep a mural negatively depicting them right there on their wall? It’s the ghosts of injustice past, now literally etched into the building. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone starts emailing a picture of it to the judges every day.
I can see him doing it again in a week, knowing Banksy’s penchant for provocative art. It now looks even creepier, like the shadows of people caught in a nuclear blast, a stark reminder of the potential consequences of the very system being critiqued. That just further confirms the point of the work to begin with. Seems apropos, don’t you think? This whole situation is also a nice reminder that the BBC is actually a very impartial organization, in most countries if something like this was being erased from a government building, there is no way it would be in the news.
Some might point to the hypocrisy of it all, considering Banksy himself has initiated a number of lawsuits. But the punters, the everyday people, they’re cheering. Populism is at play here. If I were Banksy, I might have even scrubbed it myself, purposely leaving the outline of the original piece intact. Pretty funny that the person removing the graffiti feels the need to hide their face. Honestly, Banksy must be thrilled. They’ve publicly had no problems with their work being destroyed in the past if it sent a message.
And the thing is, they had to remove it. It’s like if someone graffitied the Lincoln Memorial. The Royal Courts of Justice is a protected, Grade I listed building, which is the equivalent of a Federal Monument in the US. This means the removal was essentially pre-ordained, even if everyone agreed with the piece, even if it was adored universally. There was no option. So, no, the removal doesn’t necessarily say anything on its own beyond the practicalities of protecting a historic building.
But it does mean Banksy is going to be in the public eye, potentially in the dock, again. Not for what the work communicated, but because of where it was put. Really, it adds to the metaphor, this whole scrubbing, honestly. You make a good point, Banksy’s art is little more than a commodity at this point like everything else. Yeah, it’s more effective now, to be honest. I wonder if he planned that.
It would’ve gotten scrubbed even if it portrayed them positively. It’s a protected monumental building. Any graffiti, positive or negative, gets removed. Many people probably thought it would be removed so it could be sold. I don’t think that was ever realistic, given the strict laws about modifications to historical buildings in London. True art understands its medium, and Banksy has always been an artist, in the truest sense of the word. If he didn’t anticipate the removal… Nope, I don’t believe that. Time erases all, but Legends never die.
Now, some might interpret the mural and its removal in different ways. Some could interpret it as a statement that “no laws should be followed and the justice system cannot be used at all by anyone for anything.” But that’s a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. It seems like there’s a very obvious way to interpret this, seeing how justice systems in many western countries are being used to quell protestors very recently. This is a pretty clear sign and speaks volumes about a system that needs to reform.
Or maybe, the people removing it just didn’t want to inhale cleaning chemicals. It’s all a bit of a paradox. A sign of great art, even in partial destruction, it’s still poignant. It could have been, they have plenty of stone masons, I mean, come on. But they had an incentive to erase it. The incentive is to preserve an important historical building. But yeah, sure, let me just get my hammer and chisel out and get to work.
Banksy would have known it would get removed pretty damn fast, so I don’t know why there’s so much outcry for it’s removal. The whole thing feels like a performance, a carefully orchestrated play of art and removal. And as such, it does what art should do: it makes you think. Masons today can do a lot. And that’s the point, isn’t it?