Banksy is known to almost everyone now. What I'm going to suggest is that Banksy's art isn't in the art itself, but the presentation and his ability to draw and keep a crowd. He is an immaculate showman - more than an artist - but there is an artistic statement in what he does that makes him difficult to dismiss.
Above all, I do enjoy Banksy, and I do enjoy how he brings art to ordinary people, and how that gets up the noses of the art snobs who want to keep it as an elite enjoyment for a certain section of society. He literally tears it out of their hands and give is out to people - he incites the masses to think - he breaks down boundaries.
His presentation is not amazing. I can't tell you if Banksy can actually draw or paint or do any of the things that a typical artists is supposed to be able to do. His enigmatic identity - that he keeps deliberately shrouded - plays into this.
His early contemporaries of the street art scene in London say that he wasn't adept at free hand art. King Robbo - who passed away in 2014 - went on camera to accuse Banksy (perhaps somewhat enviously) of being false because he couldn't produce free hand quality street art.
The concept is simple - in urban grafitti, you're leaving your mark, but you're avoiding the law. So you have to move quickly. You have to produce art and move on. So it is said that Banksy resorted to using stencils - very quick - very consistent - very easy to use.
Everyone now knows and recognises that oh so fashionable stencil style that is Banksy. It's a big part of his brand. 'Back in the day' it was thought to be a cringeworthy admission 'I don't have ability'.
Now - the truth is that Banksy is not about the quality of the image. It never has been. You see something that is instantly recognisable, you can consume a Banksy in about five second - he makes his point, and bang! That's it. It's the idea - often built around a pun - often making a thematic reference about social change. You can consume them like sweets, one after another.
'The Mild Mild West' was a very early Banksy piece in Bristol with a Teddy Bear throwing a molotov at three police officers behind shields.
'I don't want coins, I want change' is written on a board held by a homeless person.
Sometimes his imagery is more subversive - three children saluting a Tesco carrier bag as a flag run up a pole is one example.
So it's like a dark satire. A bleak joke. Gallows humour. Commercially it is very appealing and certainly of it's time. In these years of austerity and recession and bitterness, Banksy really seems to give people a sense of catharsis. It's an outlet. It's seeing something prominent that people can relate to. Perhaps the pressure value of Banksy art is what stops people getting really angry about the political climate? Can I attribute that much to him?
So the continuous stream of these fast images - 'I don't believe in global warming' [half submerged in a canal] - at once present a rebellious 'we are legion' 'anonymous' quality. As I've already said, the sentiments are usually anti-establishment, anti-capitalist, pro-environmental, and support ideas of freedom of speech. The fact that Banksy guards his identity closely - doesn't operate in social media - is deliberately difficult to contact also supports all of this.
Ironically though - this is big business. It's huge business. Stencil pieces that have been validated by Banksy as his go for thousands - hundreds of thousands of pounds. This creates a strange new phenomenon - Banksy as 'robin hood'. He can turn up, spray a wall, make someone's house or building worth a whole lot more.
When he took his residency in New York he actually had an employee pose as a street vendor selling Banksy 'copies'. Few sold and many people walked on by. Those who bought the $40 prints woke up the following day to learn that they now had a $200,000 original to sell.
The commercialisation of Banksy has taken him into a new dimension. People flock to him - but do they flock to him because of their love of art?
To me Banksy is like a casino high roller. He has a maverick style - 'catch me if you can' personality. If you've ever been in a casino you will know the excitement that exists when some unknown guy is on a winning streak and there is suddenly a lot of money on the table. The crowd that builds around that person. It compels them to keep playing. There is a magnetic dynamic going on. It has to be said, some people just want to be there in case that high roller walks away, and maybe - just maybe - he'll toss them a chip.
The famous Manchester United footballer Eric Cantona once spoke about seaguls following the trawler because they think they will get sardines.
Banksy has a huge amount of this going on. Is the excitement about his art? Or is it now about the money? Ironically this anti-capitalist street artists, this wanted man, this outsider - is to some extent like the bankers in the city, who buy and sell pieces of paper that have perceived value, until those values come crashing down.
This irony is only reinforced by the merchandising - the coffee table books, the calendars, the coasters. While Banksy throws out the image of 'it's not about the money' - there are people that work for Banksy to make him wealthy.
Now don't get me wrong - I don't think that an artist has to be poor to retain his integrity - but if his specific 'thing' is built on an anti-capitalist sentiment there is a certain irony. He is living the dream of most hard nosed capitalists.
Putting this to one side, I thought Dismaland was incredible. He captured so much - and he does capture so much, with such efficiency. The 'I'm an imbecile' balloons being a perfect example. The distorted image of the Little Mermaid sitting above the polluted lake is another.
The documentary 'Banksy Does New York' is well worth watching - although it is far from objective and very much caught up in the somewhat over excited Banksy hype. What really stands out from it to me is how the New York art dealers and critics want to dismiss Banksy. One particularly snooty figure talks about Banksy being stupid and clumsy, and really looks down his nose. There is a full on refusal to accept this as art. It's just urban graffiti.
Watching the documentary that was aired on UK Channel Four - King Robbo v Banksy (Graffiti Wars) (2011) there is a lot thrown at Banksy. It is equally without balance. One of the things that really stands out here is that King Robbo was 'legitimate' (because, for one he could spray free hand, and for two he didn't go 'commercial') while Banksy is portrayed as a cynical, talentless, commercialist.
This is classic neither fish nor fowl territory. So where does Banksy actually sit - is it actually art?
Personally - I think Banksy is an artist, a great artist of our age. His social commentary is not so much in his art (although it's clearly there too), but in what he does with his art and how he uses his art to affect social behaviour. The fact that he can get New Yorkers to scuttle around the city looking for his work is, in itself, an art form. He can get an art snob to drive into a dangerous New York neighbourhood where they wouldn't dream of going - that's special. He can get armed gangs to turn up and try to lift an installation - that in itself (even if it is financially motivated) a statement about the real validity of art. He is reaching people and literally moving them. I'm all for art that moves ordinary people.
A 'Banksy' immitation is not a difficult thing to attempt - take a simple image and create a stencil. Set it in an urban environment, brick wall, blank canvass. Build it around a pun, give it a slightly witty edge. Weave it into the sentiment of anti-establishment, anti-austerity, underclass morality, and glaze it with an ironic over layer of ironic establishment imagery (like a McDonalds logo or Disney or something). These are basic ingredients. This is not art that you look at and wonder 'how did he do that?'.
But now get the world to go nuts over it. That - that is art.
No comments:
Post a Comment