Banksy
Frank the tank
Posts: 6,553
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 censored .
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 censored .
Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
0
Posts
It isn't the artistic thing that is art, but the ideas or emotions behind it.
Voltaire
To a fan it can be of great importance.
To the majority it is sh!t.
What?!! Even with Banksy I just can't see how any house in Hucknall could ever be worth £20,000.
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.
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 censored 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.
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
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
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
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.
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
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.
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.....
I am sorry you feel that way.
Yes, that is what I am saying.
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.
Voltaire
Not if you took an eye out with the AK47b.
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 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.
On a plus note, that would stop him vandalising someone else's property.
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.
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.
Voltaire
viewtopic.php?f=30005&t=12923803&hilit=banksy
Grayson perry has much to say on the subject in the reith lectures on the beeb
How long you had this incontinence problem?
Shhh...there there Shauny wauny, this will fix it for you
Get moaned at?
People on here are ready to kill because a cat sh1ts in their garden, Mrs SC must be soooo understanding.
There's much better street out there, but most of it is much less well known.
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition
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.
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
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 censored 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.
More here:
Art or not?
His fame and value is derived from his anonymity and nothing more.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved