I don't have a problem with Banksy. He has made a career - an entire successful career! - of satirizing and laughing at the corrupt or hypocritical ways of our culture, both at the top and at the bottom, but mostly at the top where it matters. A one-man Mad magazine, with a wider audience than just teenagers, and he has made millions doing it. I can see why a lot of people would have issues, mostly either ideological or just simple jealousy. I can admit to a bit of that myself.
Dan Brooks' problem seems to be: "Sarcasm ain't what it used to be, and it's kinda popular, so it must be like kitsch; only not sentimental, rather vaguely anti-establishment but ineffectual, so it must be kinda crap." And he uses Banksy as his straw-man example but won't recognize how amazingly pointed many of his pieces are, rather complains that they haven't changed the world.
I am impressed with the scale of Dismaland, and, again, by the success of it. I will arrange to see it if I can, then I can report on it from the personal viewpoint. I did see "Exit through the Gift Shop" and thought it brilliant. As I recall, he invents out of the aether an artist and a career in art just by spoofing this invented existence via the medium of a film that owes its success to exposing this artist. Meta-meta-art.
I'd love to have him over for tea.
cheers, Ted
Dan Brooks' problem seems to be: "Sarcasm ain't what it used to be, and it's kinda popular, so it must be like kitsch; only not sentimental, rather vaguely anti-establishment but ineffectual, so it must be kinda crap." And he uses Banksy as his straw-man example but won't recognize how amazingly pointed many of his pieces are, rather complains that they haven't changed the world.
I am impressed with the scale of Dismaland, and, again, by the success of it. I will arrange to see it if I can, then I can report on it from the personal viewpoint. I did see "Exit through the Gift Shop" and thought it brilliant. As I recall, he invents out of the aether an artist and a career in art just by spoofing this invented existence via the medium of a film that owes its success to exposing this artist. Meta-meta-art.
I'd love to have him over for tea.
cheers, Ted
5
Always thought Banksy was fatuous radical chic for middle-brows to congratulate themselves for knowing about ("I'm engaged AND hip!") in between episodes of The Walking Dead.
2
Oh, puh-leeeze.
4
brooksy makes the point at least twice here of people lining up to see dismaland. and lest we forget, dismaland functions not only as a broadside on the ills of society, but more specifically on the way one particular corporate juggernaut exploits those ills to the tune of billions of dollars raked in from LONG LINES of people more than willing to partake of its manipulation of their desire to FEEL SOMETHING, a desire met stale pipedreams and, yes, endless kitsch. if critics of dismaland find it boring or uninteresting or a waste of money, well... i think maybe score one for the artist. a society that shells out money for any entity with the expectation that they will end up "feeling something" is one that has itself replaced life with vicarious surrogates of it. banksy is giving us exactly the experience we should have when we buy into the sham of disney, a sham that daily succeeds in getting people to believe in the insultingly ridiculous as somehow meaningful and edifying, to believe that paying to feel is a dream come true, to believe that this doesn't somehow contribute as much corporate greed and pillary itself to the destruction of what once made us human. sending people away from his installation feeling bored, fed-up, played, etc is maybe banksy getting a good start on finally getting us to see how boring and manipulative our cultures have become and how we are being easily led by the nose because of our desire to let someone else structure consciousness for us.
10
First, I think "Dismaland" is totally brilliant.
Second, this article merely defines sarcasm as our "kitsch". And all of his arguments stem from that. But there is no explanation of why sarcasm is our "kitsch". And, in fact, it's not.
Third, some people simply don't get or don't like sarcasm. That's fine. We all have our own taste. Just like some people like "kitsch", though no one who likes it would label it that.
Fourth, "Dismaland" is not so much sarcastic as it is ironic.
Fifth, it is much more than either sarcastic or ironic. Like any art installation with many pieces, some is better than the rest. But much of it goes much deeper than sarcasm or irony and only someone who hasn't actually seen it or someone who simply get's angry at the first level of irony, would not see that.
Second, this article merely defines sarcasm as our "kitsch". And all of his arguments stem from that. But there is no explanation of why sarcasm is our "kitsch". And, in fact, it's not.
Third, some people simply don't get or don't like sarcasm. That's fine. We all have our own taste. Just like some people like "kitsch", though no one who likes it would label it that.
Fourth, "Dismaland" is not so much sarcastic as it is ironic.
Fifth, it is much more than either sarcastic or ironic. Like any art installation with many pieces, some is better than the rest. But much of it goes much deeper than sarcasm or irony and only someone who hasn't actually seen it or someone who simply get's angry at the first level of irony, would not see that.
10
As a frequent commenter on Wonkette's comment threads (although comments are not allowed), I enjoy the low-brow, easy mocking of those who well-deserve to be mocked, and especially, the way that new commenters are quickly accepted into the commentariat as fellow travelers in this world of the absurd. The comment threads are probably as good as any left-leaning blog I've seen, and certainly the wittiest.
There are plenty of places with other gestalts on the Internet, but for my funny bone, Wonkette is a good place to start.
There are plenty of places with other gestalts on the Internet, but for my funny bone, Wonkette is a good place to start.
5
The whole thing is so superficial and kitschy. It's like a Disneyland version of sarcastic art.
1
This reeks of the sanctimonious elitism of the author's previous essay, "Streaming Music Has Left Me Adrift." How ironic that he posits sarcasm as creating a chasm between the cognoscenti and the unschooled masses when the purpose of this essay is to do the same. This, on top of his fundamental misunderstanding of what kitsch is.
Banksy is a popular artist working in a popular medium for a popular audience. I would say he's been successful in realizing his intent no matter what the art authority Huffington Post Canada says. Can the author say the same? Based on this piece, I think not.
Banksy is a popular artist working in a popular medium for a popular audience. I would say he's been successful in realizing his intent no matter what the art authority Huffington Post Canada says. Can the author say the same? Based on this piece, I think not.
8
Wpnkette mocking some militia idiots has zero, zip, nada to do with Banksy. Except that the author of this maundering nonsense dislikes both. A critique should be at least as coherent and sharp as its object, and this article is actually much less coherent and amusing than the Wonkette article.
9
The sad irony of Disney/Land/World/Planet struck home when I took my 3 year-old child to Walt Disney World and observed childless, professional couples who stayed at the Disney hotel and argued with the staff about bad service.
4
Take Banksy name off of Dismaland and how many visitors would there be? Dreary, boring, and uncomfortable at great expense.
Children, all art became boring once it began to rely on shock and less on technique. I am not moved by anything that looks like my kid could do it. And most of the time, Banksy's stuff is actually imaginative and skillful. I'll drink to that. I don't need meaning.
3
"a constitutionalist group that recently interceded in a mining dispute in Montana"
Good one, Dan! I see this entire piece is kitsch, err irony.
~
Good one, Dan! I see this entire piece is kitsch, err irony.
~
6
Just read Baudrillard and be done with it!
The writer would do well to look more closely at Banksy's pieces. Some are fun throwaways; some are surprising and delightful sight gags; many others embody the layered, revealing ironies this article misses.
All of his work is both beautifully crafted and informed by a sense of compassion. Neither of these qualities come to mind when I think of the kitchification of sarcasm.
I'd also suggest that the pinnacle of kitschified, knee-jerk irony is well behind us. David Foster Wallace put it to bed in the late 1990s. Today we've got "the New Sincerity" interbreeding with the metamodernists. Snark lives on, but only as one possible attitude among many. If you look deeper into Banksy's work, you'll find it's one attitude among many in a sophisticated palate.
All of his work is both beautifully crafted and informed by a sense of compassion. Neither of these qualities come to mind when I think of the kitchification of sarcasm.
I'd also suggest that the pinnacle of kitschified, knee-jerk irony is well behind us. David Foster Wallace put it to bed in the late 1990s. Today we've got "the New Sincerity" interbreeding with the metamodernists. Snark lives on, but only as one possible attitude among many. If you look deeper into Banksy's work, you'll find it's one attitude among many in a sophisticated palate.
17
Ah, more 'thoughtful' deprecating analysis from the lofty perch of yet another art doyen.
I believe the real 'problem' with Banksy is his insistence on using art as a microscope to peer deeply and glaringly into the darker, more hypocritical mire of contemporary shallowness, superficiality and hypocrisy that is increasingly a hallmark of Western culture. And he does it without consideration (or concern) of what the critical 'experts' think.
Banksy's art isn't always pretty nor is it always comfortable and the fact that he's taken his vision outside to the masses rather than the vaulted, hallowed halls of galleries, museums and corporate collections makes a case far more salient to this observer than any Clement Greenberg style hyper-analytic poo such as I've just read I've just read.
I believe the real 'problem' with Banksy is his insistence on using art as a microscope to peer deeply and glaringly into the darker, more hypocritical mire of contemporary shallowness, superficiality and hypocrisy that is increasingly a hallmark of Western culture. And he does it without consideration (or concern) of what the critical 'experts' think.
Banksy's art isn't always pretty nor is it always comfortable and the fact that he's taken his vision outside to the masses rather than the vaulted, hallowed halls of galleries, museums and corporate collections makes a case far more salient to this observer than any Clement Greenberg style hyper-analytic poo such as I've just read I've just read.
7
It might actually *be* boring to slog through, or a bad experience in person, but to me it's a work of vastly entertaining art because of the medium--
the Internet--
through which it is presented to me. That people will decry it (cry over it?) makes it more perfect somehow-- and I don't usually indulge in drinking the tears of others. *That's* how powerful this work is.
I even have a new appreciation for my memories of an actual trip to Disneyland.
the Internet--
through which it is presented to me. That people will decry it (cry over it?) makes it more perfect somehow-- and I don't usually indulge in drinking the tears of others. *That's* how powerful this work is.
I even have a new appreciation for my memories of an actual trip to Disneyland.
1
:But how awful to see society embrace art that makes you feel nothing, that makes you think only about the vast chasm between you and everyone else.:
Isnt exposing the chasm between people also a pursuit of art.. can it not be that the writer has overlooked the point? Regardless of what he calls it, he keeps saying that it makes people feel nothing so it's not art. Then in the last statement he nails exactly the thing it makes people feel. Ironically, he seems to deflate his own argument. Some of the greatest works of art created great apathy in an effort to move people to change.
I dont care about Banksy one way or the other, I dont care if the author has been physically to Dismaland (since there is such coverage of it on the web).. I just think maybe he missed his own point.
Isnt exposing the chasm between people also a pursuit of art.. can it not be that the writer has overlooked the point? Regardless of what he calls it, he keeps saying that it makes people feel nothing so it's not art. Then in the last statement he nails exactly the thing it makes people feel. Ironically, he seems to deflate his own argument. Some of the greatest works of art created great apathy in an effort to move people to change.
I dont care about Banksy one way or the other, I dont care if the author has been physically to Dismaland (since there is such coverage of it on the web).. I just think maybe he missed his own point.
2
It’s obvious that the author doesn’t get Dismaland. But thousands of people appreciate it and have been flocking to it, which suggests that there’s something to appreciate. I think it’s freaking hilarious. It should be obvious that different artistic statements appeal to different people. I appreciate that it’s a rare public indictment of the cruel, covered-up ironies and problems in society. How refreshing. It makes us feel connected to the artists and to one another.
3
Hi guys, I started off enjoying this article about Dismaland, a Banksy creation in England. But when I got to the writer's description of "Kitsch", I became lost and almost fell asleep as my eyes became heavy.
Anyway, the first part of the article is very interesting. Especially the description of the Cinderella carraige being in an accident. I particularly love Banksy's use of the word Dismaland instead of Disneyland as the title of the location of the theme park. I read it as dis is my land, or dismal and, or Disneyland parodied in a sad, humorous, depressing, snarky (pick your word) way.
Fascinating, yet overly analytical (especially the discourse on Kitsch), article.
Nonetheless I thank you for writing it. Made for good early morning reading.
Anyway, the first part of the article is very interesting. Especially the description of the Cinderella carraige being in an accident. I particularly love Banksy's use of the word Dismaland instead of Disneyland as the title of the location of the theme park. I read it as dis is my land, or dismal and, or Disneyland parodied in a sad, humorous, depressing, snarky (pick your word) way.
Fascinating, yet overly analytical (especially the discourse on Kitsch), article.
Nonetheless I thank you for writing it. Made for good early morning reading.
2
Whatever merits Dan Brooks may have as a critic, writing about an artwork without having actually seen it is a dubious enterprise at best. At least I assume he's never been there; it's evasive bordering on dishonest that the issue of how much of this is second-hand never comes up. Shame on you, Dan Brooks.
5
I'm not sure what the writer means by "sarcastic." The example he uses from Dismaland, Cinderella dead, lit by paparazzi flashes, doesn't seem sarcastic to me. It's a joke the writer doesn't think is funny, okay. Unfunny is not the same thing as sarcastic.
2
Meanwhile, over in the NYT's "Arts" section, we learn that Mindy Kaling, the actress, producer and author, most recently, of “Why Not Me?” secretly read in bed as a child. “My parents encouraged reading, but they didn’t anticipate me reading Michael Crichton’s ‘Sphere’ until 2 a.m. on a school night.”
Now that's interesting!
I'm with the author of this article, and HuffPo: Let's hear less about Banksy and his sarcasm-laden cry-baby commentary on issues such as war, greed and the failure of the powerful to protect the powerless. Let's hear more about real artists like Mindy!
Now that's interesting!
I'm with the author of this article, and HuffPo: Let's hear less about Banksy and his sarcasm-laden cry-baby commentary on issues such as war, greed and the failure of the powerful to protect the powerless. Let's hear more about real artists like Mindy!
2
Tell me: is it ironic, or just kitschy, that this article condemning Banksy clumsily invokes (without attribution) Banksy's classic one-liner "You don't have to be an illegal alien to work here, but it helps"?
1
The author does not address the fact that this is a vast group show, or address any of the individual pieces by 50 artists for traces of irony or depth. Is it really possible to write a times review without having been to the actual show? It would appear so. Is this ironic or sarcastic?
5
A thought-provoking essay, challenging current (easy) assumptions of the art/culture interface. The likening of today's snark/sarcasm to yesteryear's kitsch is especially interesting. Certainly, both share the characteristic of being "mechanical" and "operat[ing] by formulas." Both also elicit an assumed and predictable response. Phrases like Greenberg's "vicarious experience" and "faked sensations" characterize most of the snark punditry I see online from various bloviators. This seems to me to be an inherent feature of the infinitely cross-referential online culture of today.
I think Dismaland has to be understood as referencing current circumstances in Britian. Brooks doesn't get it.
3
The idea of Dismaland is hilarious and I find the concept of people reading and reacting to it as if it deserved such attention funny as well. I like to think that this is what Banksy is thinking as well - a put-on not only of art but also those who critique it. However, reading about it is enough for me - beyond that I would think my life even less interesting that it already is if I truly wanted to see it.
Everything is art. It doesn't matter if you don't like it or it's not up to your standards. It's for the people who want to feel something from it. Debating whether something is art and putting down those who do appreciate it is as bad as an atheist who makes it his life's purpose to go around telling everyone that the religion that has given them purpose and hope is a lie because it just doesn't matter. People need different things and art is there to provoke thought whether it's the irony of life or a representation of the most beautiful flower garden you've ever seen. It all has a place. I pick and choose what I need at that very time and I'm lucky that there's a never ending supply of art.
1
@Kat: "Everything is art."
A sunset is not art, it is a natural phenomenon. Art is always a human construction.
A sunset is not art, it is a natural phenomenon. Art is always a human construction.
There is a built in speed to all things social that has advanced in step with technology. Moreover, the ability to include in anyone's purview the primary necessities of understanding (including but not limited to: general history, philosophy, general science, political history, economic history, etc.) is typically lacking as the requirements of time and effort are too demanding, make it so that our response to things need either be extremely specialized (which the author's criticism somewhat exemplifies) or brutally simplistic (which includes the sarcastic approach of the subject of this commentary, Bansky's Dismaland). The gap between the two is growing and it is incumbent on those who's work it is to clarify this disparity to make a case as to why this is happening without simply remaining entrenched in their camp. Whether the roots of this occurrence derives from Marx, Durkheim, Weber it is important to note that what is actually happening has already been theorized about a long time ago. Indeed Benjamin and Adorno have said as much. Polarizing as the author does (in spite of his intellectual approach to the issue) is just as simplistic and knee-jerk reactionary as is the infantile and mechanistic response sought by the artist in question. This is not about hi an lo it is about mediating the conditions perpetrated by globalization, plutocracies, technology, greed and establishing a better and more coherent baseline for what (as Wittgenstein would say) is the case.
This "think piece" is as shallow as it claims its critical target to be. I haven't seen "Dismaland," but here's my own superficial take: Back in the 1980s, Jean Baudrillard described Disneyland as a kind "deterrence machine," whose ideological function was to prove the "reality" of 20th Century capitalist America by way of fantastic contrast, when in fact all of America was, in his view, an equally unreal or hyperreal fantasy. Decades on, the Internet has "Disneyfied" our 21st Century world radically and exponentially, and in many ways the wider world has itself been colonized by the fantasy that is America. Enter Dismaland: Could its aim be to implode the ideological and semiological function of Disneyland, which it so say recolonize Disneyland with the very "reality" that it has sought to hide or obscure? But is it even possible to deploy signs of the hyperreal to unmask yet other signs of hyperreality? In other words, whither reality itself, and can we ever find our way back to it somehow? We can pursue this line of analysis as far down the rabbit hole as we'd like to go, but certainly at this point we are much closer to irony than sarcasm or kitsch as the author suggests here. Indeed, articles such as "Banksy and the Problem With Sarcastic Art" themselves generate as much of a "reality effect" as Baudrillard claimed that Disneyland does, by reducing the profound subversiveness of artists like Banksy with its own critical, and rather glibly sarcastic, kitsch.
3
I live a few miles from this exhibit, and while I have yet to attend, housing 'Dismaland' in abandoned water park that has been the subject of various ideas and even calls for its demolition since it closed 15 years ago, is surely part of the theme? The use (or disuse) of the building is a running joke. Sarcastic or not, Banksy has highlighted this in a way noone else could.
2
The original Brothers Grimm version of Cinderella is pretty gruesome, too. Her sisters get their heels and toes cut off to fit into the slippers, and it's only the blood running out that gives them away.
2
As an artist, I appreciate someone with a point of view, no matter what it is. You don't have to like it, you don't have to love it. That's why it's art...
1
Wait a second, who pulled the sarcasm and irony first. Oh yeah, that was Disney by means of twisting the fairy tales of Brother's Grimm into unrealistic fantasies. Banksy is actually bringing the origin of the stories that Disney is founded on closer to their original intent; learning valuable lessons via the contemplation of stories that are difficult. So perhaps, by being discontent with irony and the ironic becoming kitsch, the author should be commenting on the many decades that Disney has been profiting off of it. Oh wait, that is what Banksy is doing.
12
You can't do much better for irony than what Banksy himself says about Dismaland:
"I was there looking at Ben Long’s sculpture of a horse constructed from scaffolding, a piece that if it was shown in the V&A alongside other sculptures would be remarkable, but the lady next to me asked her husband ‘Does it do anything?’ I suddenly realised the whole premise was wrong, I’d pushed it too far and it had gone from being a pretty good art show to a very sub-standard amusement park. I mean, who stands in the Tate looking at a Henry Moore asking – does it do anything?"[1]
NB: "the V&A" is the Victoria and Albert Museum in London.
[1] http://dismaland.co.uk/interview/
"I was there looking at Ben Long’s sculpture of a horse constructed from scaffolding, a piece that if it was shown in the V&A alongside other sculptures would be remarkable, but the lady next to me asked her husband ‘Does it do anything?’ I suddenly realised the whole premise was wrong, I’d pushed it too far and it had gone from being a pretty good art show to a very sub-standard amusement park. I mean, who stands in the Tate looking at a Henry Moore asking – does it do anything?"[1]
NB: "the V&A" is the Victoria and Albert Museum in London.
[1] http://dismaland.co.uk/interview/
9
I love Disneyland. My six year old is terrified of it. I laughed aloud when I saw the pictures of Dismaland - I think that's how my son sees it. Good job Banksy (and I'm not being sarcastic).
10
I am sure that art "that makes you think about the vast chasm between you and everyone else" is (a) vitally important and (b) wholly different from art "that makes you feel nothing."
6
"...which is built on a disused resort in Weston-super-Mare, England"
I was in Weston-Super-Mare last Thursday. Whilst I accept that parts of the town look decidedly dog-eared, I believe it is a tad unfair to call the place "disused". The Tropicana a former out door lido, in which the 'Dismaland' is housed, now that has been disused for many decades.
I was in Weston-Super-Mare last Thursday. Whilst I accept that parts of the town look decidedly dog-eared, I believe it is a tad unfair to call the place "disused". The Tropicana a former out door lido, in which the 'Dismaland' is housed, now that has been disused for many decades.
2
"Mike Nudelman, the graphics editor at Business Insider, described it as 'bad and boring.'" I guess Dan Brooks did a Google search for "Dismaland bad reviews." Business Insider? HuffPo? Is that the best he can do?
2
Bold, clever, and accessible, Banksy's art takes on the establishment, and the arts establishment most of all. Thanks for taking the bait.
5
What we call Art is very subjective. I think it is a bit disrespectful to equate Princess Diana to Cinderella.
Diana was always a dignified person, long before Prince Charles came around. Her so called ride in a chariot was actually, a high speed chase to get away from very mean photographers.
The Cinderella sarcasm is not funny at all. Toy Maker Billionaire Ty Warner has shown the most respect for Diana with his beanie baby image of her.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/291748882089480786/
Diana was always a dignified person, long before Prince Charles came around. Her so called ride in a chariot was actually, a high speed chase to get away from very mean photographers.
The Cinderella sarcasm is not funny at all. Toy Maker Billionaire Ty Warner has shown the most respect for Diana with his beanie baby image of her.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/291748882089480786/
Progressive art can assist people to learn not only about the objective forces at work in the society in which they live, but also about the intensely social character of their interior lives. Ultimately, it can propel people toward social emancipation.
-Salvador Dali
-Salvador Dali
Street art is something a NY Times art critic would not be comfortable with. It spoils the neighborhood and brings down property values.
6
Every time a critic or art enthusiast makes some long, thoughtful comment on Banksy's art, I'll bet my bottom dollar he's laughing his south end off.
1
But you're talking about it. That is all that really matters.
Great article!
Purely electric… evocative…
Really gets at the heart of what art is.
A hybrid of intellectualism somewhere between Wittgenstein, Kant, and Aquinas.
It dazzles the mind!
Purely electric… evocative…
Really gets at the heart of what art is.
A hybrid of intellectualism somewhere between Wittgenstein, Kant, and Aquinas.
It dazzles the mind!
Even if his individual works tend toward the facile, his body of work (I view him as more of a performance artist than anything) is more interesting than the oceans of look-alike abstraction that the art world currently holds en vogue. It's easy to dump on Banksy, but at least he has people looking and talking. Perhaps that's a low bar for artistic success, but it's one that isn't cleared by the vast majority or contemporary artists out there who seem to be afraid of saying much of anything at all.
9
Sarcasm is not an artistic statement. It is a symptom.
6
"Kitsch is vicarious experience and faked sensations" one can read in this article/essay. Isn't that what Disneyland is all about? It seems to me that the article is confusing which amusement park is truly kitsch.
For what I have seen of this exhibition on line, it looks like everything except "art that makes you fell nothing" for me it is the contrary, some even experience sarcasm. It is the role of the artist to denounce mass-produced entertainment using popular or cultural icons for corporate profit.That is the real catch, hem.. kitsch.
For what I have seen of this exhibition on line, it looks like everything except "art that makes you fell nothing" for me it is the contrary, some even experience sarcasm. It is the role of the artist to denounce mass-produced entertainment using popular or cultural icons for corporate profit.That is the real catch, hem.. kitsch.
6
The "artist" is a bore, boring, overly funded and overly hyped. It is wearing and sad to see characters like this rise to the top and prominence in our culture, who have very little to authentically offer as a contribution of art. It is illustrative of the emptiness and how fame does not require talent or genius, or meaning, or serve any real purpose other than the nonsense of certain artists and this one is certainly not the only one in his camp, there are others with nothing but money to fuel their nonsense. I hate being critical, but enough is never enough, there will be more stupidity, subsequently, there will more negative and bad reviews and more from the public artist or no artist. Stop bank rolling artist who do nothing but make bad names for themselves, let's give the support, prizes, write ups and historical references to artists of value and integrity. Please?
8
Are you slamming all 58 artists[1] who contributed to Dismaland or just Banksy?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismaland
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismaland
2
But who decides which artists have value and integrity?
2
I fully agree with you there. I am and am friends with 100s of better artists and none of them are famous or wealthy. In fact we just want to make a basic living off making our art, so we actually have the time to make it (versus working the day job and then only getting a few scant hours to make a dent in our goals). The best folks can really do is support arts & crafts that they appreciate. Artists don't make things you can sum up in one sentence. Is that really making you think or analyze our experience of reality. I do withhold judgement on this one, I can't really judge this particular art piece until I've seen it for myself. Sometimes "famous" art is just meh and then underrated art is incredibly moving. Those are the breaks.
Another thing that makes work like Dismaland appealing to some is that it has the illusion of depth; it seems to work on two levels. There’s the initial chuckle you get at the odd juxtaposition, and the deeper level of cultural commentary (if you can call it that). Thinking back on Banksy’s career, I’m not sure all of his work was totally bereft of genuine wit (as opposed to tired adolescent sarcasm). Or maybe it just initially seemed clever b/c it was new and the anonymity thing added a 21st century flair to it.
8
While I do not disagree with Brooks, might there be a third perspective? I purchased a reprint of the one with a soldier spray-painting a peace sign on a brick wall, while his buddy stands overwatch. I don't think it makes me feel "less like" anyone else—I recently separated from active duty, so I'm just as culpable as the culture his art depicts. That piece of art, that "insight," makes me want to be more aware of the intersection of politics, diplomacy, and security. And isn't that using cultural production to improve and unjust society?
41
I hope this awfully ponderous and verbose essay was just more sarcasm.
After reading it I felt exhausted and my head hurt.
I love Banksy.
After reading it I felt exhausted and my head hurt.
I love Banksy.
81
Dan Brooks obviously has no sense of humor. All of his energy is taken up by being impressed with himself.
2
The reason that the average person pays to visit Disneyland is to get away from the dismal parts of life. I can't imagine paying to go to a "theme park" that just hammers all those things home. Why not just watch the Fake News Channel or go to work? "I know, let's have people dress like cartoon characters and act like jerks and fight each other." Wait, I can go to Times Square and see that for free. "Let's have the princess die in a car wreck being chased by paparazzi!" That's so 20 years ago. Sounds like something a bunch of junior high school kids came up with.
9
Sarcasm is indeed disgusting, and the author does a fine job in distinguising scarasm from other forms of irony. However, the author spoils his argument by maintaining that sarcasm is a form of kitsch. Kitsch is inherently sentimental. Sarcasm involves no sentiment, actual or faked. The author's error is to use the main element in Clement Greenberg's definition of kitsch - that kitsch is the result of a mechanical process. Greenberg famously deplored pop art as kitsch, and no doubt he would deplore almost all of conceptual art because conceptual art focuses on mechanisms. Greenberg loved only the existential, unplanned excesses of abstract expressionism. For Greenberg, having a definite outcome in advance and use of technology to achieve that precise outcome was kitcsh. That places a rigid constraint on art, suffocating new visions.
Sarcasm is bad in its own right without tying one's condemnation inappropriately to a poor definition of kitcsh.
Sarcasm is bad in its own right without tying one's condemnation inappropriately to a poor definition of kitcsh.
19
Nicely said, fellow Ohio voter.
Thank you, i was starting to worry that maybe I was confused about the meaning of kitsch.
I suppose whether you think Dismaland is any good depends on if you think it engages in the annihilation of truth/strictly states the impossibility that some kind of truth could exist or rather posits that such a heavily curated and self-centered personal experience annihilates truth through willful ignorance. The former seems like existential alligator arms; a cowardly armor of knowing irony. The later at least approaches an artistic thought.
A few weeks ago I finally watched "Exit Through The Gift Shop." I found it fabulous (literally), funny, and delightful. This Banksy piece (is it his?) certainly did not "point out how awful everything is."
I did not worry about whether or not it was real or what it depicted was real ... or whatever. I just let myself get carried along by its dynamics. I was not concerned whether it is art or not, or whether the street art that is its subject is art or not, or whether the street artists are artists or not, etc., etc., etc., etc.
My guess is that I might find Dismaland pretty hysterical (in an ironic way, for sure). As for the "dismal" part, we should all know by now that the Disney Corp. is one of the most businesses in the culture industry.
So, lighten up, put aside (for this Bansky moment) your aesthetic discernment, do worry about us, go with Banksy, and enjoy.
P.S. "kitsch" is a term coined by a pretty stern and dismal set of art and cultural critics.
I did not worry about whether or not it was real or what it depicted was real ... or whatever. I just let myself get carried along by its dynamics. I was not concerned whether it is art or not, or whether the street art that is its subject is art or not, or whether the street artists are artists or not, etc., etc., etc., etc.
My guess is that I might find Dismaland pretty hysterical (in an ironic way, for sure). As for the "dismal" part, we should all know by now that the Disney Corp. is one of the most businesses in the culture industry.
So, lighten up, put aside (for this Bansky moment) your aesthetic discernment, do worry about us, go with Banksy, and enjoy.
P.S. "kitsch" is a term coined by a pretty stern and dismal set of art and cultural critics.
25
How has no one commented on this yet?
Was there any doubt in any intelligent person's mind that the NY Times was going to dislike this anti-capitalist work by Banksy? But hey, the NY Times did us a favor: They checked out and quoted what those great art lovers at "Business Insider" thought of it. Both NYT and BInsider can take a flying leap - Dismaland is great stuff, and I'm just sorry that it lampoons the capitalist Western culture the NY Times lives to promote. Of course, when capitalists lampoon other cultures - like, say, Islam and Muhammad - then they are brave artistic heroes. NY Times - too predictable to take seriously....
3
I took the Kinder Egg parody to be a comment on the nanny state: that sales of the confection were banned because children might eat the toys they contain.
4
Art that makes us aware of the dysfunctional aspects of society is providing us with an important means of dealing with unpleasant reality - through humor. By laughing about a horrible situation such as the refugees in boats, we may be able to confront the problem more easily. Humor can build a bridge from denial to acceptance of reality. I admire Banksy's courage and determination to address the general public. He has not succumbed to the lure of high-end galleries and is still bringing his message to the people.
38
Regarding Bansky's guilt inflicitng migrants in boats, with recent events unfolding, Banksy gets his wish of unfettered mass islamic migration into Europe! How ultimately ironic that that along with the mass in influx, Muslims bring with them the increasing likelihood of the advent of Sharia, under which figurative art like Banksy's is forbidden and destroyed. Paranoia you say? German school girls are already being told to dress modestly as to not offend the migrants. Voluntary sharia enacted upon arrival. Female figures in advertising are routinely being covered with spraypainted burqas in Paris and London (an ironic twist on KAWS). At this rate Europe can say goodbye to art indoor and out within a few generations at best. The great museums will be laid to waste. Imagine the Opera Garnier with its figurative ornament blasted from the edifice. Banksy's disdain for institutional art will have us die laughing.
Oh, and by going to his website I see that Dan Brooks specializes in "ethical dilemmas." Seems to me writing about something without actually going would be jsut that.
34
Purely for the sake of argument, the author didn't say whether he was or wasn't there.
More to the point, my read of the article is that it's a criticism of the ideas behind the exhibition, not necessarily the exhibition itself.
More to the point, my read of the article is that it's a criticism of the ideas behind the exhibition, not necessarily the exhibition itself.
I read a similar piece in the LA Times, where a commenter questioned whether or not the critic had actually visited the event, and I wonder if that is true here. Is a journalistic exception being made just for Banksy, or is such armchair criticism part of a trend, where actual attendance is not required in order to have an opinion? It's a new world where you can sit in Starbucks, plug i your computer, order up a coffee and speculate on...anything, because in your imagination, you were there.
41
@Carolina: "... speculate ...:"
Not necessarily. There is a Dismaland web site[1], and there are a few videos on Youtube. You can also find some photos[2] in Google Maps. If Banksy were really on top of things, he would ask Google to do a Google Street View walk through.
[1] http://dismaland.co.uk/
[2] Some of which are Photo Spheres.
Not necessarily. There is a Dismaland web site[1], and there are a few videos on Youtube. You can also find some photos[2] in Google Maps. If Banksy were really on top of things, he would ask Google to do a Google Street View walk through.
[1] http://dismaland.co.uk/
[2] Some of which are Photo Spheres.
(For the record, I find Wonkette enormously entertaining, witty, intelligent, and flat-out side-splitting with hilarity. I'll take Wonkette, and its comments (which are not allowed), any day of the week. Its sense of absurdity and snarky intelligence never fails to make me howl with laughter.)