Thursday, May 01, 2008

[banksy] fun but is it art

Alleged pic of Banksy, possibly not of him


It's fair to say, I think, that most Brits would be aware of Banksy's little stunts and the shroud of secrecy he surrounds himself with. The police would like to interview him and critics are divided on the artistic merit of his work.

Some critics scorn Banksy as a passing fad for lightweight art fashionistas. "This man is nothing but a clown .. he has absolutely nothing to do with art," British critic Brian Sewell has haughtily proclaimed.

Partly for quicker getaways with his graffiti, he's become known for his stencil work and is noted for forays into places like the British Museum, where he'd hung a work of his own, replete with plaque, informing visitors:

"This finely preserved example of primitive art dates from the Post-Catatonic era. The artist responsible is known to have created a substantial body of work across South East of England under the moniker Banksymus Maximus but little else is known about him. Most art of this type has unfortunately not survived. The majority is destroyed by zealous municipal officials who fail to recognise the artistic merit and historical value of daubing on walls."

Apart from art critics, the police and museum officials, he gets up other people's noses as well. In a visit to Jamaica, Peter Richards, a local photographer said of him:

To me he seems a phoney. He pretends to be a revolutionary artist yet does work for a major corporation like Puma and sells his canvasses for thousands. It's fake activism.

Richards allegedly took photos of him and sent them to the Evening Standard. Banksy's exhibitions have been closed down when as he admits in his site, painting live animals caused them distress.

So is he an artist or a sham? For me it's as much art as Warhol ever was and shows a not inconsiderable talent. One Mail reader decried him as a criminal vandal but another, Bob from Worcester put a view closer to my own:

Well actually, Ian, if I woke up and found he'd written this across the front of MY house, I should be delighted. I'd be able to deny all knowledge of how it got there when the blackshirts came to complain and I would "find it extremely difficult to clean off" for at least a couple of years.

You may differ.



5 comments:

  1. Oh, good post topic.
    I do think that graffiti can be art depending on the image. OBvioulsy F--you is not. When I was in uni, we had underground tunnels which connected all the departments . The art department painted'graffiti' over a lot of it. Most was belonged in a museum, and made for an intersting walk .

    ReplyDelete
  2. Clealry I did not study English or Grammar. :)(or typing)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Generally I am opposed to graffiti but for Banksy I make an exception as I rather like his sly social commentary and actually rather traditional graphic style. Compare him for a moment with a contemporary such as Tracey Emin and I think you get the point - more than double the talent I'd say.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think most appreciate the amount of work which goes in and the talent level.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think part of an artist's job is to annoy others so I think I'm agreeing with you.

    ReplyDelete

Comments need a moniker of your choosing before or after ... no moniker, not posted, sorry.