Banksy: Art or Vandalism?

[Rummy]

The only real alternative I'd see, rather that asking permission - is leaving the offer of a free clean-up to the owner of the property. I imagine it'd rarely be used, because as Banksy art has become valuble people would most likely prefer to make some money from it(the irony) or keep it - but that'd be the only 'solution' I'd see that doesn't heavily devalue either aspect of it.

[MoogleViper]

Considering Banksy is now worth well over £10 million, surely his "art" is also corporate advertising? What's so different from him putting up his work, to Coca-cola advertising their products? Now he's commercially successful, is he really so different from those companies he claims to be against?

[Marcamillian]

As many people have stated - the two terms are not mutually exclusive.

 

As this seems to have become a discussion of the merit of his work -

 

The street art he produces is there for message not personal profit. He can't profit directly off of something on someone else's building - though as Moogle says - it could be viewed as advertising for books/prints he does gain from. Most on the pieces on the street are more concerned with message (akin to protest) rather than aesthetics. We are lucky enough to live in a country that does provide free museums but there is still a cultural barrier that stops people from seeing art as relevant to them.

 

I personally think that the potential damage caused is justified by the reach that displaying "art" in a very different environment provides, bringing criticisms of social issues to a wider audience rather than the gallery crowd.

[Goafer]

Considering Banksy is now worth well over £10 million, surely his "art" is also corporate advertising? What's so different from him putting up his work, to Coca-cola advertising their products? Now he's commercially successful, is he really so different from those companies he claims to be against?

 

If you take his public art as an advert for his other stuff (which I'm not sure I agree with, but it is an interesting point), I would still say it's far more ethical than "the man's" advertising for the reasons pointed out in the Coke piece. His way of advertising is just showing you the work/product he's advertising, without any other bullshit (or even mention of the stuff he sells), then lets you decide whether or not you want to look into it more.

 

"The man's" advertising is more about promising you a lifestyle you can't possibly achieve or making you feel like you can only truly be happy once you've bought their product and bought into the lifestyle they tell you you want. Whether it's intentional or not, it makes you feel like your life is somehow worse than these fictional people in the adverts.

 

A perfect example of this is car adverts. Other than times when a car has an exclusive, new type of technology, when was the last time you actually saw a car advert give information about the car/product they're actually selling? They're all too busy trying to show an unrealistically cool/prestigious/happy/etc image.

 

 

 

And all this is why I consider Banksy's work art. Even if you don't like his work, It's still inspired conversation and got us to think and question things. That's not to say it's not vandalism too, but I'd say it was definitely art.

[MoogleViper]

If you take his public art as an advert for his other stuff (which I'm not sure I agree with, but it is an interesting point), I would still say it's far more ethical than "the man's" advertising for the reasons pointed out in the Coke piece. His way of advertising is just showing you the work/product he's advertising, without any other bullshit (or even mention of the stuff he sells), then lets you decide whether or not you want to look into it more.

 

"The man's" advertising is more about promising you a lifestyle you can't possibly achieve or making you feel like you can only truly be happy once you've bought their product and bought into the lifestyle they tell you you want. Whether it's intentional or not, it makes you feel like your life is somehow worse than these fictional people in the adverts.

 

Banksy's "advertising" isn't just displaying his work, it's promoting a concept. A car manufacturer promotes the idea of prestige. "You need this car to better your life." Banksy is promoting political activism and anarchism, and a way of "sticking it to the man". "Follow my movement or you're just another capitalist sheep."

 

You could argue that he's promoting the movement more than the work, but he's promoting his work at the same time. When Mercedes advertise a car, first they advertise the concept of prestige and luxury, then they offer a Mercedes as a solution. Banksy advertises the negative concept of the corporate machine, and then offers his art as a solution.

 

His work may have more artistic value than your standard TV ad, but whilst he's profiting millions of pounds from it then it's still art.

[Marcamillian]

The question seems to be whether you feel that he consciously advertises with the intent of selling work for financial gain.

 

Otherwise could it be analogous to a Hollywood movie start promoting a cause? They use their profile to put a message out there that would be lost without their profile. It may be fair criticism that UNICEF ambassadors are doing it for their ticket sales.

 

I suppose one differentiation is in the fact that that Banksy is displaying these messages through his primary skill/talent rather than movie stars appearing and talking not acting.

[Charlie]

Now I want a nice, refreshing cold bottle of Fuck That.

 

I think that saying 'Fuck That' to try and convince someone that their view point is the correct one is akin to saying 'how dare you say that' or 'as a mother'.

 

Articulate your point properly and it will come across far better.

[MoogleViper]

 

I think that saying 'Fuck That' to try and convince someone that their view point is the correct one is akin to saying 'how dare you say that' or 'as a mother'.

 

Articulate your point properly and it will come across far better.

 

[Marcamillian]

I think that saying 'Fuck That' to try and convince someone that their view point is the correct one is akin to saying 'how dare you say that' or 'as a mother'.

 

Articulate your point properly and it will come across far better.

 

I think that taking 2 words out of 250+ in a statement to try to discredit it could be a little short sighted. (not meant as antagonistic as it sounds just enjoyed flipping it round). He may have phrased it in an inelegant way but would you care to criticise the point he is making rather than the specific phrasing?

 

He's not written an essay, he's trying to convey something in a relatively quick and punchy way. By placing "The Avertisers" & "Fuck that" in larger font almost gives a summary of the piece whilst having it in the flow of the argument. He's admittedly gone for shocking (it those worlds are even shocking any more when you compare them to what you hear/use in everyday conversation), but that is going to hold more attention and draw people into the rest of the text than "no thanks".

 

I'm all one for personal responsibility but advertising directly to peoples insecurities is something that is assumed in today's world and pointing it out is valuable to people. As I've said before - voicing it in a more high-minded "intellectual" manner might just miss its intended audience.

[bob]

I'm very confused now.

[MoogleViper]

I'm very confused now.

 

Confused? Fuck That.

[Goafer]

If he buys some refreshing Coca-Cola, he'll stop being confused, have great times with his friends and have loads of sex (probably in a Porsche or something).

[Marcamillian]

Sorry Goafer - he needs a Coke Zero if he wants sex in a Porsche.

 

If he wants to oggle topless men whilst watching his figure he'll want a Diet Coke.

 

I don't believe they have a brand for confusion quite yet - maybe a vitaminwater "focus" strawberry-kiwi to replace some vitamin a

[EEVILMURRAY]

If any adverts are confusing it's all the fucking stupid perfume commercials.