Banksy

Frank the tank

Artist or Vandal.

Just had this discussion with Mrs Tank.

I put this argument to her, annon bloke paints a picture on my house that's criminal Banksy does exactly the same piece it's art and my house goes up x10 in value.

Am I missing something or is the art world as I have always said a load of pretentious sh1t.

meursault

Artist.

It isn't the artistic thing that is art, but the ideas or emotions behind it.

daviesee

Art is in the eye of the beholder.
To a fan it can be of great importance.
To the majority it is sh!t.

cornerblock

Frank the tank wrote:

and my house goes up x10 in value.

What?!! Even with Banksy I just can't see how any house in Hucknall could ever be worth £20,000.

rolf_f

IMO Banksy does nothing that the average art student couldn't knock up in five minutes (and that isn't saying much!).

What makes me laugh though is how uptight his fanboys get when an owner of a building he has painted has the work removed and sold. No, it isn't 'your' Banksy - it is whoever owns the buildings Banksy. And if they have any sense, knowing that people will pay a lot of money for a painting that Banksy took five minutes to knock up, they sensibly remove it and sell it. Why on earth wouldn't they? If folk can't understand that, they are missing the point.

meursault wrote:

Artist

It isn't the artistic thing that is art, but the ideas or emotions behind it.

TBH, IMO that isn't good enough. We all have ideas and emotions - what distinguishes a great artist from the rest of us is their ability to express it. If the artistic thing isn't the art (and there is bugger all of that in any Banksy I've ever seen - ), then the artist has failed to express those ideas or emotions and therefore he isn't a great artist. I quite like some of his works but only as a bit of fun decoration. A lot of the time it is looks like the work of a student taking themselves too seriously.

team47b

Banksy is an artist, whatever he does is art.

If he painted your house whilst standing on your land the act would be trespass, and without your permission would be vandalism, the painting would still be art

Frank the tank wrote:

Am I missing something

Yes you are.

You are missing the passage of time between you seeing the art and you deciding it was "sh!t" this was an opportunity to experience the emotional effect that the visual communication had on you, an experience which your life influences are tested and challenged by what you see, all in that brief moment that you chose to ignore.

An opportunity missed, but never mind I'm sure there's something on the telly later

Frank the tank

Cornerblock wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

and my house goes up x10 in value.

What?!! Even with Banksy I just can't see how any house in Hucknall could ever be worth £20,000.

TBH I was thinking more of 15K.

cornerblock

Frank the tank wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

and my house goes up x10 in value.

What?!! Even with Banksy I just can't see how any house in Hucknall could ever be worth £20,000.

TBH I was thinking more of 15K.

Leave it out Frank, you'd be giving it away.

Frank the tank

@ team47b

I was thinking that myself, but came to the conclusion I'm a philistine and as such, such arguments are wasted on me.

My daughter has a degree in fine art and I've always told her it's all very subjective. I think her artwork is great, can't help but feel if I was a prominent celeb who took a shine to her work though, she'd be on her way to being a very wealthy woman.

pinno

Love him or hate him, Banksy has gained international status. It is different to mindless graffiti.

Instead of the mayor of New York getting shirty, he should quietly be pleased as it may draw in a lot of tourism. It may also get people talking.

oldhairylegs

I'm very much in the Philistine/pretentious shite camp with Frank.

If I caught this Banksy fella spraying the side of my house, I'd shove his spray can somewhere very dark.....
....I would let him finish the job first though, then flog it off to some sap and buy a nice bike with the proceeds.....

meursault

Rolf F wrote:

TBH, IMO that isn't good enough.

I am sorry you feel that way.

Rolf F wrote:

We all have ideas and emotions - what distinguishes a great artist from the rest of us is their ability to express it.

Yes, that is what I am saying.

Rolf F wrote:

If the artistic thing isn't the art (and there is bugger all of that in any Banksy I've ever seen - ), then the artist has failed to express those ideas or emotions and therefore he isn't a great artist. I quite like some of his works but only as a bit of fun decoration. A lot of the time it is looks like the work of a student taking themselves too seriously.

Like you say that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. There is a reason why his art is so highly regarded though. Maybe you are just not seeing it.

team47b

The more you see, the more you know, the more you know, the more you see.

pinno

team47b wrote:

The more you see, the more you know, the more you know, the more you see.

Not if you took an eye out with the AK47b.

rolf_f

meursault wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

If the artistic thing isn't the art (and there is bugger all of that in any Banksy I've ever seen - ), then the artist has failed to express those ideas or emotions and therefore he isn't a great artist. I quite like some of his works but only as a bit of fun decoration. A lot of the time it is looks like the work of a student taking themselves too seriously.

Like you say that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. There is a reason why his art is so highly regarded though. Maybe you are just not seeing it.

But of course - and you yours! But I think you make the same point again - just because his art is highly regarded now really doesn't mean that much. Infact, there are lots of reasons why Banksys art might be highly regarded but that doesn't mean they are good reasons. Only the passage of time will determine its value. Tracy Emins art is highly regarded, Damien Hirsts art is highly regarded; both of them produce junk IMO (in Hirsts case, most of the time it isn't even he who is producing the junk!). I suspect that in a hundred years time, the admiration that a lot of the current generation of artists get will be regarded with some hilarity and they will be as discarded as many highly regarded artists of previous generations are.

Like I say - I think Banksy paints some amusing decoration in drab places. He is more interesting than the average graffiti artist. But it's all a bit obvious. It reminds me of student debates - young people feeling very clever saying things that they think nobody has said before but which have been thought of and discarded by any number of previous generations who were just as daft when they were at university. It isn't anything uniquely incisive.

Or I might just not be seeing it!

daviesee

Some see greatness. Some see sh!te.
I stand by that.
Doesn't matter how long I look at it, or how much you explain it, I dont like it.
I respect you opinion that is good in your eyes. Please respect my opinion that it is not.
Art is subjective.

ballysmate

Frank, yet again, I am in agreement with you. Pretentious shite. If he painted on the side of my house, I'd rip his fecking arms off. :twisted:
On a plus note, that would stop him vandalising someone else's property.

cornerblock

Ballysmate wrote:

If he painted on the side of my house, I'd rip his ******* arms off. :twisted:

Sounds great, an armless artist. I just think that would be soooooooooooooooo amazing. Bound to add a few bob to the value as well. Pretentious? Mwah.

meursault

Rolf F wrote:

meursault wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

If the artistic thing isn't the art (and there is bugger all of that in any Banksy I've ever seen - ), then the artist has failed to express those ideas or emotions and therefore he isn't a great artist. I quite like some of his works but only as a bit of fun decoration. A lot of the time it is looks like the work of a student taking themselves too seriously.

Like you say that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. There is a reason why his art is so highly regarded though. Maybe you are just not seeing it.

But of course - and you yours! But I think you make the same point again - just because his art is highly regarded now really doesn't mean that much. Infact, there are lots of reasons why Banksys art might be highly regarded but that doesn't mean they are good reasons. Only the passage of time will determine its value. Tracy Emins art is highly regarded, Damien Hirsts art is highly regarded; both of them produce junk IMO (in Hirsts case, most of the time it isn't even he who is producing the junk!). I suspect that in a hundred years time, the admiration that a lot of the current generation of artists get will be regarded with some hilarity and they will be as discarded as many highly regarded artists of previous generations are.

Like I say - I think Banksy paints some amusing decoration in drab places. He is more interesting than the average graffiti artist. But it's all a bit obvious. It reminds me of student debates - young people feeling very clever saying things that they think nobody has said before but which have been thought of and discarded by any number of previous generations who were just as daft when they were at university. It isn't anything uniquely incisive.

Or I might just not be seeing it!

I don't know about the time frame thing, I don't think art has to answer to history or such. The only way I think those artists you mentioned could produce 'bad' art is if none of us talked or thought about it. But we do, and we are.

ballysmate

Groundhog Day

viewtopic.php?f=30005&t=12923803&hilit=banksy

Mikey23

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24498568

Grayson perry has much to say on the subject in the reith lectures on the beeb

seanoconn

I quite like Banksy, he can graffiti my house anytime. What does erk me though is if I sh!t in the bed, I get moaned at. But if I go to art college and hang about in the right circles, then sh!t in the bed and show everyone, I'm a f**king genius!

ballysmate

seanoconn wrote:

I quite like Banksy, he can graffiti my house anytime. What does erk me though is if I sh!t in the bed, I get moaned at. But if I go to art college and hang about in the right circles, then sh!t in the bed and show everyone, I'm a f**king genius!

How long you had this incontinence problem?

pinno

seanoconn wrote:

I quite like Banksy, he can graffiti my house anytime. What does erk me though is if I sh!t in the bed, I get moaned at. But if I go to art college and hang about in the right circles, then sh!t in the bed and show everyone, I'm a f**king genius!

Shhh...there there Shauny wauny, this will fix it for you

ballysmate

seanoconn wrote:

I quite like Banksy, he can graffiti my house anytime. What does erk me though is if I sh!t in the bed, I get moaned at. But if I go to art college and hang about in the right circles, then sh!t in the bed and show everyone, I'm a f**king genius!

Get moaned at?
People on here are ready to kill because a cat sh1ts in their garden, Mrs SC must be soooo understanding.

rjsterry

Not sure Banksy is really the best example on which to base the (pretty threadbare) 'is it art?' debate. His stuff is attention grabbing and occasionally amusing, but rarely thought provoking. Most of it is just rather obvious in a kind of sixth form politics/student bedroom poster way. It's art, but just not particularly good art - well promoted would be a better description. He's been quite good at building up some media hype with his mystery identity, and he's managed to get some celebrity endorsement - with them no doubt hoping to gain some gritty urban credentials in return - and that's why he can ask biggish money for his work. Then there's the fact that a lot of art collectors are in it for the investment growth rather than appreciation of the artistic merit.

There's much better street out there, but most of it is much less well known.

random man

Anything that gets Frank moaning has to be a good thing IMO
If the general public thought Banksy's art was great, he'd have sold out in no time when he set his stall up in Central Park, but he didn't sell much, even at knock down prices.

I can appreciate a wall that's been graffitied artistically, it's better than an advertising hoarding.

Frank the tank

It takes a lot to get me moaning mate.

rolf_f

meursault wrote:

I don't know about the time frame thing, I don't think art has to answer to history or such. The only way I think those artists you mentioned could produce 'bad' art is if none of us talked or thought about it. But we do, and we are.

So if I go on a killing rampage and call it art, does that mean it is good art?

Lol - I'm too old fashioned for this! For me, art requires skill. Not just the ability to excite the media (ie the most crap collection of people on earth). What 'we' talk about is what the media makes us talk about. If the media want us to believe that all the jobs are going to Eastern Europeans, we believe it and get cross about it. If the media want to tell us that Tracy is a great artist, we believe it. If they want us to argue about it, they make us argue about it. The media are not discerning so if they choose to talk about an artist, there is little control over the quality of that artist. Tracy and Damian are more interesting to the media than Gormley yet Gormley clearly thinks more and works harder over his art. I suspect he will be remembered longer.

All Banksy has done is 1) do graffiti a bit better than anyone else, 2) made sure it is distinctively recogniseable, 3) kept his identity secret which is probably where 90% of his value comes from.

That is enough to get the media interested - a whole load of hype follows. The unavailability of his work (by definition) ensures that, despite the fact that it involves little work to create, when it does come up for sale it is regarded as a good investment (surely the worst possible definition of art) and that builds on the hype. When those who are determining what is great art are those whose interest in it is solely profiting out of it then something has gone a bit wrong!

The least fit people to determine the greatness of an artist are his contemporaries.

pinno

More here:

Art or not?

MattC59

Banksy; pretentious w4nk.

His fame and value is derived from his anonymity and nothing more.