 | Subscribe |
| Banks, but no Banks A not very topical debate 06/11/08 |  | ||||||||||||||||||||
| I was going to write a scathing paragraph about the world's over-appreciation of the talented vandal known as Banksy. I remembered a couple of articles I read about him last year which formed the basis of my reasoning. However in looking for these articles I found quite a few others which made me question my opinions on the subject.
I am irritated by any mention of Banksy because it seems to me that the public and the media have turned him into the subversive hero they felt they were lacking in much the same way as they turned Jade Goody into a celebrity and accredited her with values that she doesn't have (she may not bee too bright or well educated, but she's a cute and lovely person and a good role model for us all). She has been personified by what the media says she is and what her public want her to be. Too bad her ignorance and unpleasant nature made it impossible for her to remain on this quaking pedestal. Banksy and Jade Goody? That's not a very nice comparison. But the three sticking points are these: A) Both occupy a role that could be filled by a great number of people, but society has plucked them out for stardom and recognition B) Their products (perfume and ghost written autobiographies or graffiti/public art) only have value because somebody told us they have C) Everything that we 'know' about them is for the most part speculation or made up rubbish. This is the first of the two articles that got me thinking about Banksy: Banksy Graffiti Tag Accidentally Removed Bristol council has ordered the preservation of all of Banksy's work, but council workers removed this one because to them it looked like graffiti, which it is their job to remove. Not all councils have the same policy - I read that one council has ordered the removal of any Banksy stencil work, and Westminster Council recently had one mural removed because it had been painted without permission of the owner of the wall. Is it me or does this article seem to say 'The owner will have this artwork removed as soon as we find out who the owner is'? I digress. I can understand the motivation behind preserving Banksy's work in Bristol - he's a local artist bringing recognition to the town, and his artwork is valuable and can be sold. It's the science behind latter point that bothers me. His artwork is only valuable because it was by him. This isn't his fault, and nor is it Bristol Council's fault, it's just a sad fact about art: It's only any good (ie worth money) if someone well known did it or somebody important says it is. The world of art won't like it (nor will they read this so it doesn't matter), but I can make a similar comparison to the Banksy vs Goody one above. Paris Hilton is only well known because she is rich. She is only a celebrity because she is talked about a lot (otherwise she'd probably just be called a sex worker, if anyone bothered to talk about her at all). Her antics are only newsworthy because she is a celebrity, and her products (CDs, Perfume, TV appearances and crimes) are only bankable because she is a celebrity. She's only famous and worth money because the media says she is. A lot of mildly attractive women can drink and drive, make a spectacle of themselves and have intimate relations with anything that moves without getting their own perfume. By a similar token, most people who spray paint their name or a nice picture on a wall are criminals, not cult heroes, and the artwork is despised rather than valued. The people who assign values in the art world are not so distant from the people who deal out celebrity status and by association credibility to almost randomly selected members of the public with little or nothing with to recommend themselves. A lot of those people work at the same newspapers. Here's the other article that set me thinking about this: Banksy style graffiti deemed to be imitation To surmise this article, someone drew something on a wall and signed it 'Banksy'. "A city council spokesman said he doubted the work was a genuine Banksy and was likely to be removed. " It is overly apparent that it makes absolutely no difference to people whether the artwork is any good (in this case I'd say not, but I'd say the same about this one). It only matters who did it. If anyone else did it, it's abominable graffiti and must be removed. If Banksy did it, it's worth money, makes people happy and can stay. Has the world only enough space for one subversive artist? Yes - Banksy's filling the role everyone wants him to, there really isn't any need for any more thank you. (don't get me wrong, if I had my way no one would be encouraged to draw on other people's walls). It's not his fault, as I said earlier, but subversity, in my book, does not go hand in hand with international celebration and over-valued art. Some of the wall art is quite visually appealing, though his political statements seem a bit obvious (a bit petrolly) for the main part (example below). I just can't help feeling that he is just one of a great many people who use art to question society's values, and there's no real reason why he, of all of them, has been plucked for international stardom. That's the end of my tirade, you may draw your own conclusions based on the information I have supplied. Incidentally in the first paragraph of this I said what I'd found out made me question my opinions about Banksy. Writing this has made me realise that I was right all along. Bravo me. Here's a little more food for thought: 1. An example of a puny political statement (which has been painted over by someone who feels a little bit more strongly about it than I do). Painted in response to reports of extra policing for Glastonbury, it shows a policeman searching a young girl. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like he's saying the state is trying to control the innocent peace lovers who attend the festival, and stop them from having such a good time. In actual fact the police are there to protect you, you stupid hippies, from the many hundreds of criminals who attend the festival, some of whom mean you harm, and all of whom threaten to put an end to your precious celebration of commerce and media-hyped music. 2. Why Should Banksy be allowed to draw a big cock on a wall?. My grannie or a small child might see that. If art is public and in a position where no one who sees it has any choice in the matter, I'm not sure it should be offensive to large sectors of society. I'm not certain about that though - apparently 40 percent of the population believe in God (or say they do), but I think the atheist bus messages are brilliant. Maybe offensive artwork is good so long as it's not offensive to me personally? That sounds good to me, and should probably form the basis of council policy in the future. 3."Our graffiti removal teams are staffed by professional cleaners not professional art critics" Spokesman, Transport for London.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
The opinions expressed on Hobo-Bonobo.co.uk are not those of anyone, particularly not the people to whom they have been accredited.
The content of the site is intended to be humourous, and is not intended to offend anyone.