Banksy

ddraver

I like it, I like what he does and I like that there's something of the punk spirit in it which is pretty rare nowadays. That said, part of the attractiveness of it is the transience of it and the reality that it will (should) only last for a few days.

I'd quite like one of his canvasses with the prints on but it's the sort of thing I'd put in the bog, rather than give it pride of place. I'd rather have a fantastic photograph of a mountain or something on show...

meursault

Rolf F wrote:

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.

The question of the definition of art is as old as philosophy itself. Up there with the big human fundamentals of morals, ethics, quality etc.

I like to keep it simple, Occums razor and thanks to pinarello001, deconstructionism.

If we call it art it is art.

Whether you like it or not is a different matter and entirely your perogative. Art is also different from art criticism and monetary value.

joelsim

Banksy keeps it very simple, one key thought.

Together with it being guerilla, that is why he's been so successful.

heavymental

For those in the "It's sh1t, it's pretentious, it's just media hype blah blah" camp, maybe one day you should walk around somewhere like Tate Modern or a Banksy exhibition... as I imagine you wouldn't normally bother. Take some time. Maybe 3 hours or so and look at everything. Give some pieces a few minutes. After a little while, you may see something you like. You will also see things you don't like and you may start to form an opinion on what you do and don't like. Seeing art in the flesh is a very different experience to seeing things on a computer screen or picture in a newspaper. Sit and scratch your head in the video installation rooms and don't leave after 30 seconds. Stare at things. Lean in and look at the details of the piece. Read any information you can find about some pieces and then look again. Calm your instinct to kick it off its plinth but also, if you feel that instinct then question it.

If you look at something and say to yourself "I could do that". Then go home and do it.

pinno

I went to the Tate modern and paid an extortionate fee to get into the Vasily Kandinski exhibition. I like Kandinsky.
The rest, including the building, was a completely dull experience.

I also went to a Pablo Picasso sketch exhibition in Stockholm of nudes and there were a few sculptures. I did all that leaning and scratching my head stuff and came out with the conclusion that Picasso was a misogynist. He never presented women as desirable or beautiful.

Art is subjective and subjectively, I find a lot of modern art complete kak. Banksy is an exception. Some graffiti is excellent but the majority is mindless 'tagging'.

secretsam

Bristol City fan, therefore a talented (if somewhat misguided) man of rare taste and distinction.

team47b

pinarello001 wrote:

I went to the Tate modern and paid an extortionate fee to get into the Vasily Kandinski exhibition. I like Kandinsky.
The rest, including the building, was a completely dull experience.

I also went to a Pablo Picasso sketch exhibition in Stockholm of nudes and there were a few sculptures. I did all that leaning and scratching my head stuff and came out with the conclusion that Picasso was a misogynist. He never presented women as desirable or beautiful.

Art is subjective and subjectively, I find a lot of modern art complete kak. Banksy is an exception. Some graffiti is excellent but the majority is mindless 'tagging'.

You are not supposed to understand art Mr P.

Thems is the rules

rolf_f

Heavymental wrote:

Give some pieces a few minutes.

I'm buggered if I am going to spend more time looking at a piece of artwork than the creator took to produce it!

Heavymental wrote:

If you look at something and say to yourself "I could do that". Then go home and do it.

I have done that - but not for anything I knew I could do without doing first it if you see what I mean. Not much point for me recreating something that took no real skill to create in the first place.

team47b

Rolf F wrote:

I'm buggered if I am going to spend more time looking at a piece of artwork than the creator took to produce it!

Sorry to disappoint you Rolf but I think that you getting buggered for not spending enough time looking at a piece of art is fairly unlikely, although to be fair I don't know the Tate's current code of practice

daviesee

I think that therein lies the problem.

If a piece grabs your attention and makes you think, I think we can all agree that is a good thing.

If you have to look for the message then it is not working on your level and that is where most will lose patience.
Especially if your instinct is to dismiss it in the first place.

Subjective.

ballysmate

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Certainly, with some modern art, I can't stop thinking "The King's New Clothes". Am I the only one who can see it's shite or are others not willing to state the obvious.

rolf_f

team47b wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

I'm buggered if I am going to spend more time looking at a piece of artwork than the creator took to produce it!

Sorry to disappoint you Rolf but I think that you getting buggered for not spending enough time looking at a piece of art is fairly unlikely, although to be fair I don't know the Tate's current code of practice

I think you'll find it would be regarded as a valid piece of performance art.........

GiantMike

Banksy does some interesting work, but I don't think it's very impressive. When I look at the Canalettos in the National Gallery I think "wow, seriously impressive, I could never have the TALENT to produce something like that For example

When I look at a Banksy I think "wow, remotely interesting for a minute or so, but I could so something like that if I put my mind to it for a couple of minutes and had an hour to actually do it". I don't see a talent beyond getting people to talk about him, which isn't really art in itself.

heavymental

Rolf F wrote:

Heavymental wrote:

Give some pieces a few minutes.

I'm buggered if I am going to spend more time looking at a piece of artwork than the creator took to produce it!

Heavymental wrote:

If you look at something and say to yourself "I could do that". Then go home and do it.

I have done that - but not for anything I knew I could do without doing first it if you see what I mean. Not much point for me recreating something that took no real skill to create in the first place.

That phrase actually makes my head hurt! I don't mean recreate. I mean, be inspired by something and create something new. A friend told me once that in art school she was taught to look at objects from all angles, a seemingly mundane object can be inspiration for any type of project so they were encouraged to spend a long time examining one object and exploring all the creative possibilities they could summon. It's a good exercise in developing the creative mind.

I think many of you will enjoy this piece and the surrounding debate which perhaps is the ultimate artwork to debate 'what is art?' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29

ballysmate

At least people are making money out of it. A fool and his money...and all that.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... otted.html

ben@31

My subjective opinion is Banksy is successful at marketing and getting a brand name for himself.
I don't believe people love his stuff and are prepared to spend a fortune on it because its amazing art, but only because it is a big brand name. They are buying into the brand name and making a statement "hey look at how cool I am". Buying some modern art is like spending an extra £120 on a cycling jersey, because the factory in china sewn on a Rapha label.

Like rjsterry wrote in his post. If you go to Berlin, the place is covered in street art. I even did a street art guided tour. But most of the "artists" do not get recognised.

meursault

Heavymental wrote:

For those in the "It's sh1t, it's pretentious, it's just media hype blah blah" camp, maybe one day you should walk around somewhere like Tate Modern or a Banksy exhibition... as I imagine you wouldn't normally bother. Take some time. Maybe 3 hours or so and look at everything. Give some pieces a few minutes. After a little while, you may see something you like. You will also see things you don't like and you may start to form an opinion on what you do and don't like. Seeing art in the flesh is a very different experience to seeing things on a computer screen or picture in a newspaper. Sit and scratch your head in the video installation rooms and don't leave after 30 seconds. Stare at things. Lean in and look at the details of the piece. Read any information you can find about some pieces and then look again. Calm your instinct to kick it off its plinth but also, if you feel that instinct then question it.

If you look at something and say to yourself "I could do that". Then go home and do it.

Art right there, beauty and eloquence, thanks for posting.

meursault

Rolf F wrote:

team47b wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

I'm buggered if I am going to spend more time looking at a piece of artwork than the creator took to produce it!

Sorry to disappoint you Rolf but I think that you getting buggered for not spending enough time looking at a piece of art is fairly unlikely, although to be fair I don't know the Tate's current code of practice

I think you'll find it would be regarded as a valid piece of performance art.........

Maybe you need to look past how something was formed. The majority of the greatest craftmanship is usually defined by it's economy of function and how practical it is. This may also be art, but not limited by it. Great practical skill is to be applauded, but it is not worth more than an idea or concept, and by worth, I am not talking about money.

rolf_f

meursault wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

team47b wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

I'm buggered if I am going to spend more time looking at a piece of artwork than the creator took to produce it!

Sorry to disappoint you Rolf but I think that you getting buggered for not spending enough time looking at a piece of art is fairly unlikely, although to be fair I don't know the Tate's current code of practice

I think you'll find it would be regarded as a valid piece of performance art.........

Maybe you need to look past how something was formed. The majority of the greatest craftmanship is usually defined by it's economy of function and how practical it is. This may also be art, but not limited by it. Great practical skill is to be applauded, but it is not worth more than an idea or concept, and by worth, I am not talking about money.

I do take your point - but I think that the problem now is that the idea/concept is vastly over-rated. It comes back to Banksy; his images say nothing different to that which any student with zero life experience might say. There is nothing special or unique in the ideas of Banksy and the execution is just OK. And this illustrates the problem. I can paint something that looks pretty much like a Renoir. If I'd been around in the late 19th century, in Paris and known a few of the gang and had money for paint and time to paint (all unlikely!), maybe I could have made a posthumous name for myself - who knows! But very few people who had either the skills or ideas had the opportunity and vice versa. Now millions of people have lots of spare time and paint is incredibly cheap. Talent at creating art is no longer in short supply so those that achieve 'greatness' are not achieving it by artistic skill but by the skill of selling and marketing themselves. Hence why programmes The Voice came along - a half hearted attempt to focus on the actual skill rather than the image behind it.

Ideas/concepts are easy. More than ever, I'd at least expect a bit of craftsmanship to go with it. You get a bit with Banksy but you don't really with Damien Hirst.

rjsterry

Renoir? That's quite a brag. Care to back that up with anything?

team47b

rjsterry wrote:

Renoir? That's quite a brag. Care to back that up with anything?

118 cadmium yellow
004 Alizarin Crimson
667 Ultramarine
076 Burnt Umber

ddraver

Rolf F wrote:

I do take your point - but I think that the problem now is that the idea/concept is vastly over-rated. It comes back to Banksy; his images say nothing different to that which any student with zero life experience might say. There is nothing special or unique in the ideas of Banksy and the execution is just OK

Why is there no one else doing it then? Just happening to be listening to the Grayson Perry lecture and he was talking about Banksy's addition to the Jubillee


To me that's exactly the same as the Sex Pistols doing God Save the Queen...

When he/they sadi it it was obvious, but no one else managed to do something that encapsulated some of the dilemmas in such events in a single photo, or 2 minute song. That's their skill...

daviesee

Good Singer I will grant you.

ddraver

Boom!

heavymental

ddraver wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

I do take your point - but I think that the problem now is that the idea/concept is vastly over-rated. It comes back to Banksy; his images say nothing different to that which any student with zero life experience might say. There is nothing special or unique in the ideas of Banksy and the execution is just OK

Why is there no one else doing it then? Just happening to be listening to the Grayson Perry lecture and he was talking about Banksy's addition to the Jubillee

To me that's exactly the same as the Sex Pistols doing God Save the Queen...

When he/they sadi it it was obvious, but no one else managed to do something that encapsulated some of the dilemmas in such events in a single photo, or 2 minute song. That's their skill...

This is The point about this debate. The fact that someone could have or might have said/done something similar or better. The fact is that they didn't. In hindsight it all seems so simple. I was visiting a friend of mine who is a reasonably famous photographer and she showed me a photobook by someone who I can't recall which was a collection of shots of undergrowth. Very unremarkable shots. I commented to her that many people would say "I could have done that" and she pointed out this very point; that "yes, they could have, but they didn't". Potential greatness is not good enough in any field unless it's realised.

Who would argue that the Banksy image above is anything but great btw? That really says a lot in such a simple way it passes as nothing to many people. It's worth a thousand words and more.

rolf_f

Heavymental wrote:

Who would argue that the Banksy image above is anything but great btw? That really says a lot in such a simple way it passes as nothing to many people. It's worth a thousand words and more.

What does it say? If it is a comment on how we exploit the 3rd world with our demand for cheap goods without a care for how they are made and by whom, then it is arguably diluted by the irrelevant reference to the Jubilee (which, was an entirely inconsequential one off event). It clearly had impact at the time because the media chose it to have impact - but that does mean, to be fair, it will have achieved something despite its fundamental flaws. I suspect that most people who do worry about the origin of consumer goods didn't need a Banksy image to help them and most that don't associated the image as being an attack on the monarchy.

Maybe it would have been better had the child been making Nike trainers. Then at least it would have more of a lasting significance.

ddraver wrote:

Why is there no one else doing it then?

That it is illegal is quite a disincentive!

meursault

Rolf F wrote:

Heavymental wrote:

Who would argue that the Banksy image above is anything but great btw? That really says a lot in such a simple way it passes as nothing to many people. It's worth a thousand words and more.

What does it say? If it is a comment on how we exploit the 3rd world with our demand for cheap goods without a care for how they are made and by whom, then it is arguably diluted by the irrelevant reference to the Jubilee (which, was an entirely inconsequential one off event). It clearly had impact at the time because the media chose it to have impact - but that does mean, to be fair, it will have achieved something despite its fundamental flaws. I suspect that most people who do worry about the origin of consumer goods didn't need a Banksy image to help them and most that don't associated the image as being an attack on the monarchy.

Maybe it would have been better had the child been making Nike trainers. Then at least it would have more of a lasting significance.

ddraver wrote:

Why is there no one else doing it then?

That it is illegal is quite a disincentive!

I couldn't write a better endorsment for a stencil and spraypaint, than someone who questions capitalism. media and the ruling class. Whether this is what the image says or not.

ballysmate

meursault wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Heavymental wrote:

Who would argue that the Banksy image above is anything but great btw? That really says a lot in such a simple way it passes as nothing to many people. It's worth a thousand words and more.

What does it say? If it is a comment on how we exploit the 3rd world with our demand for cheap goods without a care for how they are made and by whom, then it is arguably diluted by the irrelevant reference to the Jubilee (which, was an entirely inconsequential one off event). It clearly had impact at the time because the media chose it to have impact - but that does mean, to be fair, it will have achieved something despite its fundamental flaws. I suspect that most people who do worry about the origin of consumer goods didn't need a Banksy image to help them and most that don't associated the image as being an attack on the monarchy.

Maybe it would have been better had the child been making Nike trainers. Then at least it would have more of a lasting significance.

ddraver wrote:

Why is there no one else doing it then?

That it is illegal is quite a disincentive!

I couldn't write a better endorsment for a stencil and spraypaint, than someone who questions capitalism. media and the ruling class. Whether this is what the image says or not.

Post or PM your address and I'll get a few aerosols and try to pop round this weekend. May not add much in the way of value to your house, but would certainly make a statement. Or are only certain views allowed? Would you feel the same if it wasn't glorifying your own political or idealogical views?

meursault

Ballysmate wrote:

meursault wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Heavymental wrote:

Who would argue that the Banksy image above is anything but great btw? That really says a lot in such a simple way it passes as nothing to many people. It's worth a thousand words and more.

What does it say? If it is a comment on how we exploit the 3rd world with our demand for cheap goods without a care for how they are made and by whom, then it is arguably diluted by the irrelevant reference to the Jubilee (which, was an entirely inconsequential one off event). It clearly had impact at the time because the media chose it to have impact - but that does mean, to be fair, it will have achieved something despite its fundamental flaws. I suspect that most people who do worry about the origin of consumer goods didn't need a Banksy image to help them and most that don't associated the image as being an attack on the monarchy.

Maybe it would have been better had the child been making Nike trainers. Then at least it would have more of a lasting significance.

ddraver wrote:

Why is there no one else doing it then?

That it is illegal is quite a disincentive!

I couldn't write a better endorsment for a stencil and spraypaint, than someone who questions capitalism. media and the ruling class. Whether this is what the image says or not.

Post or PM your address and I'll get a few aerosols and try to pop round this weekend. May not add much in the way of value to your house, but would certainly make a statement. Or are only certain views allowed? Would you feel the same if it wasn't glorifying your own political or idealogical views?

Yes, I feel the same about all art. Whether all political views can be expressed as art, that is something else.

lostboysaint

Rolf F wrote:

Maybe it would have been better had the child been making Nike trainers. Then at least it would have more of a lasting significance.

No it wouldn't as it wouldn't then have looked like a sweat shop child making tat for us to buy. That's why you're not an artist!