It's been almost impossible to escape the images of Banksy's street-graffiti cartoons on the Net, for the past couple of years. As Paddy suggests, "Internet nerds" have much to do with elevating this artist to the level where he can be collected by Brad Pitt. This post is a mea culpa for reBlogging an image of the work as an Eyebeam reBlogger in '04. I suppose I was impressed by the scale of some of the pieces sprayed on buildings in rundown neighborhoods--as I recall, I reBlogged a giant rat--but I've never really liked the clip-art-cutesy style and dislike the artist's faux-Dickensian handle. One-word artist names are inherently pretentious! As Banksy gets more and more hyped, the ideas get worse and worse.
Update, from the comments:tim: i disagree on your take on the one-word artist-name. it comes out of the graffiti/street art culture -- the farthest thing from pretentious. it's a way to preserve anonymity.
tom: I've never thought of him as a street artist, but rather a Young British Artist using street vernacular and every other means of sophisticated self-hype to become as famous as Jesus Christ.
remind me never to bring brad pitt to your next opening! my take is that it's hard to commodify street art and, yes, nearly always a bit stomach turning when it's done. (one exception is swoon. her installations are top-notch.) but i can't hold it against banksy that he wants some cash to support his work. it's not like he's selling out to mcdonalds. personally, i find his street art to be among the best out there. clever and affecting pieces like this one: www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/06.5.html and this: flickr.com/photos/35237093392@N01/210619067/. to each their own, but i disagree on your take on the one-word artist-name. it comes out of the graffiti/street art culture -- the farthest thing from pretentious. it's a way to preserve anonymity. in any case, what's contemporary art, if not pretentious?...shouldn't we celebrate pretense and pretending a bit?
I've never thought of him as a street artist, but rather a Young British Artist using street vernacular and every other means of sophisticated self-hype to become as famous as Jesus Christ. I don't buy the argument that says "poor me, I have to sell to stars to bankroll my Che Guevara-like crusades." Say hi to Brad.
Having looked at the photos you posted--the Palestine wall photo bugs me because it means he's a globe-hopping graffitist instead of someone concentrating on his own neglected back yard. That does take money. And it's all about increasing your visibility in the media hype sense as opposed to the local, street sense.
How do you know the "girl skipping rope" is by him?
I thouight this installation was pretty good:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5335400.stm
well, he doesn't sign his work or show up as his openings. that's an interesting route for someone looking to get as famous as jesus (or warhol or damien hirst)... but hey, you never know. why can't he use his money to tag the palastian wall? he's tagged plenty in the u.k. i think he's a legit street artist that's been doing his thing years before street art became hip and monified. fine if you don't like his aesthetic. most street art (ok, contempo art in general) is trash, i feel he's an exception. i'm open to the idea that he'll be ruined by brad pitt's money. we'll see.
What does painting an elephant have to do with graffiti-ing buildings? OK, it's a stunt involving stencils, but seems rather far afield from neighborhood activism/rage.
As for his doing something "years before street art became hip and monified" I seem to remember these guys, Futura 2000, Lee Quinones, Jean Michel Basquiat, etc. that went through the "street to stars" cycle 25 years ago.
The "Guantanamo comes to Frontierland" piece is good agitprop--not sure how interesting it is as art. (Murky thumbnail or not.)
Anonymity is great--but the bigger you get the greater the more pressure there is to "come out." The inevitable revelation of your Spider-Man-like secret identity yields more hype, the profile goes up a notch, etc.
I'm in agreement with Tom. I think most of his work is very trite, very bad art. (those Palestinian wall tags make me gag for too many reasons to go into here, the only merit is that their existence is another good argument to tear the walls down).
I don't care if he gets money for it or not and I don't care about his temporary rise in status. There are worse ways to make money and worse ways to spend it. Creative agitprop has its own pleasures and rewards, but it's not enough to satisfy or inspire me as an artist.
|
It's been almost impossible to escape the images of Banksy's street-graffiti cartoons on the Net, for the past couple of years. As Paddy suggests, "Internet nerds" have much to do with elevating this artist to the level where he can be collected by Brad Pitt. This post is a mea culpa for reBlogging an image of the work as an Eyebeam reBlogger in '04. I suppose I was impressed by the scale of some of the pieces sprayed on buildings in rundown neighborhoods--as I recall, I reBlogged a giant rat--but I've never really liked the clip-art-cutesy style and dislike the artist's faux-Dickensian handle. One-word artist names are inherently pretentious! As Banksy gets more and more hyped, the ideas get worse and worse.
Update, from the comments:
- tom moody 9-20-2006 9:44 am
remind me never to bring brad pitt to your next opening! my take is that it's hard to commodify street art and, yes, nearly always a bit stomach turning when it's done. (one exception is swoon. her installations are top-notch.) but i can't hold it against banksy that he wants some cash to support his work. it's not like he's selling out to mcdonalds. personally, i find his street art to be among the best out there. clever and affecting pieces like this one: www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/06.5.html and this: flickr.com/photos/35237093392@N01/210619067/. to each their own, but i disagree on your take on the one-word artist-name. it comes out of the graffiti/street art culture -- the farthest thing from pretentious. it's a way to preserve anonymity. in any case, what's contemporary art, if not pretentious?...shouldn't we celebrate pretense and pretending a bit?
- tim (guest) 9-20-2006 6:40 pm
I've never thought of him as a street artist, but rather a Young British Artist using street vernacular and every other means of sophisticated self-hype to become as famous as Jesus Christ. I don't buy the argument that says "poor me, I have to sell to stars to bankroll my Che Guevara-like crusades." Say hi to Brad.
- tom moody 9-20-2006 6:51 pm
Having looked at the photos you posted--the Palestine wall photo bugs me because it means he's a globe-hopping graffitist instead of someone concentrating on his own neglected back yard. That does take money. And it's all about increasing your visibility in the media hype sense as opposed to the local, street sense.
How do you know the "girl skipping rope" is by him?
- tom moody 9-20-2006 7:00 pm
I thouight this installation was pretty good:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5335400.stm
- adrien (guest) 9-21-2006 7:22 pm
well, he doesn't sign his work or show up as his openings. that's an interesting route for someone looking to get as famous as jesus (or warhol or damien hirst)... but hey, you never know. why can't he use his money to tag the palastian wall? he's tagged plenty in the u.k. i think he's a legit street artist that's been doing his thing years before street art became hip and monified. fine if you don't like his aesthetic. most street art (ok, contempo art in general) is trash, i feel he's an exception. i'm open to the idea that he'll be ruined by brad pitt's money. we'll see.
- tim (guest) 9-21-2006 8:19 pm
What does painting an elephant have to do with graffiti-ing buildings? OK, it's a stunt involving stencils, but seems rather far afield from neighborhood activism/rage.
As for his doing something "years before street art became hip and monified" I seem to remember these guys, Futura 2000, Lee Quinones, Jean Michel Basquiat, etc. that went through the "street to stars" cycle 25 years ago.
The "Guantanamo comes to Frontierland" piece is good agitprop--not sure how interesting it is as art. (Murky thumbnail or not.)
Anonymity is great--but the bigger you get the greater the more pressure there is to "come out." The inevitable revelation of your Spider-Man-like secret identity yields more hype, the profile goes up a notch, etc.
- tom moody 9-21-2006 8:44 pm
I'm in agreement with Tom. I think most of his work is very trite, very bad art. (those Palestinian wall tags make me gag for too many reasons to go into here, the only merit is that their existence is another good argument to tear the walls down).
I don't care if he gets money for it or not and I don't care about his temporary rise in status. There are worse ways to make money and worse ways to spend it. Creative agitprop has its own pleasures and rewards, but it's not enough to satisfy or inspire me as an artist.
- L.M. 9-21-2006 9:06 pm