Ban ski is taking it in. Other more important artists are not. He exudes a mania of mockery and fun in our dreadfull time. Enuf..but bravo Banski as he is still alive and enjoying his show. Many other artists only earned money after they were dead.
5
I believe it was the infamous prankster Roger Stone who opined, 'It's better to be infamous than never to be famous at all.'
5
Why does the artist need an institution to be defined a "real artist?" I don't believe that is necessary. Art is a communication of ideas to the people through something visual or verbal. If someone is able to do this successfully, then they are an artist. It is very elitist and very white supremacist to hold institution as the sole determining factor of whether or not someone is an artist. Bansky is his own institution. He is a disruptor of the elitist ideology.
30
Important Art has always said more about the state of society (at that particular time) then the artist themself. He is Andy Warhol.
3
He should be forgotten this is not art work its criminal. Anyone else who does this gets jailed. That is why he hides his identity. I hope when he is dead he is forgotten about forever and his work removed.
3
@Adam If you see any of Banksy's 'crimes' can you contact me immediately and I'll remove them - totally free of charge.
34
To me, he’s just a narcissistic vandal with a flair for self-promotion. The fact that we have venerated him says more about us than it does about him.
16
I do not think it matters if Banksy "makes the final transition to those rarefied museums."
Why is that so important?
You miss the whole point of Banksy.
19
Our art world and market is a reflection of our world- our superficial consumer consumed driven world.
It is rather appalling. I am so glad I just don’t care anymore and can paint without the weight.
I judge myself by the greats. And they are not Jeff Koons and any other painter who has someone else paint all of their work. That is not painting- I’m sorry. It isn’t. I can feel hundreds of years of emotion in a brushstroke, how can this be faked?
The cave paintings have no name- not signed - made so long ago, we respond to their mystery, form and mark making Fresh - they chill me to my bones.
Banksy has made some important statements with his work. His work is like graphic design. Maybe I’m old school at 50. They seem out of place in a gallery or auction house / suddenly the whole rebel thing falls on its side. I thought it wasn’t about that ?
The radical always becomes commodity - mainstream- Whether it’s in the galleries, museums or the huge and academic art school system where a name matters- some sense you’re something special- and the goal of being cool in the contemporary art world is very stressed by teachers who largely care very much about this world.
In terms of the future and the environment, I’m not sure the art world and world will exist as we know it. It looks like it won’t. Climate change is coming. Big time.
6
Thank you for the thought-provoking essay. I think in the end, when it is all said and done, Banksy will be considered an important artist and will end up in permanent museum collections eventually. Art historians and curators will cleverly draw a line from Warhol to Banksy in both the use of repetitive types of art-making and the ability to market and promote themselves, their art, and dare I say, their brand. Picasso and Dali also had the charisma and ability to promote themselves and their work to make money and become popular. I do think that Banksy's work is backed up by talent and creativity. Furthermore, he is engaged in social and political commentary through art that has been on point. And he been very clever with the anonymity and creating a mystique and excitement and made enough money to create whatever he wants whereever he wants. I wish I was that clever instead of working at a restaurant and working on small pieces on the floor of my apartment late at night, barely making rent and thinking about what I could do if I had the money as an artist.
22
@ana
You may be more sincere than any of these guys- don’t despair. Small paintings can hold the world in their proportion. A small painting can feel epic.
I have taught and I have worked. I had a studio that burned to the ground. Just keep going.
Your job keeps you able to separate and not exhaust yourself at a job that uses creativity. My father was a workaholic designer - more talented then almost everyone ive ever met.
He gave it all to the job- to design products. He never got back to his own work until he retired.
I worked teaching - it is also exhausting in a different way/ it’s wonderful to teach and empower others but it also is a lot of administrative.
Be yourself. Look at great artists. Look at work in person. Many great artists painted on the floor after working in a meaningless job.
Read biographies. This art stat thing w all this endless money. It’s all very fame based. It’s all very tied to the market- I think a lot of money laundering ( I know) is done in the super expensive art world. It’s truly absurd.
Be true, be strong - and when you think too much about it all- pick up your brush. Paint on anything you can. You can ever gesso the backs of cereal boxes as I once did. Whatever it takes .
Money does not make the artist. That is this 1% world. Don’t believe the hype- as public enemy says.
Watch this. http://www.thepriceofeverything.com/
14
Is Banksy worthy of inclusion in the world's great art museums? Maybe that question doesn't matter in a world where a criminal is president and people with negligible "talent" or other redeeming quality command influence over millions of followers on social media.
Personally, I think Yes, he's a legitimate artist who consistently produces work that comments on our times, is influential and is appreciated by many. Saying his work is like an advertising campaign is just a dodge given museum-caliber artists who have come before (Hello, Andy Warhol). The notion that he didn't "invent a language and a grammar" is beside the point when you consider the consistency of his artistic point of view.
While museums are necessary for the preservation of great art (not all of which will appeal to everyone), we cannot think of them as temples where only certain kinds of artistic expression can be allowed. The definition of art is continuously evolving. Banksy is clearly an example of that evolution, and must be recognized as such.
14
Used to be artists were taken seriously because of their skills with materials.
Then came industrialized shock-artists like Damian and Banksy and made bums on seats the criteria for serious discussion.
All art seems to be all about money, social protest and the discourse surrounding it.
Meanwhile riots in then streets to change things have evaporated and people seek the excitement of outrage and difference rather than spiritual and intellectual enlightenment as the result of encountering art.
2
There are a range of ways and definitions regarding “artists” and what they do. Create. Whatever the selected single or multimedium. Whatever its permanence or impermanence. The constraints of “either/or,“ as determined by influential...expresses
binary banality. Those who have the power(s) to determine what is in, out, and “tipping points” in the commodification of ART, are bounded by time, place, and a range of other realities in which there is no total control. Notwithstanding one’s efforts. An artist, as social, political, activist, is a complex role of choice. Behavior. Whatever the the outcomes of his/her creations. How many bombs and bullets did Picasso’s Guernica stop? What art, in whatever form, permanence or impermanence could/ would effect the harms caused by the institutionalized, deeply anchored, personal unaccountability of ranges of policymakers. Elected and selected ones. At all levels. Everywhere. Whatever the political ideology and structure. Whatever the types, levels and ranges of citizen’s complacencies and complicities. Banksy, whatever his created-identity, and whatever the identities ascribed to him by others, art critics included, continues to create. Hide. Control, according to this article. In what way(s), if any, were the increased
numbers of visitors to his exhibit influenced to “risk” contributing, personally, to making a difference that could result in needed (sustainable) differences for menschlichkeit? An unfair question re an activist?
Best British artist since Hockney! Both always wanting to push the boundaries in their own unique styles!
2
I'm a fan. The critic simply doesn't understand.
12
The most significant artist of our time without a doubt. He makes fools of the like of Damien Hirst.
8
In one word: no. A pop culture figure, maybe but not a significant artist. Still, I can’t believe the New York Times is devoting an article to this guy, a rancid, one trick pony, and not even original at that. The Times is only interested in artists that make millions of dollars. Instead of covering new artists we get yet another piece on Banksy and whether he has sold out. Yawn.
2
NYT, lately it seems to me your opinion is in some way driven by “how nice” the people you are talking about has been to you. I really really hope I’m wrong, but I sense some kind of power trip in your position. Beside the value, or not, of Bansky as an artist I can understand your dismissal of him (and please do not say you ”are not dismissing, just asking questions”....) only as a childish answer to his unavailability to give some kind of text to quote....
NYT... you were better than that some time ago....
3
love him. awesome. love that he's giving back too.
6
As an aging trained artist, I wonder if anyone who draws and paints even cares. Sure, those who verbally analyze art can find this stuff fascinating because in the end, they have no idea what motivates visual artists to put pencil to paper.
I remember the controversial artists of the late 60s and 70s who over time became just producers of objects like the rest of us. Banksy exists because art is ineffable, and that is hard to understand. Banksy is not ineffable.
3
Put this guy in the same category as Lady Gaga, Great media manipulator. Keep 'em guessing. Leave not one work of substance.
At least people can hum a few Madonna songs.
3
Who cares? He's funny. Not since Caravaggio, Rembrandt or Dali have we been blessed with such wit.
7
This article says much more about its author than a contemporary artist breathing life into the stuffy, formal and overly curated museum world.
Of course Banksy is significant. The world and even this writer knew that before spending any energy on this piece.
One has only to read Scott Rayburn’s last article on the artist to know this one is at odds with his 2018 view. It’s entitled, “ How Banksy’s Prank Might Boost His Prices: ‘It’s a Part of Art History“
“Banksy is a control freak. But he can’t control his legacy.” Why create this headline and commentary when you’ve previously stated in The NY Times that his work is a part of art history?
Someone appears disingenuous and it isn’t Banksy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/arts/design/banksy-artwork-painting.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article
6
@cooktench Yes, I agree. Banksy is an excellent sign of the times we live in. People who criticise should always remember that basically Banksy has never really changed his style, being basically the same since before he became famous. We should never forget that almost all his work has a social commentary component to it, and it should never be forgotten that almost without exception his work is created under extremely difficult conditions, in public and many times in darkness.
Many other famous artists were roundly criticised and adversely commented on before becoming well known. In his early days, as others have remarked, Picasso for one is a very good example.
Like it or not, Banksy is an artist who reflects the times he lives in and we need to accept that and welcome it. In a world going mad with social media and losing control of what we are presented with, Banksy is a breath of fresh air and we should welcome him for that. Would the world be a duller place without him? You bet it would.
6
I have nothing against street art or self-promotion. I just find the political content of Banksy's art trite, corny, and destined to be dated.
7
There are many ways to understand Banksy. One way is to consider him as the art world's Weird Al Yankovic, with prime-time topics such as Disney, homelessness, and the West Bank serving as his Madonnas and Michael Jacksons. Subtext is not part of the formula.
To dismiss Banksy as light entertainment doesn't detract from his wit, talent, or technical chops. And in any case the internet says his net worth is 50 million to Weird Al's 16, which neatly summarizes the issue.
5
@Observer It brings a smile to my face to read that Weird Al is worth 16mil. He deserves it!
8
He's certainly adept at subversive art, but in terms of actual artistic talent, I dunno? Does he create objects of ethereal beauty?
Methinks, not.
But, it takes all kinds to make a world.
2
Banksy is fun and interesting. He’s comedic and thought provoking. Deep and ridiculous. But is he high art? Fine art? Among the greats? No. He never will be. His brand has a baked in immaturity he can’t escape.
He’s a criminal in the end that could have been legit.
1
Banksy's refusal to identify himself reminds me of electronic music producer Zomby. In both cases, what is the purpose of the artist's anonymity? If they released photos of themselves and publicized their real names, what about their art would change? Artistic anonymity, therefore, is actually the opposite of what it purports to be: egotism. The anonymous artist's works are considered better and more important than those of someone whose name and face are known. They are desperate to separate themselves from the majority of artists, so they hide their identities as some sort of gimmick. I'm not falling for it. Most of Banksy's popularity stems from his anonymity. He has no artistic merit to lose by revealing his identity but he does risks losing admirers who are, in fact, suckers for his gimmick. Have some courage, Banksy. You can still create street art in the middle of the night if the public knows who you are. It's just that it won't fool gullible people into worshiping you.
2
The man is a genius at what he does, why can’t that be enough?
11
Banksy is a hack.
What he makes are slogans, and for the most part they're also kitsch. What and how they "mean" (which is something like my definition of "art" - by which, I simply mean "interesting") is as subtle as a clown-mallet, more or less.
If one were asked to write an essay on one of his works (lucky you) one could simply write "Wall Street bankers are rats" or "Childhood was supposed to be so peaceful and innocent - What happened?!!" or - and here's a somewhat subtle half-flip - "We're all being brainwashed by Disneykitsch." Somehow, people seem to feel that because he's "against Disney-Kitsch" that his work itself evades being kitsch, or that because he "comes down so hard" on marketing and advertising culture, his work somehow becomes something more - more "art," more "meaning," than the way marketing and advertising make meaning.
In terms of his "politics," which I think is pretty clear, I feel compelled to say that I'm probably often enough in alignment (somewhat-to-fairly left of Liberal). So I want to be absolutely clear that his "politics" is for me not the problem. The problem is that what his works "say" is simply blindingly obvious. Sometimes with a "funny twist" at best. In viewing them, there is no need to explore our understanding or our reaction to anything. We're simply left with our opinions and our view of our views.
There is plenty of political art that goes deeper or further than this, but none Banksy's art goes goes deeper or further than this.
2
The fine art galleries, collectors and museums already have their Banksy in their collections since the early 1990s his identity/name is Maurizio Cattelan.
3
Banksy's work is brilliant.
'nuf said.
6
Significant artist? What is it exactly? How is "significance" measured? If by auction prices of an artist's works, then it's a very easy call - Banksy will be among the most significant. No doubt about that.
1
Perhaps the picture showing the one-on-one showdown between Rembrandt next to the shredded girl holding a balloon and exhibited side by side in a german museum strikes as a bit much.
The red of the beret hereby loosely matching the red tone of the red balloon may not, in and for itself, be enough to justify the pairing of the two or if it does, it strikes as a questionable shortcut on the part of the museum curator who, in turn, gives a jolt to the beholder.
As to the two ladies taking a selfie with the Banksy in the background meanwhile not paying an iota of attention to Rembrandt's self-portrait speaks volumes as well. Contemporary art is all the rage these days, or at least on social media and Bansky is a crowd's favorite. With that said and just in terms of visual art pieces, there is a fertile ground to regard Banksy's artworks as worthy to regal contemporary art aficionados whereas the diversity of approaches taken since its obscure and lackluster beginnings have long strayed and branched out from the pretty locked-in graffiti culture it was once cribbed from.
3
Art has moved away from aesthetic beauty towards provocation, perspective, meaning.... it jolts and challenges rather than soothes and comforts. Banksy leads the field where the familiar gets reinterpreted to reveal a different truth.
8
The conclusion I reached after reading this excellent article is that Banksy is not an artist but a critic of the art world through the medium of graffiti. Graffiti is the result and alternative to the elitist gallery/museum system closed to open submissions. This lack of open submissions stunts creativity and the progress of human expression. However, graffiti is outdated and has become an eyesore sign of decay.
7
The art world will consider his thrilling and provocative work as significant until the moment it ceases to generate huge commissions to auction houses and tickets sales to tourists. Just like every other artist.
1
Maurizio Cattelan is the prankster that the museums and fine art collectors are buying for their collections.
Would be great to compare the two artists - how they display their works and what the public reaction is to both of them. I believe Cattelan has a couple years on Banksy but the two have done some interesting things.
3
There are lots of knock off prints worldwide you can buy. If you want to buy a Pest Control authentic print, (yes, print - not original) the price starts at approx. twenty seven thousand pounds. (approx. USA $35,000). Another way of getting your favourite print is to take a photo of the art work on the internet then upload it in your photos folder.
2
Many if the criticisms of Banksy in this article and in the comments remind me of the criticisms I used to hear forty years ago about Andy Warhol. I don’t hear those criticisms much any more.
25
IMHO, compared to “artists” like Haring or Koons. Banksy is Rembrandt.
21
I'm sorry. I can't read this article. I think Banksy's art is honest, original, and thought-provoking. I don't need an article to tell me what I should think about the person behind the art.
24
I see him like Dylan and my fingers are crossed that he can flourish for as long. Wonder if his profound sympathy for the world's underdogs is not actually empathy because he shared those experiences? Good luck Banksy. It's you against the machine, against the combine...Be as vigilant as the Scarlet Pimpernel because if they can discover you, they will attempt to devour you. Of course, you already know that, hence the bouquet of ruses.
14
Love, love, love Banksy street art and the writer of this article needs to do a bit of self reflection and realise that he is the 'control freak'.
What Banksy does so well is reflect irony of art in motion and the juxtaposition of reality. It might make some people feel uncomfortable but it reflects reality and the hypocrisy or irony of it.
In my opinion Banksy is a great artist because his works speak to the world and everyone can relate to his art work. Banksy gets society thinking about controversial topics with his unique view via his art works. Many a time I burst out laughing when looking at his art work and it makes me realise people who view life from a different perspective and draw attention to hypocrisy in society are great artists. All artists have a right not to be exploited just like all people have a right not to be exploited. Intellectual property is worth money and his street art and art works are intellectual property. A lot of his artwork on walls in run down places are deliberately put there and is sold by local Councils to help poor youth and other charity groups and it is done with that intent. Without Banksy paintings lots of poor communities wouldn't be able to fund themselves. Banksy is the best thought provoking artist of our time. Banksy is misunderstood and anyone successful and famous is always picked on by the media. Why on earth would he want anyone to know whom he is, as he doesn't want to be hounded by the media. His choice and respect that
9
Painting is representational art, much of it done on organic flammable materials -- thst is, perishable. What is the oldest surviving painting on canvas? -- 700 years old? On stone, there are much older cave paintings, frescoes, and murals.
Whatever category Banksy's images are assigned to, they are not art, but an ephemeral fascination of hyper-rich snobs wanting to create new artistic trends for their own glorification.
3
There is no doubt in my mind that Banksy is an extraordinary artist. His images are arresting, beautifully executed, and he is constantly surprising and thought provoking. But significantly, he constantly challenges us to ask “what is art?”
These are the things that make an artist great.
15
The argument that art is only art if it is found in a museum is hogwash. Street art conveys feeling just as much as that overpriced Rembrandt. Additionally, the fact that street art is not in a museum gives it its weight. It's temporary and it is political. The historical position of Banksy is probably that he will inspire other street artists to carry on his clever and poignant messages, whatever they may be in the future.
13
I'm of two minds on Banksy. I'm a big fan of his aesthetic, and I love that in world without Basquiat or Keith Haring, there remains a prominent artist whose canvas is often the street.
But his symbolism is so on-the-nose, his work ultimately lacks depth in my view. But whatever, I'm not gonna begrudge an artist his successes.
9
Blanksy's art, I believe is a fad, maybe a trend. He is creating a lot of attention as it is fresh, new and different from what is considered art (still unclear who decides what is, and what isn't art). I am okay with this, for without those pushing the boundaries, art and life itself would be stale. And this freshness is art, as artists and their art should always be pushing boundaries, creating conversation and division. But long-lasting? My guess is no, but most of us will be dead before history reveals that result. And again, art, with, or without Bansky will be the winner. We all benefit by each and every artist, no matter if we agree with them or not.
2
Astonishing to see those who don't think that Banksy is 'art' do so with real vitriol.
I don't understand such hate. If the objective is to communicate, artists will do so with themes and materials that are of their time. In fact, Banksy doesn't create 'still lifes' -- they are about this moving life, its politics, its betrayals, its cruel economics, and the complexities of the art world from which he has benefited. And despite those who disparage his work, it is clear that Banksy can touch nerves and resonate. He's got the eye of a critical sociologist, and critiques our world in a worthwhile way.
A 'hack,' an 'opportunist,' a 'punk'? I don't think so, and besides, punks made art and changed music forever by saying 'NO.'
12
"Even Banksy can't control that."
This actually made me roll my eyes.
3
“This cycle of surprise announcements keeps Banksy in the public eye, but will it ever result in works hanging on the walls of the world’s most important museums? “ - I say IT DOESN’T MATTER. You are writing about art and someone is making art - that is all that matters. A kid doodling on a scrap paper is art. Being in a top museum is only one sliver of the art life.
14
How any curator could put his trashy stuff anywhere in the same room as a Rembrandt is beyond me.
I guess there are folks who will pay the prices he demands, and being a reported control freak, it is easy to see he's out to grab every penny he can.
If the photos in this piece are representative, real artists have very little to fear. As others have written, I hope his gimmickry fades quickly.
3
. . . But, reid!
You’re posing here as the grand arbiter of what’s art and what’s “trashy stuff.”
But I’d be careful about taking such a pose. After all, so much of what you’re now granting to be “curated” next to Rembrandt was once “trashy stuff” (remember Van Gogh and the Impressionists?—whose work I’ll bet you greatly admire).
Rather, celebrate (and support) the fact that we don’t (yet?) live in a society whose “curators” then dictate what’s art and what’s “trashy stuff.”
We must be constantly vigilant that our “curators” are not thinly veiled dictators who declare the acceptable and thereby punish the creators of “trashy stuff.”
1
The author of the article was literally talking about all the donations banksy makes. A whole boat for immigrants! Brilliant! I say milk every penny you can out of the rich people if you’re gonna go with stuff like that.
2
I am sure people said a lot of this negative stuff about Warhol too.
11
Control freak? I would say rather a master of communication, and unremitting anonymity. He is the antidote to the poisonous obsessive narcissism propogated by the Schnabel/Koons ilk. Maybe he also wears kilts and smokes Cuban cigars, but we’ll never know, thank God. That is his message: art is the star, the artist is just a vessel. Such a difficult concept for those who play God. The problem is it is so hard to play God when you’re earthbound.
32
Be nice if we could all turn our contempt for contemptible people into millions.
He's a marketer, not an artist. He's clever, I'll give him that. Personally I think he's just a greedy little punk.
4
. . . but @Halsy,
I’ll guess here that he’s enjoying his work (and thus a good deal of his life) quite a bit more than others (and perhaps even you)—and earning a good living wage at it.
. . . and something in your comment tells me that you don’t see those young, well-heeled and clever cons working on Wall Street as “greedy little punks.”
1
But he draws much better than his contemporaries—and that counts a lot.
1
I've recently seen his shown in Porto, Portugal. Clever and occasionally imaginative, but also depressing, opportunistic and manipulative.
Basically, what we see is a sociological phenomenon: almost no one likes this "art". What we have here is a testament to the self-reinforcing hysteria of the art market.
10
@Kai I finally know, after all these years, what "art snob" actually means. Get a life people. I like Banksy for making many of us think about art, politics, the environment, love, hate, and the general state and chaos of the world. Those of us who appreciate Banksy don't care what you art snobs think.
7
Banksy’s legacy is tied to an era of street art. Apart from a few other exceptions in that category (Kaws, JR, Swoon, etc.), many of the artists associated with that “movement” have been sidelined by the art establishment proper, and relegated to the still-existent but never professed sector of low-art (see Carlos Mares recently opened Museum of Graffiti, a clear result of “higher” institutional neglect). More interesting is that the exceptions are in fact prime examples of the white fetishizing of an urban aesthetic, an aesthetic which is now deployed regularly by real estate developers and luxury goods manufacturers. If anything, from a legitimately critical perspective, Banksy’s legacy lies within the conditions of these cultural paradigms, not outside of them.
1
If there is any contemporary artist who has questioned the question itself—the “significance of the artist”—and has done so with visual wit and entertaining verve, on the canvas of the city street, where it’s accessible to so many of us—it’s Banksy!
16
This story is more revealing of the author than the subject
23
Banksy is just a stenciller with a gimmick. Like most gimmicks, it will get old. But a Rembrandt or a Van Gogh isn't something that just anyone can knock off over night. It's like comparing natural diamonds to CZs.
6
So, rox ~ with your pronouncement here, we’re now looking forward to your showing us that what Banksy is doing is something that you too can knock off over night!
(Pronouncements on art that are loaded with “anyone” tend to show that the speaker is neither an artist nor a person worth listening to.)
1
Yes.
1
Seems like he's doing alright if the NYT is writing articles on him.
5
Rembrandt was an artist, and simply astonishing. Banksy is a PR stunt.
7
. . . but Este,
your statement here seems to disallow others long ago who said at the time that Rembrandt was a PR stunt. (As varied as people are, especially when it comes to their expressing their opinions on art, my guess is that a least one person in the world at that time felt about Rembrandt as you now feel about Banksy.)
3
I went to his "retro" at a museum in Amsterdam a couple of years ago. Not gonna lie, as someone who appreciates art, I was disappointed. You can take the 'art' out of street-art-trailer-park, but...."
I will say, if it was btwn him and Mr. Brainwash, I would choose him. But, the question remains...is there actually a difference?
1
Most modern art museums have something resembling real art (painted or sculpted with skill and artistry) and then random garbage (I once saw a pile of old laundry in the SFMOMA and a copy of that day's newspaper in the NY MOMA). If Banksy, isn't included, it's due to jealousy. His art is clearly better than a pile of laundry. He must've ruffled some feathers in the art world by becoming so popular without first acquiring their imprimatur.
10
I, for one ,do not consider him a force in the art world anymore than I consider Madonna to be a real artist. Let the thirty somethings drink whatever swill he can conjure up.
3
In many ways this article disturbs me.
OF COURSE Banksy will be remembered as significant!
Can’t quite see why you even wonder?
#BanksyArt
9
I’m gonna take issue with “archetypical.” Technically correct - though I had to check the dictionary to confirm it - but why opt for a non-standard form of the word? Would love to hear the editor’s take on this.
1
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
1
I love how Banksy makes me feel, either laughter or compassion or impressed with the wit... like the amazing street musician who makes everyone smile. It's joyful entertainment, or serious experience, whatever you've got.
So what if he is slightly derivative of Blek Le Rat? I love him too. There is room for everyone. The Dismaland website is astonishing and funny, take a peek here http://dismaland.co.uk/
13
“All art is quite useless.” —Oscar Wilde
6
Hey folks, his art isn't the stuff you're looking at.
1
Stuntman. That's all.
2
I’ve always thought that Banksy isn’t an individual, but a “dread pirate Roberts” type of collective
4
Media manipulation and self promotion seem to be Banksy’s strong suits, as this paper’s over coverage of him confirms.
2
It's not art.
In a few decades it will be difficult even to give this stuff away.
4
i always felt his work was deliberately antiestablishment? seems odd that he would want the worked canonized in posterity...if he desires that it diminishes the work in my view, since his art is conceptual and thus based on the motivations of the artist.
I bought a large signed Banksy print from Chrisite's London last year for about $22,000 with a Pest Control COA. With all the publicity he's gotten during this century so far, I don't see how he won't end up in major museums even if he has to wait until after his death which historically often happens with major artists. I hope I made a good investment...
2
Any chance you would be willing to start a scholarship? My masters degree is going to run me about $28k when I'm done. I'm not an artist, but I'm sure the warm glow you would get from helping a poor student would be more than worth it ;)
4
@Patrick I've already started 4 scholarships at 2 of my alma maters, and no I don't feel any warm glows. But good luck in school.
1
I'm a fan. Banksy's art is often literal and didactic, this partly explains why his art so successfully resonates with wider audiences than most contemporary art (which invariably errs towards the ambiguous.) In this sense Banksy is closer to being an 'illustrator' than an artist, and I think this partly explains why his work irritates the art world. That said there are a number of very successful contemporary artists who employ a similar approach to Banksy, ie. who make ostensibly illustrative, didactic, quasi-political art, but would never consider themselves to be in the same mould as Banksy.
10
The larger question may be, what makes you think Banksy cares about a legacy?
11
When Banksy came to my neighborhood (TriBeCa) with a rather mediocre piece (the WTC eight blocks from the mass grave site of the original) it was so much fun. I walk my dog daily on Staples Street and the diverse groupings of people that came by was heartwarming. I really enjoyed talking with a number of visitors to the neighborhood. I was surprise by the level of excitement. It was fun while it lasted.
7
Banksy is the ideal artist in a society soaked and baked in pretense and unreality .
BLM
9
In a word, no!
3
Can we please ban selfies in art galleries?
6
@Lex Why? People are so into the art that they want a record of it! I don't partake but I think it's kind of sweet.
2
Hmm, no.
3
No
He is neither significant nor an artist. Just an amuse bouche
7
Yes, Bryan Hanley ~
. . . and doubtless it’s that French flair of yours that allows you to declare to the world who is significant and who is an artist!
Merci bien!
2
The second people start picking apart whether something is Art, getting agitated and emotionally debating something, then it is Art. That truly is the pure definition of art, even if you vehemently dislike it.
We are reading about Banksy in the NYT due to his market value, then his cleverness and skill at promoting his work. He is truly onto something wise by being anonymous. I would argue that we grew tired of Hirst due to his public personality, not really tired of his work. Same with Warhol in 1983 and Picasso in 1968. Both were declared done. History rights the ship and Banksy will be appreciated in the future. Arguing otherwise guarantees that.
21
I doubt Banksy worries too much about his legacy because he probably knows that he cant control it. The western auction houses ability to determine certain prices as indicators for uneducated collectors with black market dollars, is a good indicator who will be considered "great" in 50 years.
2
If Banksy was for everyone why does Pest Control, official Banksy authentication office, only sell to rich and charge $20-30k for a print that used to be $50.
Banksy said during his newest store Gross Domestic Product he would only sell to fans and yet a ton of gallery owners and auction house were sold prints at retail prices. On Instagram the person who runs Paddle8 posted he won a Banksy print at retail and so did many other art dealers. As well as a well established home decoration company winning a prized piece at retail? This is a well oiled machine selling to the 1% now.
Steve Lazarides is also now selling Banksy notes for a profit with his own COAs. Seems to me Banksy says and portrays one thing but acts just like any other blue chip artist.
If you are rich Banksy and pest control will sell you a print. If not wait every 10 years for him to do a pop up and register for a lottery to possibly purchase new items at affordable prices, and find out 1/3 of the items went to galleries and auctions house to be resold in a few years once Pest Control releases COAs.
Shepard Fairey sells items every week for affordable prices. If Banksy “was for the people” and not for 1% he would do the same. Unfortunately Shepard’s market isn’t nearly where Banksy is and I’m sure Banksy likes being with in the blue chip and 1% art buyers at Sotheby’s as well.
18
I always wonder what level of fame he would have if he didn't have the anonymity. Regardless, I consider Exit Through the Gift Shop pure genius.
11
Banksy has much in common with Jeff Koons. Banksy going on to expand on Koons’s operational concept with inventive methods appropriated from the celebrity world fame game. Banksy, in particular, has demonstrated that what is at base entrepreneurial enterprise can be implanted into culture validated as art. A huckster with product to sell, Banksy is certainly a creative thinker. Even the name he’s chosen as an ID tells that. Banksy, laughing all the way to the bank.
3
Who cares about the museums?! These critics don’t get it. What matters is attention, not platform. Of course Banksy will be remembered as a great artist. The fact that so-called experts say he won’t be just proves he will be.
10
@Amy Gdala What bizarre form of logic did you use to reach that conclusion? Essentially you are saying "If X Group says that Y will be the conclusion, then in fact Z will be the conclusion." You have no logical basis to assume either conclusion will result.
1
Sure he can though I doubt he even cares about his so-called legacy. His art speaks for itself. And whether it will stand the test of time is irrelevant.
“Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable.” — Banksy
30
I find it striking -- and telling -- that this article was 90% done before the reporter bothered to wonder whether the work was any good or not. I suspect this is part Mr. Reyburn's fault, part Banksy's, and part an effect of the days we live in. In any case, I think Mr. Bonami's response is about right.
1
Banksy is Thomas Kincaid for liberals. His work shares the same qualities; hyper-sentimental kitsch, collectable, with an effective business model. (Tho Kincaid's business model was retail stores, and Banksy's is based on gimmick events that pump up press exposure, they both were effective.)
The differences are Kincaid's work was like a candy fantasy of life, maybe even religious as there was no light source in the paintings, and every window always was evenly lit from within, as if by Disney magic. Bansky's work was all about making money while pretending to usurp the powers that be, whether it be social injustice or the commercial art market. If you think Bansky is an "agent-provocateur", just pinch yourself and remember he sells his paintings direct at Sotheby's. Making graffiti was nothing more than a gee-whiz promotion of the artist. Banksy made advertisements of himself as a maker of collectibles.
Banksy is not an artist. Art is a work that shows you something you didn't know, or in a way you didn't think about before. Has Banksy ever taught you anything? Or did he just play on cheesy sentiments you already had? Exactly.
When he dies, if his estate fails to promote the work with the same pizazz, the prices for his work will drop steeply. Just like they did for Kincaid.
15
@idd -- Thanks for setting us all straight.
5
Thank you, Jorge ~
I second your motion!
I feel so much better now that I, too, have been straightened out by idd.
"Banksy" is the lead guy in the band Massive Attack. I thought this was known?
6
The comments on this article are obnoxious. For those who are adamant that Banksy's work is not "real art", or to those who don't think it rises to works traditionally displayed in the world's greatest museums, consider that what Banksy's expression has made you and others question the notion of art in the first place, and that 20 years in many are still having the debate about what his work means.
To me, this seems to be the definition of art, whether you like it or not, and whether it meets your obnoxious standards or not.
27
@Simone My standards are really obnoxious.
3
@GB Mine too! It's the longevity of the merry prankster, Banksy that amazes me. But I suppose the cliche still appears fresh to the art virgin.
1
I daresay he is the McDonalds of artist. Like, um, you know, a certain coffee place is the McDonalds of coffee.
7
Art as Capitalism wrapped up like 'commentary.' It's enough to make a Trump cry.
1
@John
That woulld be GREAT!
Please.
1
"But will he be remembered as a significant artist?"
No.
8
@FM ~
You hereby tell the world that you can see into the future!
(and from your announcement here, I suspect you won’t be able to see the future differently even when Banksy is widely remembered as a significant artist.)
Comparisons to Andy Warhol or Salvador Dalí are arguably more informative or pertinent than one to Marcel Duchamp, but nailing anything down is guaranteed to kill it.
5
How many artists can people name? Banksy is on that short list, technical skills or not.
3
@Jon Q I don't understand your point. So people can name him. They could also name Peter Max and Thomas Kincaid, and almost none could name Van Gogh in his lifetime.
4
When it comes to art, technical skills often do not matter--just think of the artists who created artwork that just about anyone can create, and yet they are in a museum. It comes down to publicity and name recognition. Banksy is probably the most recognizable name of any current artist, and he's received a lot more publicity than any other current artist. So the art community can pretend to decide who is in the club and who is not. Galleries and museums can pretend that they are still gatekeepers, but this is the digital age, and apps like Instagram have far more "visitors" than the galleries and museums combined.
5
Banksy is not only an amazingly inventive artist who not only goes places no one else has, he is simultaneously the most accessible to people who aren't part of the art world, even as he's breaking new ground.
That this tweaks the sensibilities of those who feel great art must be somehow rarefied and require a great investment of time and education to be truly "great" is only part of a disruption the art establishment doesn't know how badly it needs. Art is not only of the world, rather, if it's to fulfill its mission of transformation and culture, it needs to be in the world at large.
Beyond that however, "Banksy" himself is a continually created captivating enigma and set of phenomena carving a unique path through the world, making his "life" as its own act of art among his greatest works.
23
Part of Banksy’s appeal is his art spans different mediums, including a wide variety of performance art - his work seemingly-spontaneously appears in public places, his "shredding picture," his anonymity, all this is part of his art as well. The history of art as a method of protest, even by just encouraging reflection through satire, is nearly as long as the history of art itself. Banksy pushing the boundaries of what is art, what is considered art and by who, is also very “artsy.” Many celebrated artists today were lambasted in their day as garbage and unworthy of the title of ‘art.’
The performance art aspects of Banksy, including putting his art in public places to be enjoyed by the masses, encourages some of those masses to become more interested in art, perhaps even become artists themselves. This alone should accord him some traction among those who enjoy art and those who make a profession out of it, even peripherally such as critics. The ability of art to be enjoyed/experienced by as many different kinds of people, with many different kinds of backgrounds, is a characteristic of good art: you shouldn’t need an art degree to enjoy art.
To perceive and understand Banksy’s art as the pieces alone is to fail to realize the artistry in his art in all its forms and functions.
.
12
Based on the spirit of his art and actions it doesn't seem he aims to abide by the usual paradigms of museums and art history. He makes millions without concerning himself with it and his work gets out there anyway. When you've got life, who needs legacy?
6
Of course he will.
It’s not about art and it is.
9
Bansky uses a lot photoshop and old images/photos from other artists. His original stencil work is just ok. Most of his images are not original works but a mockery of them for his activism. This article is right on many levels. Also, seems more like one person who has a big team of street artist and lawyers working for him.
Its not about his art. It’s about his activism and his massive shows that will be remembered. 99% of Banksy art work people would never buy unless it was a Banksy. If people find out Banksy is actually 3D or Robin Cunningham paying a bunch of street artists; then his whole market is dead. I personally think this why institutions won’t touch him. With all his business people and lawyers Banksy has; the big institutions may know what is going on behind the scenes (this personal speculation)
People are collecting him not because of art but because of his anonymous/mystical career and for his activism. If this enough to be a “new language” in art or enough for his legacy... only time can judged.
Considering there is now a 25% tariff on all art coming from England and the new EU money laundering requirements I could see Banksy’s team opening a store outside of England to continue his sales. Maybe that’s the major announcement in March? Or his identity... which I doubt considering what it will do to his market he created for himself.
17
More of an illustrator than a fine artist. Nevertheless, his works do have a certain whimsical appeal.
10
That’s exactly what was said about Warhol. Case closed.
Banksy is a political cartoonist who appropriates most of his images and has a knack for marketing himself. That's it. He's not a significant artist in any way.
41
Thank you, Todd
You’ve given the world this solid statement of fact: Banksy’s “not a significant artist in any way”—which is the same as my saying that “My brother is not an astronaut” (because he’s not).
I think I’d at least temper your statement with, “In my opinion,” or maybe even, “I think . . .” (?)
4
It's hard for me to understand his appeal, outside of a Hallmark card kind of appeal. Harder still to understand how completely so many critics and fans have drunk the Kool-Aid. His work is superficial, unchallenging, and relies heavily on his image management.
25
. . . but Joe~
in saying this, you’re also saying that you too “have drunk the Kool-Aid”—only yours is a different flavor!
I say: Let there be an infinite variety of Kool-Aid flavors, and especially so when we are drinking in something as nourishing as artwork!
3
One thing that separates Banksy apart from many artists is that is art is actually visually appealing.
11
Many artists have works in museum collections and most of them a century later are regarded as, at best, minor artists. Does anyone think that an artist like Jeff Koons, who is in many museum collections, will be seen as important in the twenty-second century? He and others like him will be seen as examples of the decadence and gross taste of the 1% when the cultural histories of our time are written.
64
His work is always provocative and witty. Conceptually brilliant. But it is inaccurate to discount him as a more traditional artist. He is also extremely skilled as a graphic artist and designer. His technical craftsmanship is far above most of what I see in most modern galleries and museum exhibits. (Certainly the Whitney Biennial.)
41
his art is crap, nothing special---spray painted cutouts that are fairly weak thematically. But the spectacle is the spectacle, sort of like a Supreme drop--that's what creates the hype.
10
I think Banksy is a genius and that the art and the process and the secrecy and mystery are all part of its allure. He makes statements that make you think beyond the art itself.
52
hm, same bla argument as was had (ad nauseum) for Warhol 50 years ago; to some extent both questioned/exposed the world of art as commercial enterprise by deconstructing and milking the concept. this subtle act of civil disobedience consumes itself in the process... metaphor warning (disclaimer I am within a mile of Lyndora, home of Warhola)
14
Banksy is not only one of the greatest artists of all time, he is, hands down, the most fun.
59
I truly admire Banksy's intelligence
Obviously a step ahead of everybody
Long Live Banksy!
37
He makes poster friendly images, nothing more.
30
. . . but Emil,
Your pronouncement allows for no future!
That is, maybe someday (soon) Banksy will make more than “poster friendly images,” in the same way that someday (maybe much farther into the future) you will come to appreciate his artwork.
Unlike many others, many artists tend to have a desire/willingness to develop themselves and their work.
Maybe your doing a little artwork could assist you in allowing development to happen to all of us as we go into the future together?
2
Banksy, like the rest of us, is getting old. The power and boldness and idealism of the younger years always give way to the boring and muted squareness of lawyers, NDAs, and obsession with legacy.
5
The real question is: will the writer, Scott Reyburn be remembered as significant, who is struggling to find a legitimate angle to criticize Banksy, one of the most polarizing artistsof the 21st century? Please do tell.
19
A self promoting artist? Shocking! In the era of art selling for hundreds of millions of dollars and the rarified art snobs deciding what's valuable or collectable, it's fine to have someone to literally come in off the street and mix things up a bit. I'm sure he's laughing all the way to the bank. Should he wait until he's dead?
22
The photos of Dismaland look good and pointed, but I wonder if it is as good a satire as the Progressive Insurance amusement park commercial?
1
Bansky's extraordinary art is never far from this onlooker's thoughts. One of his most intense and powerful works depicts a military man in full gear, crouching behind a corner with a loaded ammo gun. Behind him, a young boy stands close, holding an inflated paper-bag ready to go off at a clip in his ear.
Rembrandt was ahead of his time, 'The First Photographer', and his masterpieces are so real, they have on occasion caused viewers to faint. Banksy has a trenchant and timeless talent of reminding some of us that life is often stranger and more dangerous than art.
19
Why assume Banksy is male?
3
@Susan W, hiya. Banksy identity is not actual a secret in that way. You can find out some info about who he is and the art collective he's been in before. He's just a very private person. I think that's the mystery of today. And that bring out more of his political agenda than it would if he was public.
4
To say that Banksy's success is merely due to marketing or and inflated ego or an opaque online presence is to miss the point. It is his ability to live within the art world while simultaneously commenting on it that makes him unique and relevant. The commonality or even banality of the imagery is what allows him to to do this. A sculpture of a crib with a mobile hanging above says nothing, but if the mobile is composed of surveillance cameras there's an almost Eisensteinian montage-like depth of meaning. In my opinion great work.
79
Does it really matter? His influence on the present is surely sufficient for him. Once he is dead, he presumably won't care much about his reputation.
12
The problem with Banksy is that the art itself is not very special. It’s the controversy around it. In 50 years nobody outside of the art world will remember him. He will probably be a footnote in art history books.
6
Thank you, James!
You’re yet another commenter who can see into the future!
“In 50 years nobody outside the art world will remember him.”
(but I get the creepy feeling from the future you’re imposing on us all now that you also won’t allow others to remember Banksy in your future)
Watch Banksy's award winning documentary "Exit Through the Gift Shop" - it's brilliant - then judge the artist. It's like the word "jazz", for musicians. The term is meaningless. For Banksy, I suspect, the word "art" is meaningless. What comes after the work, like money making, is up to the public, art critics and businesses.
26
I always look forward to seeing what Banksy is creating and what he says through his work. He seems fearless and free and exciting.
20
"But rather than concentrate on individual images, which can have a throwaway quality, Banksy’s admirers see value in his role as an activist as much as in the art itself." In my humble opinion art can be beautiful but also make a statement and put people back on their heels. I like his work. A lot.
7
All his art is great. I'm with him 100%. He's one of the best modern artists. Whatever he does, that's my opinion so far.
12
I’m pro Banksy. He is able to express in many different media how many of us are feeling and seeing the world. He is both perceptive and very funny. I think he’s very British. In that regard Dismaland was a work of British genius. Of course with success he is faced with contradictions in his ethos such as his use of the law to protect his ‘product’. Who doesn’t.
I’ve never met the guy - I don’t think - but I’d really like to. I trust what he says far more than Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn.
96
The metrics of success for disruptors - or those on non-linear paths - will never be identical (or even similar) to the metrics of success for traditional artists/professionals. Perhaps Banksy dreams of being part of the permanent collection of the Tate Modern... perhaps he wants to influence what we talk about, what we start paying attention to... success is relative (it truly is).
20
Although he is not the only gifted street artist nowadays, I have not the slightest doubt that he will be remembered in centuries because he is really truly creative and posesses obvious talent. His work is not only deeply provocative at the root, but also understandable by anybody with 2 eyes and a brain, unlike e.g. a Koons or Duchamp works whose essence summarizes to the art of making money under a harmless pseudo provocative label (the latter was able to sell everything up to his name, but beside that had no talent)...
66
@zorbeck,
A singular grudge on your part against Marcel Duchamp, when he was born with the art of living and lived in comfortable frugality until his death in the late 60s. He and his wife would lend their small apartment to my parent at rue de Parmentier, and it never occurred to her child, to climb a ladder to view his canvases in the alcove.
What he might have shared with Banksy was a gift of poking fun at the Art World and its little pretensions, and Banksy has done it again in making the majority of us sound like a Trip of Dotterel.
'Etant Donnes', or 'in any event, it is others who die'.
Duchamp and Bansky will live on, and on occasion, I wonder what Mr. Duchamp might have thought about his rise to fame in the times we are living.
Keep on truckin, Bansky! Your work is needed more than ever, and Duchamp has nearly become a household name.
3
Here, here! So many artists are posers who are in it for their ego. His motivation is to open up our eyes and hearts.
2
Bensky has more ego than talent. A man artist screaming for attention!
7
Have always loved Banksy’s creativity, antics and willingness to poke fun in ways that resonate. Looking forward to Banksy’s next residency and his continued willingness to make us all think about our world as it is and how it might one day be.
138
To me, Banksy’s artwork is the business, the posturing, and the secrecy more so than the images themselves. Unfortunately, I find the “artwork” tedious and the images prosaic. But the marketing is very successful, and that’s what counts most in the art world.
46
@Tom Kochheiser -- "tedious" and "prosaic" next to "To me" and "art work" should be stenciled words on an alley wall. That would be fun.
2