2008 Fall: Theoretical Constructions in Contemporary Art

A city council member says he can relate to one of Bansky's images that has a shopping trolley in it because they have a problem with shopping trolleys.
And an independent gallerist says he test runs a Banksy show on the back of a Damien Hirst show and when four out of five are snapped up in the first hour, his question of whether this is art is satisfied. Finally a man whose very home is the street, his walls and passages a graffiti artists surface, naively questions the real life author with the incorrect pseudonym ( locating this person indirectly) and adds his own layer of anonymity. Hilariously, in my mind, giving Banksy even that much more freedom from obligation of authorship.
The journalist points out the position of some critics being that graffiti like blogging lowers the public discourse and encourages the taking of undeserved liberties.
Undeserved liberties being the introduction of his own work onto museum walls and into amusement park installations. Reducing ideas to simple visual elements and into red nosed rebellion by painting on building surfaces without the building owners consent.
At the end of the article Banksy states that he originally set out to save the world but now he is not sure he likes it enough. He then states that he loves the way capitalism finds a place- even for its enemies and I wonder how the smell of rebel and risk embedded in a graffiti artists practice stays alive with an enemy that gives you a place?

Banksy's art adds another dimension to some of the art in Fort Thunder that was "ephemeral": not only is (some of) Bansky's art also ephemeral, but it is anonymous. It is as if Banksy doesn't exist, and never will; only his art exists. Perhaps Banksy's desired anonymousness could be considered a self-inflicted "death of the author," or a "suicide of the author," since his art is expressly not about him, but only about the "viewer" and their reaction to his art. Banksy didn't want authorship, or fame, but anonymousness, which ironically only increased his fame: in his non-existence he existed all the more saliently.

Even while Banksy's art is deliberately provocative and childish, I find there to be something incredibly humble about making art not for fame, or for oneself, but for the public -- for their education or entertainment. Anonymity, especially self-chosen anonymity, has a way of seeming "ego-less" and humble. After a while, I stopped caring about who Banksy really is, what his real name is, what he looks like, etc., and began to care more about the messages he was trying to express. However, perhaps it was Banksy's plan all along to win fame through anonymity. Who knows but Banksy?

One thread seems to link all of Banksy's anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist images -- a sense of humor. To me, it's interesting to think that art work with a sense of a humor can be just as powerful as art work without one. I wonder why it is that a sense of humor in one's art can be so powerful? I also found it interesting how much an artist can say without using words (or at least, not many words), which is a tactic Banksy seems to employ -- imagery can be more concise and direct than writing. There's also a certain ideological and visual clarity to Banksy's work which I appreciate, and which I don't usually see in ordinary graffiti, which is usually just a "tag" by itself, without any sort of moral or political message.

I feel compelled to say, I find there to be something intensely sick and horrible about rich people buying Banksy's art. Why are these people spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on graffiti art rather than donating that money to the Red Cross or Unicef or Oxfam, or any others of thousands of different charities? Isn't buying Banksy's art becoming something sinister, something akin to buying a half-million dollar car for the sole purpose of inflating oneself? However, I also wonder if Banksy shouldn't be "cashing in" on his fame, so that he might do some real good with the money he could easily earn from selling his art. If he really does care about "global poverty," as he seems to do with his painted elephant "piece" in one of his warehouse shows, why not use his influence and popularity to make as much money as he can, and then donate that money to more unfortunate people than he, people not fortunate to have the fame or "earning potential" Banksy does? Banksy could become a "charity agency" unto himself if he so chose.

Banksy's art adds another dimension to some of the art in Fort Thunder that was "ephemeral": not only is (some of) Bansky's art also ephemeral, but it is anonymous. It is as if Banksy doesn't exist, and never will; only his art exists. Perhaps Banksy's desired anonymousness could be considered a self-inflicted "death of the author," or a "suicide of the author," since his art is expressly not about him, but only about the "viewer" and their reaction to his art. Banksy didn't want authorship, or fame, but anonymousness, which ironically only increased his fame: in his non-existence he existed all the more saliently.

Even while Banksy's art is deliberately provocative and childish, I find there to be something incredibly humble about making art not for fame, or for oneself, but for the public -- for their education or entertainment. Anonymity, especially self-chosen anonymity, has a way of seeming "ego-less" and humble. After a while, I stopped caring about who Banksy really is, what his real name is, what he looks like, etc., and began to care more about the messages he was trying to express. However, perhaps it was Banksy's plan all along to win fame through anonymity. Who knows but Banksy?

One thread seems to link all of Banksy's anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist images -- a sense of humor. To me, it's interesting to think that art work with a sense of a humor can be just as powerful as art work without one. I wonder why it is that a sense of humor in one's art can be so powerful? I also found it interesting how much an artist can say without using words (or at least, not many words), which is a tactic Banksy seems to employ -- imagery can be more concise and direct than writing. There's also a certain ideological and visual clarity to Banksy's work which I appreciate, and which I don't usually see in ordinary graffiti, which is usually just a "tag" by itself, without any sort of moral or political message.

I feel compelled to say, I find there to be something intensely sick and horrible about rich people buying Banksy's art. Why are these people spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on graffiti art rather than donating that money to the Red Cross or Unicef or Oxfam, or any others of thousands of different charities? Isn't buying Banksy's art becoming something sinister, something akin to buying a half-million dollar car for the sole purpose of inflating oneself? However, I also wonder if Banksy shouldn't be "cashing in" on his fame, so that he might do some real good with the money he could easily earn from selling his art. If he really does care about "global poverty," as he seems to do with his painted elephant "piece" in one of his warehouse shows, why not use his influence and popularity to make as much money as he can, and then donate that money to more unfortunate people than he, people not fortunate to have the fame or "earning potential" Banksy does? Banksy could become a profitable "charity agency" unto himself. However, it also seems that Banksy gives away for free a good deal of his pieces, so maybe he's on the right track...

Oops. Didn't mean to post twice. Just wanted to add a comment at the end.

Rowan, he says that he does give his money away solving the problem of making so much at the same time that he gives his work away free as well.

It seems to me that at this point, if Banksy’s identity was revealed, much of the thrill would be over. The hunt and the chase has become an important factor for many Banksy fans and if that aspect was over, would he lose his hero status? Would his work be as exciting if we weren’t constantly trying to figure out who did it and why? I like Rowan’s assessment that perhaps the anonymousness is a self-inflicted “death of the author.� Banksy has successfully managed to get viewers to focus solely on the artwork and its message without any additional information, which seems like a near impossible task this day of age.

“Imagine a city where graffiti wasn’t illegal, a city where everyone could draw wherever they liked, where the street was awash with a million colors and little phrases…a city that felt like a party where everyone was invited, not just the estate agents and barons of big business.� A romantic view it is, but what a wonderful, yet overwhelming thought. Love and hatred, “bad� art and “good� art, beauty and ugliness, gender and culture would all be mixed together in a visual stew. I wonder though if this would defeat the “marking ones territory� aspect of grafitti. If tagging was no longer a challenge of who could mark the most extreme location without getting caught would the focus shift from script towards more political work, like that of Banksy’s?

I agree with Rowan that the wealthy purchasing Banksy’s artwork for mega dollars is in a sense sick. Yet it seems that people like Brad Pitt have so much money that they can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on graffiti in addition to adopting three international children and having their own charity foundation. The ridiculously high prices of Banksy’s work makes his whole mission even more ironic. Suddenly this anonymous street artist who puts forth strong political messages has work being sold in the “high art� world while others spend their entire lives in art school and residencies trying to accomplish the same success.

Rowan, I also wanted to comment on your question of humor in artwork. I think employing humor makes light of a serious subject, thus simultaneously allowing the viewer to approach the topic enjoyably and delve further into the seriousness of the issue at hand.

Of course there is something “sick and horrible� (Rowan’s words) about rich people buying Bansky’s art. However, it seems somewhat inevitable. If an artist does something interesting and subversive enough to become a phenomenon, this phenomenon will eventually become trendy. This is especially true when the Hollywood-star-patrons are delighted to discover that the “high art� that is most popular is also extremely accessible to everyone. Not only is it created on the street, but the subject matter is relatively easy to understand. Imagery is not complex, and the sense of humor is straight-forward (albeit creative and clever).

In my opinion, Bansky’s next step has to be the satirization of his own fame, or he will lose credibility. He might make fun of the art world, but he also seems to be desperate for its attention. Bansky’s work is clever and effective, but it loses its strength as his phenomenon gains style. As he becomes someone more familiar to the mainstream, his art seems less subversive, despite its message. What if he started making fun of himself instead of the art world? He might lose some of his anonymity, but as he admits himself at the end of the article, much of that anonymity is already lost.

The part of this that is most disappointing to me is the loss of the element of discovery. “Even on Bansky’s home turf, it’s hard to know what to look for, or where to look. For many of his admireers, that’s the fun of it; scouring the city for his, or his art works, invests in a potentially monotonous activity with the possibility of discovery.� Now that the work has become all about the “author� and his “phenomenon,� finding a piece in a city seems a bit less like a special and personal discovery and a bit more artificial. As Bansky said, “All the attention meant I lost some of the element of surprise.� To me, this was the strength in his work, as it gave each piece power. The viewer would get to “discover� the work in his or her own personal context, and to claim it as his or her own. It would become a part of the viewer’s personal adventure. Now, when someone finds a Bansky, they instead become a part of a phenomenon and have something to tell their friends.

Its also interesting to think of Banksy in relation to the Death of the Author. One might assume that this anonymity is the ultimate death of the author; the author is anonymous, and therefore non-existent and unimportant. The work is truly meant to be about what the viewer brings into a piece that he or she encounters in the midst of his or her daily life. In this case, it has backfired. The author has, in fact become the focus.

Much like the Fort Thunder artist community I find Banksy to be a fascinating example of how art can operate outside of the mainstream art world. I love the way that he distills graffiti into something that is more digestible for the general public. He is basically using the visual language of advertising, design and gorilla marketing. It is graffiti for the masses instead of graffiti for other graffiti artists. The Councilman Gary Hopkins said" I think we undermined his street cred by making him mainstream." I think Banksy's whole approach made him mainstream. By making work that is easily understood by the public he is enticing them. He sought there approval by using a common visual language.

I think the mystique he creates by hiding his identity definitely adds to the public appeal. Banksy has become a sort of legend, a hero. He is the modern day robin hood of the art world; defacing public property to enlighten and entertain the common person. Also by giving the proceeds from his paintings to the needy, he is furthering this idea. Granted I wonder how much he actually gives away? It's hard to believe he doesn't keep some of it. Alright maybe he's not a modern day robin hood, but he is certainly an interesting public figure.

Ultimately it seems that the money, power and greed, which are all part of the art market sector of the art world, corrupt even some of the more idealistic artists. I don't know if I really blame Banksy for getting caught up the money and fame. When you spend so much time pouring all of your creative energy into your work, while barely scraping by, it seems it would be easy to be seduced. As Banksy noted "I love the way capitalism finds a place–even for its enemies. It's definitely boom time in the discontent industry". It seems that ultimately anything can be turned into a product.

Rowen, in regards to your statement about rich people buying Banksy's art for ridiculous amounts of money, I think that could be opened up to art in general. I'm not saying that I think it is wrong to sell art or anything, but I often wonder about the obscene amounts of money that are collected for various artworks. In many cases the artist don't even see most of it (they are usually dead by that time). I find it really weird that art has become a relatively safe form of investment in comparison to the stock market. We are basically in the business of making vessels for the rich to store their money in. What a strange dynamic...

I’ve always been a fan of graffiti, the anonymous collage of color and line that appears, morphs, and disappears in the city’s hidden alcoves. The silent artifact of a life after dark, a life underground. Who was that person? Then there’s that rare but electrifying morning when someone has gotten their piece up on an impossibly public wall or the dizzying height of a bridge. How did they get up there? Did they get caught? How did one person do that? The routine of a familiar landscape has been disrupted. For a moment, anything seems possible. Always, the mystery of the writer’s identity and process is part of the thrill of looking at graffiti.

Paradoxically, graffiti has always been about the pursuit of an arcane kind of fame. Most graffiti still is a kind of advertisement for the writer themselves – an encrypted nickname applied to as many walls or trains as possible. In the early days of New York graffiti, this competition for ubiquity took place within a tight-knit subculture, but soon enough the gallery system took notice, and writers began to realize that a unique style could translate into dollars and recognition beyond their circle of friends and rivals. However, no matter how innovative a tag might be, it’s missing half of its identity when its hung on a canvas in a gallery. The impulse to spraypaint one’s signature on a wall is to say “I own this part of the city too. You can’t tell me where to go.� The afterthought is: “… and by the way, my style is still tight even when I’m working in the pitch black of a nighttime trainyard.� When the identity of the writer is revealed and their work has been quarantined to an indoor space, the mystery is gone and the essential ingredient of landscape is missing. Banksy certainly understands that the thrill of mystery and public context have enormous potential – both for shaping the meaning of his images, and for marketing his work.

I first realized that graffiti could be more than just hip-hop graf styles when I was traveling in Europe in the late ‘90s. I started seeing stencils of political messages, coupled with ghostly faces, bodies, and animals that seemed to be interacting with the buildings and streets. Not long after, a friend emailed me a link to Banksy’s web page. I was completely blown away by what I saw. This was stenciling taken to its outer limits – iconic, life-sized, explicitly political, hilarious and frightening, and clearly all over the place. Most importantly, Banksy’s work interacted with its environment in ways that called attention to the unnoticed textures of the city. A splatter of filth is transformed into the stream of pee from a furtive police figure… or did the artist do that too? A green stain on the sidewalk becomes the flow of toxic waste from a barrel overturned by a mischievous rat.

It’s not really surprising that a cult of personality has grown up around Banksy, considering his dogged obsession with making provocative images and pulling off publicity stunts like covertly hanging his work in major museums. However, as Lauren Collins reveals in her New Yorker article, Banksy has managed to cultivate this notoriety in a uniquely ‘graffiti’ way. It seems a bit disingenuous for him to continue posing as an anonymous prankster even as he makes millions from commodifying his work. After all, he has essentially created a name-brand of exclusive products and used his outdoor work as a kind of street marketing campaign. However, I still appreciate the playful political satire of his subject matter, and clearly his anonymity invites an audience to engage with his imagery and process. A viewer can speculate endlessly about the mind that conceived of a particular image, and project themselves into the risky working process that created the silhouette.

Wow, good point Ben. Is art just investment property? I suppose that's how it is treated on the market -- high risk/high return investment. I guess if you consider the art market that way, then the commodification of street art seems less weird -- street artists may be selling their work by the same terms as other artists, but at least they're simultaneously doing something that invites dialogue in the public sphere outside the gallery and beautifying the city to boot.

Banksy Was Here, is great storytelling, who doesn’t want an alternative street art “hero� rising through the over- inflated art market, eating the rich as he goes. Not to sound trite, Banksy’s images and placement of graffiti are poignant and righteous, he himself said he wanted to change the world and he seems to be trying. He has also realized it may not be worth saving.

Street art is so much different than the art that fits inside the white box of a gallery. The approach to it is happenstance, there is a sense of oppression and a knowing that is was created in the shadows, behind the backs of the law. Graffiti is about pure feeling and reactions rather than commodity and money. Nowadays, the art world encompasses all things, it will always find ways to make more money and exploit all scenes to reach the trendy ness of being not trendy. Street art is now a sub category, to be a rebel and make loads of cash, ah…. the American Dream.

Banksy may be freed from authorship by living anonymously, but there are other aspects that may bind him up. There is a strong “selling out� issue here. Getting 200,000 dollars for any painting is a bit much. The egos involved with this always make me a little sick. I know I am being envious, seeing someone maneuver so beautifully through the system without me. What I find interesting is that it’s other people’s words that make up who Banksy is. He has loyalists, people helping him, who must get paid off somehow. Again ego is on my mind, but I am looking at this through the door of the white box, not from under a bridge, where now Banksy is no longer safe from recognition. He is not “Trousering all the cash� which makes it work for me. Banksy has his own dilemmas to work out, and proceed as an anarchist, who generates wads of cash and is maybe changing the world.

I want to comment on what Rowan says in his last Paragraph - I agree - that bad taste it leaves in my mouth is due to the Rich who are buying the art...It's such a curious world we live in, I didn't take into account the ego in spending ones money - to be a part of someone elses lifestyle.

I find Banksy’s work really exciting and fresh. The illegal and anonymous way it’s delivered is thrilling in itself, but I actually think the content and execution is so clever and assured. He has a unique, crisp style, his work is subversive and politically poignant, and it’s a readable message that doesn’t slap you across the face with its obviousness. The author calls his work “anti-authoritarian whimsy.� So much political work is very heavy-handed to the point that it’s uninviting, while Banksy’s work invites you to join the movement, because it’s a blast.

I wish there were more artists like this, creating art for everyone, that engages you outside the confines of a gallery space, but still manages to be political and controversial (all while poking fun at the world and at themselves). I find this sort of art really surprising and pleasing-- it confronts you when you don’t expect it and jolts you out of your stupor, making you laugh at the audacity of it and perhaps inspiring you to try something equally bold. He tends to disrespect the right targets—taking a blow-up doll dressed in a Guantanamo jumpsuit into Disney World is so brilliant, likewise the painted hole in the West Bank security fence.

There are of course so many contradictions in his work regarding the art world—as the author says, he seems to be “flipping off the art world and begging it to notice him at the same time.� I would like to give him a bit more credit though, as I doubt he initially I intended to create this kind of mystique. I imagine he was making his work in the way he liked to do it, and had to hide out of necessity. Perhaps once he realized what a boon this mysteriousness was for his reputation, he nourished it. “All these little lads look at Banksy the way youngsters who are into football look at Beckham – he’s their hero,� says the director of a graffiti clean-up company. I can help but think of a classic comic vigilante hero, outside the law but on the side of the common folk. Or as Ben said, like Robin Hood (curiously, the man some people think is Banksy has the first name Robin). As for the sale of his work, it’s true that the system seems a bit hypocritical, but I’m a little tired of artists and musicians being viligied for their success, for making money at what they do best. If someone wants to pay loads for a Banksy piece and that allows him to have time to make art on the street and give money to charity, I have no problem with that.

This was a very enjoyable read, but I have to admit I have been a Banksy fan for at least a half a decade now. I love how he has taken vandalism, a scourge in almost any community, and brought it to a level of respect in the art world and market. His art is as much public as it is political. The choices of his subject matter mix strong recognizable symbolism, with a message and a sense of humor. And all are essentially free, to be experienced by the community that was lucky enough to be vandalized.

Until this past year I was only aware of his free ephemeral art that existed mostly through photographs on WebPages and books. Only recently had I learned that he was producing artwork to be sold as commodities, and from the beginning I had no problem with that. I really don’t feel there should be any shame in an artist’s ability to support themselves through their artwork. But I have to admit my surprise at some of the prices Banksy’s work has commanded. I really enjoyed his quote “I can’t believe you morons actually buy this shit.�

Many an art professor has told me that in order to be successful in the art world/market you have to have a gimmick. Whether you create it yourself, or get labeled with one by the media or a critic. I remember another professor in my undergraduate studies telling his art students that we ourselves are the greatest design product we will ever have. Banksy has found his gimmick, his artwork, his anonymity are all part of it. Sure most of his work is done illegally, but I don’t think that is the point anymore. Part of his gimmick and persona is the mystery of who he is. And that character is just as important as the work.

Banksy the persona is just as much a product as is his artwork. I feel that western culture loves its rebels, especially in the USA, and with Banksy I feel that his collectors feel that they are buying a part of the rebel along with the work. “ I love the way capitalism finds a place----even for it’s enemies. It’s definitely boom time in the discontent industry.�

Hey Robin! I keep thinking about laughter in art work. Your art work, for example, seems like it's a fountain of laughter and joy and playfulness. You let go of control over your piece, and allow your viewer to play among your soft, funny, inviting, interactive installations. You make your viewer feel wanted. I haven't studied much "humorous" art before this class (or even before the last couple of essays), but the more I think about it, the more I realize how gigantic and indelible a sense of humor can be when it's injected into one's art. I've sometimes thought that the only effective way to get across political messages in art was to show the horror of actual suffering or death, but artists like Banksy make me wonder if laughter can be even more compelling and devastating, if used in the right way and in the right context. Like you said, humor facilitates the viewer's approach to a work of art, making "light of a serious subject." It enables the viewer to see horror without feeling manipulated, without even feeling guilty. What could be more hopeful and optimistic than laughter? And somehow it just feels that artists like Banksy, who rely consistently on their sense of humor, have their heart in the right place, and can be trusted like a friend, despite the illegality of their actions.

If Banksy were to reveal his identity, would he have the cult status he currently holds? I am really torn when it comes to my overall opinion of Banksy. Like Bart, I feel there’s an element of gimmick. There’s as much press trying to figure out who Bansky is (if not more), than there is about his artwork. But then, graffiti artists use their tag as their identity and are often only known by their tag name…and usually work in the dark and often in disguise.

There’s an element of trend; the spring breaker on a spring break Banksy hunt, a pizza box on eBay, the record sell outs and record sale prices as well as a loyal cult following that liken him to a pop star. I also see a contradiction in his four published books of his work (three being self-published) with his persona.

As much as I want to be critical of Banksy, I think he’s ultimately a genius.

I think that the conflict of the prices his pieces are selling for is really to his benefit. Often it is the already wealthy collectors that see and spend the money long after the artist is dead and unaware of their success.

I am having hard time deciding where to stand in viewing Banksy's work. I tend not to appreciate much of graffiti art, for the fact that many of them are not welcomed by the owners of the “canvas�, or by the surrounding community. When a graffiti is exposed against the will of community, I find it as an act of selfishness or ignorance. If one speaks in loud enough voice that allows other to hear him/her, it is one's responsibility to control or to be aware of the content, in relation to the surroundings. Banksy, in this term, I think he is well aware of that. And many of his works are being accepted by the owners and the surrounding community.

The fact that Banksy's work is being accepted by the surrounding community still does not make me stand on the side to favor his work. The manifestation of his work holds its meaning with the fact that it is against something. If we favor his work and accept them to our community, then Banksy's voice will lose its power and meaning.

When his pizza box is sold for 102 dollars, when a media displays Angelina Jolie buying his work, when London transportation authority has to explain the “mistake� of repainting the wall with his work painted on, when we try to find who Banksy really is, I feel the loss of meaning in Banksy's art. This is the case when I support the idea of “death of an author�. If the author choose to be “dead�, we must respect it and focus on the content of what he has to say. Gaining popularity is inevitable when one's work is respected. What is happening to Banksy's work is happening and there is no point arguing about it. Importance is not to lose the focus on why we respect so much of his art.

In response to Rowan, I was also interested about the rich people trying to buy Banksy's work. I even find the fact of Banksy selling his work is funny because owning a work from a specific artist seem to contradict with the whole nature of graffiti.

In response to Rowan’s comment about finding “ something intensely sick and horrible about rich people buying Pansy’s art.� Are these feelings just felt toward Banksy, or all art that is sold at obscenely inflated values? I have a hard time comprehending such vast amounts of monies being exchanged for art objects, but as far as I’m concerned, Banksy is justified. Besides he only gets a fraction of that amount after the auction house, the dealer, the taxman all take their cut, and even then he gives at least part of it away. And even if he keeps a significant amount, the proceeds of his art allows him to spread his art around the world as well.

For the most part, I don’t really care much for Banksy’s work. I think it’s nihilistic and insincere. So much of the work relies on shock value or comments on the structure and absurdity of the art world and his subversive infiltration of it. I don’t understand why that captivates so many people. On the other hand, much of his work is really profound, like the tromp-l’oeil painting in the West Bank or the jumpsuit-clad blowup doll in Disneyland. He seems quite dichotomous, and perhaps that’s the reason he spurns so much discussion.
I love this quotation, though, couldn’t agree with it more: “I don’t know how the art world gets away with it, it’s not like you hear songs on the radio that are just a mess of noise and then the d.j. says, ‘If you read the thesis that comes with this, it would make more sense.� He negates that sentiment, I think, by being the art world prankster. I seriously doubt the average Joe gets that, I mean, Brad Pitt doesn’t even get it. It’s a lot of media puffery.
I love to hate Banksy, and I’m sure other’s feel similarly. I wonder, though, if he would have become as famous as he is today had he stuck to work that “set out to try and save the world� I guess his work is accessible and funny, if it changes someone’s idea about the world, then that’s good to me. Artists are seemingly held to an invisible code of idealistic conduct, and I don’t understand why it has to serve a social purpose in order to have validity. Like politician’s sex scandals, as amusing as they might be, are ultimately unimportant in regard to their work.

In response to: “Imagine a city where graffiti wasn’t illegal, a city where everyone could draw wherever they liked, where the street was awash with a million colors and little phrases…a city that felt like a party where everyone was invited, not just the estate agents and barons of big business.� That city does exist…It’s the not-so-romantic Internet City.

I think ultimately in the end, the monster of mystery and anonymity that Banksy created, ate him. He seemed to be walking a fine line between 'flipping off the art world while at the same time begging for its attention'. That is obviously a short-term method to get interest and hype built up, but it is not a sustainable art practice for the long-haul. Eventually the mystery will be solved, and torn apart by the hyper-consuming public. The same public that continues to devour celebrities at an increasingly rapid and aggressive rate. We collectively chased after Britney until we had pictures of her privates on the internet and had her sent to the psych-ward with a shaved head. Face it America, we ate Michael Jackson's face. So if anyone in the class has ambitions to become "The King Of" something, think again, because if you earn that label, its gonna either be drug overdose, suicide, murder, or plastic surgery gone too far.

The thing that ultimately turns me off of Banksy's work is the negative, dark, and insincere content. All his imagery just gives more attention to authoritarian class structure, and the many evils of this world. He just adds more energy to the drab monster. I don't think Marilyn Manson having cops dressed in pink outfits freak-dancing with each other on MTV changed anything for the better. All it did was turn more people off and give them another reason for spitefulness. But maybe the world ate up Banksy's stuff so fast and ferociously because we are so stuck in this discontent as a whole. I personally want to see work and action to turn a back on negativity and cynicism and start being sincere and positive. More heart dammit.

By not trying to be famous using anonymity and secrecy, you become famous. But even though I'm not excited about his content and imagery, I do respond to his practice of putting art out in the world with such determination. I just wish it was artwork that connected to people on a real sincere level. Every once and awhile I have my day made by witnessing something in public. Recently this summer I was driving by Lake Calhoun and this skinny guy in his early fifties was roller skating by along the bike path. Thats roller skating, not roller blading. He had on those old brown leather skates with the orange wheels, short-shorts, tank-top, and a cassette-walkman clipped to his hip. I don't know what he was listening to, but his tiny eighties foamy earphones were pumpin' in some hot jams because this guy was dancing and spinning and singing in the bright roller skatin' sunshine. Sweat pouring down his face with a huge smile. I could do nothing but smile, and on certain days if I was feeling extra raw and sensitive, I may have started crying at the pure sincerity and beauty of it all. So what I'm trying to say is lets start doing more roller skating and dancing, and less spray painting words on the wall that say things like 'wasted', 'broken', 'eatshit', and 'rotten'. Yeah, it was cool when the naughty kids in middle school would cuss and swear, but its time to grow up a bit and realize that lowering the public discourse and adding more gloom and immaturity to the world isn't gonna make things better for anybody. If you ask me, a guy roller skating with next to no material wealth in a state of absolute bliss and sincerity is way more a revolutionary act because it declares publicly that you don't buy happiness at the mall or car dealership. It turns its back on all the bullshit, instead of spray-painting it up again in a cynical way on the side of the building.

Rachel, I loved the comparison in your last paragraph of Banksy's idea of the city where graffiti was legal and everyone wrote things to the 'not-so-romantic' internet city.

Hey Bart -- No, my anger isn't at Banksy, but at the hideously wealthy who should be doing more good with their wealth. I'd like to think it's not jealousy I'm feeling, but anger...

I'm not an angry person, though...I'm a sweetheart, like Jonathon says...Hahahahaha.

Sorry, I actually mis-read Banksy when he said, "The money that my work fetches these days makes me a bit uncomfortable, but that's an easy problem to solve -- you just stop whingeing and give it all away." For some reason I didn't interpret that statement as a direct admission of Banksy's giving his money away. I thought he was suggesting that he "should" give all his money away. I certainly have even less of a problem with Banksy now...

In response to Rowan and Robin's comment about laughter in artwork, I definitely agree that it can be a powerful element of art. Some too-heavy serious art can tend to alienate the viewer, and as you both said, humor can allow the viewer entrance to then contemplate the serious issues underneath the humor. In my own artwork I don't think there is much humor, and sometimes I think I could inject more, because I appreciate it so much in other people’s work. Art work that is too dark and heavy can sometimes backfire on itself by taking itself too seriously, by becoming self-parody. (I can't help but think of an old roommate of mine who used to write furiously in his journal while blasting Nine Inch Nails deep into the night. It was kind of hilarious.)

I liked this quote from Banksy -- after almost being caught by the cops and realizing he could use stencils to quickly render images on walls:
"I got home at last and crawled into bed next to my girlfriend. I told her I'd had an epiphany that night and she told me to stop taking that drug 'cos it's bad for your heart."