It seems that for the current university generation, a pervasive entity has weaved in and out of our lifetime’s discourse around art. This formless spectre has ignited inspiration in some, vitriolic disdain in others, and even provoked full-blown exasperation in others. If you were to ask anyone between the ages of 15 and 40-ish to name one currently active artist with mainstream notoriety, their likely response would still be “Banksy”. What is so enticing – and infuriating – about this mystery man’s slapdash approach to political commentary?
Banksy started out in the early 1990s, but it wasn’t until the 2000s that he had honed his signature style of stencilling and began to refine his strain of epigrammatic satire. Though there was a time where he resold prints of his pieces that had been sprayed on public surfaces, nowadays the Banksy money-machine operates primarily through private art dealerships which collectively represent the driving force behind Banksy’s net worth (reportedly over £37 million).
This is a fact Banksy seems to be keen for you to forget; he is usually incredulous about the astronomical going rates of his work at auction. In fact, one of his pieces, Morons, depicts an auction coupled with the framed text: “I can’t believe you morons actually buy this shit”. But as per the standards of any reputable auction house, a proportion of that profit is usually returned to the contributor. Questions around the ethics of reselling art for extortionate prices and the often scant financial security of the artist are valid concerns in a world with an ever-widening gap between the consumption habits of the upper class and the global daily survival concerns of workers. Yet it seems that beneath the anti-establishment appearances, Banksy stumbles at the first hurdle: addressing this issue in a moral and transparent way.
Another article entirely could be spent chronicling the long and near hysterical financial history of Banksy’s repertoire. But frankly, the origins of my quarrel with Banksy lie beyond the money: I believe we should stop letting people away with the notion that subversive and politically engaged art means “the establishment doesn’t want me to tell you that, and if you don’t get it you’re part of the problem.”
I especially think that we should stop taking Banksy in good faith, assuming he’s some sort of puppeteer, sardonically hovering over our pitifully incomplete analysis of his art – sometimes he just makes really bad stuff. To be clear, it is a fundamental belief of mine that styles deviating from the classic (and often Eurocentric) norms of fine art often have the most profound potential to create something genuinely arresting and intelligent – you only have to consider the work of Keith Haring or Basquiat to find pertinent examples. But that’s really what irks me about such a platform being wasted on Banksy: simple or easy aside, art shouldn’t be as lazy as finding a wall and slapping on an over-produced, Warhol-esque print stencil with something about trees written underneath and calling it a day. And what’s worse Banksy still carries on as if he’s God’s gift to the Left. This worked well in his formative years when he was a genuine nobody, but the facts of his refusal to update the act while his fame and fortune have eclipsed those of the wildest dreams of the people he purports to represent, have left a sour taste in my mouth.
