This week however, random people that lived near one of the pieces charged $20 for enthusiasts to take pictures.
"The amateur curators used cardboard to shield the well-known British graffiti artist’s piece in their East New York neighborhood and will remove it only for a price."The two conditions for a public good are that they are non-rivalrous and non-exclusionary. Usually, Banksy's art meets this conditions as one person looking at a public wall with art doesn't detract from another's viewing, and it is (usually) not possible to charge someone to look a public wall. However, Banksy's work has been changed into a private good as people living near the work have made it exclusionary, to those only willing to pay $20 to see it.
1 comment:
If this graffiti is taken to be a private good, then those requiring admission to view the art could be seen as causing an externality to surrounding businesses. Depending on the crowd it attracts (or turns away) this externality could be positive or negative.
If the art attracts viewers to the area willing to pay to see the art, those viewers could potentially spend money in surrounding businesses or begin to care more about an area of the city that they normally wouldn't. It's similar to how a neighbor's well kept lawn, could raise another homeowner's property value.
On the other hand, if the crowd it attracts is seen as loitering or if it attracts criminals to the area since graffiti is usually viewed as vandalism, this could produce a negative externality to surrounding businesses because consumers may be discouraged from visiting that part of town. This would be similar to if someone has a poorly kept lawn and lowers property values of surrounding homes.
Post a Comment