Slave trade

Street Art is probably one of the more controversial types of contemporary art. The artist leaves his mark on the street, usually in a wall which doesn't belong to him, so the author of an artwork is not entirely the owner. Neither is it the building owner, as it becomes a part of the street not of the building, so in most cases it's the local authority who will take care of it. Art as a property that can't be sold is an idea from the early twentieth century with artists such as Marcel Duchamp with his ready-made works, which were already critic with the art trading system. Street Art, as an art belonging to the street, began with good premises to avoid falling into the elite of art trade... or am I wrong?

Slave Labour (2012), the disappeared graffity represents a child sewing 

flags of the UK and is interpreted as a criticism of poorly paid job with 

which London has been fittedsouvenirs for the Olympic Games.

Thanks to the persistent criticism and protests the auction house Fine Arts Auction Miami has removed a Banksy artwork which since two weeks ago was in a random wall of a London suburb. Frederic Thut, owner of the FAAM, has said they always check the legitimacy of all the sellers to prevent trading stolen works; although Scotland Yard, London's Metropolitan Police, has said there had been no theft report for this specific but someone just decided to remove it to sell it: "there is no evidence that any crime was committed”. Do not think so residents of the borough of Haringey who had mobilized to stop the auction and return the artwork, that they see as a gift from Banksy to the community, to its place. Luckily it seems that this time is the people united who wins and the artwork will not be auctioned.

The human desire to possess more, inadvertently becoming a salve of his own possessions, has led to Street Art not being longer safe of speculation and anyone seems free to take off a piece of wall and sell it to the highest bidder. In that case the artist remains over of any equation and not only doesn't get any profit but also sees helpless how his criticism to the system inevitably ends up being part of it. Or maybe am I wrong again and I should consider that as the artist is damaging other people's property without permission nobody should either ask for his permission to do whatever they want with his artwork?