great breakdown of Banskys exhibit. I ended up not having a chance to go but did talk with a friend of mine that sat out in the line and she kind of said the whole scene was a bit of a self-indulgent hipster makeshift hotspot.
the elephant in itself is one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard of done at an art show. It automatically puts me off to Bansky and makes me feel dumb for wanting to document a guy who would do such a stunt.
Although I've enjoyed the shock value of his work I am starting to see the over-obvious "stating the problem without thinking of a solution" idea come into play again and again.
for instance Bansky made a lot of noise with the Palestinian wall pieces he did. However, as sad as it is to say, the suicide bombings that were pretty much the reason to put up the wall did sharply decrease and although its fucked up to take such a drastic action to stop bombing, complaining about the makeshift solution without offering a secondary one is pointless and misleading to those who don't know the actual situation.
Goodbye to the VH1 produced Bansky work documentation. All those that defended him and his ideals can now have him without a fight.
Simply put, I thought his exhibit was great. His delivery can be a little over the top sometimes but overall I thought he got his point across. Come on, let's face it, as members of any developed country, the thoughts of people in less fortunate circumstances rarely crosses our mind. We're too busy chasing paper and indulging in nicer things.
The truth can be ugly and his art doesn't come nicely packaged either. In essence, he's showing very contrasting sides to one picture. Helicopter with bowtie, police officers kissing, RCA Victor dog blowing up phonograph. It's a challenge of already established systems and the status quo.
Question the system? Why bother, you'll only get left behind. That's how the world works right?
I thought his punchline "Anybody want a free glass of wine?" was pretty funny.
I enjoyed the "show" . It really was that - great theater. It was a great spectacle. But I've been following Bansky for about 5 years now - and I'm a little tired of these stencils. I've seen a lot of these images over the years, and even in the new context- it was'nt really blowing me away.
He's also become the "it" artist these days, and the throngs of hipsters and celebrities might have ruined the experience for me as well.
No offense, but dude, you're sounding kind of ass-hurt.
If you think what I just did was "shitting on" the show, you're missing the point. I generally celebrate Banksy's whole catalog. I like what he's trying to do. That doesn't mean I think everything dude does is genius.
One small thing though: his work loses a lot of its impact when removed from context. In other words, it's one thing to see his stencil art on a wall in London...it's another to see it cut out and mounted in a warehouse in L.A. What makes his work stand-out is not his art (much as I may like some of his stencils) but rather, his idea and where he chooses to place it. Obviously, putting it all together in one space is better than me flying over Europe and America to find these pieces but it does lose some of what makes his work so powerful to begin with.
And Guzzo: I didn't like the elephant but it seemed pretty tame in terms of what you might see at an art show that would qualify for "disgusting." I thought it was lame, I felt bad for the elephant but as noted, it's nothing worse than what exists in many other settings where animals are put on display for human entertainment (political or not). What annoyed me was that it was such a corny one-liner: "oh there's an elephant in the room. Get it? Nudge nudge."
And you twisted my larger point: I don't mind art that NAMES a problem even if it doesn't offer a solution. The power of naming is absolutely relevant and important and necessary. This is why I like a lot of Banksy's work that isn't so simple-mindedly didactic (i.e. something besides showing bushmen hunting shopping carts). I happen to think his project on the Israeli/Palestinian wall was powerful and it didn't require him to "solve" the problem simply because he sought to play against the imposing, totalitarian aesthetic of the wall itself.
My criticism was specific to the elephant installation - Banksy was deliberately accusing people who attend art shows of not giving a fuck and not doing shit besides wringing their hands and bemoaning the injustices of society. In THAT context, I felt like Banksy was wasting a lot of effort (and elephant years) on a point that could have been made far, far, far simpler and more poignant. And more to the point, Banksy - whether he wants it or not - has now gathered behind him a lot of fans and followers that creates the potential for collective, social action, through which no kind of social change can happen without. So I'd rather see him create an art project that taps into his own power as an icon rather than tagging up an elephant as a visual joke.
And you twisted my larger point: I don't mind art that NAMES a problem even if it doesn't offer a solution. The power of naming is absolutely relevant and important and necessary. This is why I like a lot of Banksy's work that isn't so simple-mindedly didactic (i.e. something besides showing bushmen hunting shopping carts). I happen to think his project on the Israeli/Palestinian wall was powerful and it didn't require him to "solve" the problem simply because he sought to play against the imposing, totalitarian aesthetic of the wall itself.
sorry, didn't mean to make it look like my point was matching your point, the Palestinian wall viewpoint is my own. I do find it rather numbing for a "political" artist to state the obvious and act as if he's some artistic beacon shining down on a problem.
I find the wall art to very misleading and if Bansky wishes to talk or bring attention on such a major issue he should be prepared for both the criticism and/or the discussion such work would create. Surely he knows that creating a one-sided view of a social issue does nothing but maintain ignorance to the other side.
As for the elephant thing, yeah that???s fucked up. I don't really think there are that many brands of spray paint that are really all that skin safe, and as someone who wants to bring attention to the wrongs of the world abusing an animal may have been the wrong path to making such a spectacle.
either way, I'm starting to see Bansky more and more as the auteur flavor du jour. complete with stereotypical rejecting of mainstream society that I'm sure will eventually give way to a sizable paycheck down the road when the hipster crowd that celebrates him is sick of his shtick
Not sure if this was already addressed, but a few people mentioned stuff about "underground" cred. I would just like to point out what a farce that is. Being underground just means abiding by the same rules of consumerism as being mainstream, but you're not making as much money. Anything that can be considered cultural capital--regardless of whether or not money is a prerequisite to acquire said capital--is not 'underground'. The notion of underground pretty much faded out when people began creating distribution avenues outside of the mainstream. It really sounds like a bunch of high-schoolers: "Are you a jock or a skater or what?" The notion of being anti-establishment/underground means asrcibing to an establishment that you had to find out about somewhere; Banksy is just the latest rendition of the oh-so-mainstream art form known as graffiti. Think about that end-to-end burner in wildstyle, the one that just says 'Death'. Banksy's method will become codified, the Israel-Palestine wall will be like the 'death' train, and there will be smurfs in hazmat suits all over disney.
And, even if you do want hold tight to such delusions, when Banksy is showing up on NPR and the BBC he's already in the mainstream.
having said that, andy warhol blows next to this guy.
I agree that Warhol is extremely over-rated... nothing more than a glorified graphic designer. but its art, everyone has an opinion.
Without Andy Warhol's ideas, there would be no graf "artists". This conversation wouldn't even exist. Much more than a glorified graphic designer.
Well, I'm not exactly sure graf artists needed Warhol to be seen as "artists" but I do agree that he's much more than a glorified graphic designer. Like Duchamp, Warhol changed the way people thought about art. Whether you find a Campbell's soup cans interesting or not, it's the idea that's powerful not solely the image.
After a while, some people react to the artist and not the art and while I can understand the impulse, it's a poor way to evaluate art.
having said that, andy warhol blows next to this guy.
I agree that Warhol is extremely over-rated... nothing more than a glorified graphic designer. but its art, everyone has an opinion.
Without Andy Warhol's ideas, there would be no graf "artists". This conversation wouldn't even exist. Much more than a glorified graphic designer.
Ummm no. 'Graffiti" has been around since the beginning of time, its nothing that Warhol had anything to do with outside of jocking basquiat, who I also find extremely over-rated.
having said that, andy warhol blows next to this guy.
I agree that Warhol is extremely over-rated... nothing more than a glorified graphic designer. but its art, everyone has an opinion.
Without Andy Warhol's ideas, there would be no graf "artists". This conversation wouldn't even exist. Much more than a glorified graphic designer.
Ummm no. 'Graffiti" has been around since the beginning of time, its nothing that Warhol had anything to do with outside of jocking basquiat, who I also find extremely over-rated.
You miss the point. Graffiti only recently was elevated to the status of "Art" (and that is still in dispute). Warhol was the key artist that shifted the paradigm of what is considered Art long before he helped usher Basquiat into the gallery scene.
having said that, andy warhol blows next to this guy.
I agree that Warhol is extremely over-rated... nothing more than a glorified graphic designer. but its art, everyone has an opinion.
Without Andy Warhol's ideas, there would be no graf "artists". This conversation wouldn't even exist. Much more than a glorified graphic designer.
Ummm no. 'Graffiti" has been around since the beginning of time, its nothing that Warhol had anything to do with outside of jocking basquiat, who I also find extremely over-rated.
You miss the point. Graffiti only recently was elevated to the status of "Art" (and that is still in dispute). Warhol was the key artist that shifted the paradigm of what is considered Art long before he helped usher Basquiat into the gallery scene.
No it was only recently elevated to Pop Culture... You seem to think that Graffiti needed popular or recent culture to determine that it was in fact art... Or that this is the first time in history that Graffiti is considered art... which is incorrect, Graffiti did not need Warhol. Warhol needed Graffiti.
No it was only recently elevated to Pop Culture... You seem to think that Graffiti needed popular or recent culture to determine that it was in fact art... Or that this is the first time in history that Graffiti is considered art... which is incorrect, Graffiti did not need Warhol. Warhol needed Graffiti.
You are correct that Warhol needed graffiti, just like he needed all bits of Pop Culture. Those were the scenes and images he used to communicate his ideas to the Art World. Where in history has graffiti been considered "Art" by the group of people who financed, exhibited, purchased, and studied "Art"? In the past, these were the people who determined what "Art" was.
I went to the Banksy opening in LA and saw Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Keanu Reeves, Perry Farrell, Everlast and a zillion other C-list music dudes. I also saw Frodo. I did not see Oliver Wang. I am from Chicago and the scene was weird.
I went to the Banksy opening in LA and saw Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Keanu Reeves, Perry Farrell, Everlast and a zillion other C-list music dudes. I also saw Frodo. I did not see Oliver Wang. I am from Chicago and the scene was weird.
I wish Crispin Glover had shown up in his Andy Warhol wig and outfit. That would have been perfect.
Where in history has graffiti been considered "Art" by the group of people who financed, exhibited, purchased, and studied "Art"? In the past, these were the people who determined what "Art" was.
For clarity, these are still the people that determine what art is. Art is a commodity that is valued through a privatized industry.
You can check wildstyle for dudes selling graffiti in galleries.
The security barrier separating the occupied territories from Israel is over 450 miles long and 38ft high. It was deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice but construction by the Israeli government continues. http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/palestine/index.html#
The security barrier separating the occupied territories from Israel is over 450 miles long and 38ft high. It was deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice but construction by the Israeli government continues. http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/palestine/index.html#
that was an excellent way to regurgitate what was stated just a few posts back. However illegal the wall has been deemed it has proven effective in saving lives and reducing terrorism. It's easy to judge how evil a wall is when looking at a photo from a skewed view. But when your taking your morning bus to work and you don't have to worry about the passenger next to you detonating and killing everyone within 20 feet of him you might find some sort of protection to be a little bit of a relief.
Still waiting to hear someone tell me a better solution to the issue, and watercolors ain't it.
I think the underlying agenda of Bansky's art has become himself. His "art" has become publicity stunts that draw attention to obvious, and pre-established social issues. (Not to mention they serve no function in terms of resolving the issues) If someone other then "bansky" did stunts similar to his but without filiming it and promoting it, would most of us even know about it? No to mention his stunts are not the first of their kind (Maurizo Cattelan's donkey in a museum? Do you really think no one has ever conjured up the idea of tampering with famous art and museums before) If you ask me I think Bansky has a promising future in promotions, not art.
I think the underlying agenda of Bansky's art has become himself. His "art" has become publicity stunts that draw attention to obvious, and pre-established social issues. (Not to mention they serve no function in terms of resolving the issues) If someone other then "bansky" did stunts similar to his but without filiming it and promoting it, would most of us even know about it? No to mention his stunts are not the first of their kind (Maurizo Cattelan's donkey in a museum? Do you really think no one has ever conjured up the idea of tampering with famous art and museums before) If you ask me I think Bansky has a promising future in promotions, not art.
Again, I think people are getting too caught up in debating the person rather than the art itself. Does Banksy self-promote? Sure but uh, isn't graffiti inherently a form of self-promotion? I'm not a graf expert but it would seem to me that the act of putting your tag onto, well, everywhere is about making a lil fame for yourself. I'm not certain why Banksy is being held to a higher standard.
Also to restate: I do not think art is required to name a solution just because it names a problem (it'd be nice...). It's a strawman argument to critique someone who makes socially-conscious art by claiming they're not offering solutions to said problems though I will agree that if you're drawing attention to "obvious and pre-established social issues" at the very least, you might be preaching to a choir rather than forcing people to shift their awareness.
And Guzzo: you're treating the wall like some kind of all or nothing proposition. Haven't civil/human rights been put aside countless times throughout history in the name of security? (Uh, including right now?) Haven't people tirelessly sought to raise objections to that trade-off?
The wall may very well be effective in stopping suicide bombing. That doesn't put it above criticism and more to the artistic point, it doesn't at all change its symbol as a massively oppressive physical structure. None of this argues against its effectiveness. Nor does it argue against the need for security. But your argument, to me, reads like this: "if something makes a population safe, then people should bend over, take it and keep their fucking mouths shut."
If something like the wall could be described - and I think fairly - as a "necessary evil" then what's so wrong about pointing out the "evilness" of it?
I think the underlying agenda of Bansky's art has become himself. His "art" has become publicity stunts that draw attention to obvious, and pre-established social issues. (Not to mention they serve no function in terms of resolving the issues) If someone other then "bansky" did stunts similar to his but without filiming it and promoting it, would most of us even know about it? No to mention his stunts are not the first of their kind (Maurizo Cattelan's donkey in a museum? Do you really think no one has ever conjured up the idea of tampering with famous art and museums before) If you ask me I think Bansky has a promising future in promotions, not art.
Again, I think people are getting too caught up in debating the person rather than the art itself. Does Banksy self-promote? Sure but uh, isn't graffiti inherently a form of self-promotion? I'm not a graf expert but it would seem to me that the act of putting your tag onto, well, everywhere is about making a lil fame for yourself. I'm not certain why Banksy is being held to a higher standard.
Also to restate: I do not think art is required to name a solution just because it names a problem (it'd be nice...). It's a strawman argument to critique someone who makes socially-conscious art by claiming they're not offering solutions to said problems though I will agree that if you're drawing attention to "obvious and pre-established social issues" at the very least, you might be preaching to a choir rather than forcing people to shift their awareness.
I think where people get caught up is that Banksy himself bills himself as a social mouthpiece and makes it a point to address issues. however I feel and i think alot of people feel that he is being held up as some social changing force when in fact all he is really doing is creating (in my opinion mediocre) art, that overall has had little to no impact outside of the blogosphere. in the end he will make alot of money, he will market it to the masses under the guise of promoting his social issues. the kicker I think will be what he does with the monetary rewards he gains from all of the exposure and the brad pitts and perry ferels buying his work.
Guzzo: you're treating the wall like some kind of all or nothing proposition. Haven't civil/human rights been put aside countless times throughout history in the name of security? (Uh, including right now?) Haven't people tirelessly sought to raise objections to that trade-off?
The wall may very well be effective in stopping suicide bombing. That doesn't put it above criticism and more to the artistic point, it doesn't at all change its symbol as a massively oppressive physical structure. None of this argues against its effectiveness. Nor does it argue against the need for security. But your argument, to me, reads like this: "if something makes a population safe, then people should bend over, take it and keep their fucking mouths shut."
If something like the wall could be described - and I think fairly - as a "necessary evil" then what's so wrong about pointing out the "evilness" of it?
I got no problem with criticism of the wall. I do have a problem with the skewing of the view and therefore the reason for the wall. Bansky went down there and did his shock thing by painting the wall and portraying it in such a way that it looks like the Israelis are trying to restrict the Palestinian population from ever seeing the other side. His little message on his website makes it seem like Israel is constructing this wall without reason or care for the people on the other side.
There were countless attempts to stop the suicide bombers, talks with the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, etc. They couldn't control it so the Israelis took the best step they could at the time to protect its citizens which was the wall, am I fan of this monstrosity? Hell no, but I understand its purpose and do believe it has been incredibly effective in keeping innocent civilians alive and well.
Bansky's distorted showing of the wall does nothing but raise the anger of his shock-loving audience. While there is evil in the idea of erecting a wall to keep people out there is a sad neccesity in it as well (at least in this case)
Perhaps if Bansky went into Israel and made some sort of art instalation out of sites of suicide bombing tragedies I wouldn't have this view of his Palestinian work, but something tells me that being able to know both sides of a problem isn't in Bansky's best interest
as you can tell from my previous posts in this thread, i really like banksy's work... but, i have to admit... i'm a little disappointed with what went down this weekend. an event that was promoted as a "barely legal" presentation of banksy's work, in which locations would not be given out until that very day [for an entire weekend]... they really made it sound like he was gonna wreck some havoc on the city and do something risky/political and then post the locations of his work or whetever.
but what in the fuck's so "barely legal" about selling some paintings [very highly priced if i may add] to the kind of celebrities that you mock in the first place???
i mean, dudes gotta get paid.. i understand that part... but the whole event was just misleading and apparently turned into some VIP hangout... pretty weak if you ask me.
Comments
great breakdown of Banskys exhibit. I ended up not having a chance to go but did talk with a friend of mine that sat out in the line and she kind of said the whole scene was a bit of a self-indulgent hipster makeshift hotspot.
the elephant in itself is one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard of done at an art show. It automatically puts me off to Bansky and makes me feel dumb for wanting to document a guy who would do such a stunt.
Although I've enjoyed the shock value of his work I am starting to see the over-obvious "stating the problem without thinking of a solution" idea come into play again and again.
for instance Bansky made a lot of noise with the Palestinian wall pieces he did. However, as sad as it is to say, the suicide bombings that were pretty much the reason to put up the wall did sharply decrease and although its fucked up to take such a drastic action to stop bombing, complaining about the makeshift solution without offering a secondary one is pointless and misleading to those who don't know the actual situation.
Goodbye to the VH1 produced Bansky work documentation. All those that defended him and his ideals can now have him without a fight.
The truth can be ugly and his art doesn't come nicely packaged either. In essence, he's showing very contrasting sides to one picture. Helicopter with bowtie, police officers kissing, RCA Victor dog blowing up phonograph. It's a challenge of already established systems and the status quo.
Question the system? Why bother, you'll only get left behind. That's how the world works right?
I thought his punchline "Anybody want a free glass of wine?" was pretty funny.
hey, I enjoyed it for what it was.
I enjoyed the "show" . It really was that - great theater. It was a great spectacle. But I've been following Bansky for about 5 years now - and I'm a little tired of these stencils. I've seen a lot of these images over the years, and even in the new context- it was'nt really blowing me away.
He's also become the "it" artist these days, and the throngs of hipsters and celebrities might have ruined the experience for me as well.
P:
No offense, but dude, you're sounding kind of ass-hurt.
If you think what I just did was "shitting on" the show, you're missing the point. I generally celebrate Banksy's whole catalog. I like what he's trying to do. That doesn't mean I think everything dude does is genius.
One small thing though: his work loses a lot of its impact when removed from context. In other words, it's one thing to see his stencil art on a wall in London...it's another to see it cut out and mounted in a warehouse in L.A. What makes his work stand-out is not his art (much as I may like some of his stencils) but rather, his idea and where he chooses to place it. Obviously, putting it all together in one space is better than me flying over Europe and America to find these pieces but it does lose some of what makes his work so powerful to begin with.
And Guzzo: I didn't like the elephant but it seemed pretty tame in terms of what you might see at an art show that would qualify for "disgusting." I thought it was lame, I felt bad for the elephant but as noted, it's nothing worse than what exists in many other settings where animals are put on display for human entertainment (political or not). What annoyed me was that it was such a corny one-liner: "oh there's an elephant in the room. Get it? Nudge nudge."
And you twisted my larger point: I don't mind art that NAMES a problem even if it doesn't offer a solution. The power of naming is absolutely relevant and important and necessary. This is why I like a lot of Banksy's work that isn't so simple-mindedly didactic (i.e. something besides showing bushmen hunting shopping carts). I happen to think his project on the Israeli/Palestinian wall was powerful and it didn't require him to "solve" the problem simply because he sought to play against the imposing, totalitarian aesthetic of the wall itself.
My criticism was specific to the elephant installation - Banksy was deliberately accusing people who attend art shows of not giving a fuck and not doing shit besides wringing their hands and bemoaning the injustices of society. In THAT context, I felt like Banksy was wasting a lot of effort (and elephant years) on a point that could have been made far, far, far simpler and more poignant. And more to the point, Banksy - whether he wants it or not - has now gathered behind him a lot of fans and followers that creates the potential for collective, social action, through which no kind of social change can happen without. So I'd rather see him create an art project that taps into his own power as an icon rather than tagging up an elephant as a visual joke.
sorry, didn't mean to make it look like my point was matching your point, the Palestinian wall viewpoint is my own. I do find it rather numbing for a "political" artist to state the obvious and act as if he's some artistic beacon shining down on a problem.
I find the wall art to very misleading and if Bansky wishes to talk or bring attention on such a major issue he should be prepared for both the criticism and/or the discussion such work would create. Surely he knows that creating a one-sided view of a social issue does nothing but maintain ignorance to the other side.
As for the elephant thing, yeah that???s fucked up. I don't really think there are that many brands of spray paint that are really all that skin safe, and as someone who wants to bring attention to the wrongs of the world abusing an animal may have been the wrong path to making such a spectacle.
either way, I'm starting to see Bansky more and more as the auteur flavor du jour. complete with stereotypical rejecting of mainstream society that I'm sure will eventually give way to a sizable paycheck down the road when the hipster crowd that celebrates him is sick of his shtick
Not sure if this was already addressed, but a few people mentioned stuff about "underground" cred. I would just like to point out what a farce that is. Being underground just means abiding by the same rules of consumerism as being mainstream, but you're not making as much money. Anything that can be considered cultural capital--regardless of whether or not money is a prerequisite to acquire said capital--is not 'underground'. The notion of underground pretty much faded out when people began creating distribution avenues outside of the mainstream. It really sounds like a bunch of high-schoolers: "Are you a jock or a skater or what?" The notion of being anti-establishment/underground means asrcibing to an establishment that you had to find out about somewhere; Banksy is just the latest rendition of the oh-so-mainstream art form known as graffiti. Think about that end-to-end burner in wildstyle, the one that just says 'Death'. Banksy's method will become codified, the Israel-Palestine wall will be like the 'death' train, and there will be smurfs in hazmat suits all over disney.
And, even if you do want hold tight to such delusions, when Banksy is showing up on NPR and the BBC he's already in the mainstream.
Without Andy Warhol's ideas, there would be no graf "artists". This conversation wouldn't even exist. Much more than a glorified graphic designer.
wha?
Well, I'm not exactly sure graf artists needed Warhol to be seen as "artists" but I do agree that he's much more than a glorified graphic designer. Like Duchamp, Warhol changed the way people thought about art. Whether you find a Campbell's soup cans interesting or not, it's the idea that's powerful not solely the image.
After a while, some people react to the artist and not the art and while I can understand the impulse, it's a poor way to evaluate art.
Ummm no. 'Graffiti" has been around since the beginning of time, its nothing that Warhol had anything to do with outside of jocking basquiat, who I also find extremely over-rated.
You miss the point. Graffiti only recently was elevated to the status of "Art" (and that is still in dispute). Warhol was the key artist that shifted the paradigm of what is considered Art long before he helped usher Basquiat into the gallery scene.
No it was only recently elevated to Pop Culture... You seem to think that Graffiti needed popular or recent culture to determine that it was in fact art... Or that this is the first time in history that Graffiti is considered art... which is incorrect, Graffiti did not need Warhol. Warhol needed Graffiti.
You are correct that Warhol needed graffiti, just like he needed all bits of Pop Culture. Those were the scenes and images he used to communicate his ideas to the Art World. Where in history has graffiti been considered "Art" by the group of people who financed, exhibited, purchased, and studied "Art"? In the past, these were the people who determined what "Art" was.
I find a lot of what he does overly didactic as well.
I also saw Frodo.
I did not see Oliver Wang.
I am from Chicago and the scene was weird.
I wish Crispin Glover had shown up in his Andy Warhol wig and outfit. That would have been perfect.
For clarity, these are still the people that determine what art is. Art is a commodity that is valued through a privatized industry.
You can check wildstyle for dudes selling graffiti in galleries.
Duchamp really blew the door open on what art is.
I do not roll A-list.
I came through on Sunday, with wife and baby in tow. I saw no one famous. Just a shit load of hipstas and an elephant with faded pink paint.
West Bank, Palestine 2005.
The security barrier separating the occupied territories from Israel is over 450 miles long and 38ft high. It was deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice but construction by the Israeli government continues. http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/palestine/index.html#
Thanks day. So much stuff there that I hadn't seen.
that was an excellent way to regurgitate what was stated just a few posts back. However illegal the wall has been deemed it has proven effective in saving lives and reducing terrorism. It's easy to judge how evil a wall is when looking at a photo from a skewed view. But when your taking your morning bus to work and you don't have to worry about the passenger next to you detonating and killing everyone within 20 feet of him you might find some sort of protection to be a little bit of a relief.
Still waiting to hear someone tell me a better solution to the issue, and watercolors ain't it.
His "art" has become publicity stunts that draw attention to obvious, and pre-established social issues. (Not to mention they serve no function in terms of resolving the issues) If someone other then "bansky" did stunts similar to his but without filiming it and promoting it, would most of us even know about it? No to mention his stunts are not the first of their kind (Maurizo Cattelan's donkey in a museum? Do you really think no one has ever conjured up the idea of tampering with famous art and museums before) If you ask me I think Bansky has a promising future in promotions, not art.
Does Duchamp ring a bell?
Again, I think people are getting too caught up in debating the person rather than the art itself. Does Banksy self-promote? Sure but uh, isn't graffiti inherently a form of self-promotion? I'm not a graf expert but it would seem to me that the act of putting your tag onto, well, everywhere is about making a lil fame for yourself. I'm not certain why Banksy is being held to a higher standard.
Also to restate: I do not think art is required to name a solution just because it names a problem (it'd be nice...). It's a strawman argument to critique someone who makes socially-conscious art by claiming they're not offering solutions to said problems though I will agree that if you're drawing attention to "obvious and pre-established social issues" at the very least, you might be preaching to a choir rather than forcing people to shift their awareness.
And Guzzo: you're treating the wall like some kind of all or nothing proposition. Haven't civil/human rights been put aside countless times throughout history in the name of security? (Uh, including right now?) Haven't people tirelessly sought to raise objections to that trade-off?
The wall may very well be effective in stopping suicide bombing. That doesn't put it above criticism and more to the artistic point, it doesn't at all change its symbol as a massively oppressive physical structure. None of this argues against its effectiveness. Nor does it argue against the need for security. But your argument, to me, reads like this: "if something makes a population safe, then people should bend over, take it and keep their fucking mouths shut."
If something like the wall could be described - and I think fairly - as a "necessary evil" then what's so wrong about pointing out the "evilness" of it?
Oliver, what I believe you are trying to say is:
I think where people get caught up is that Banksy himself bills himself as a social mouthpiece and makes it a point to address issues. however I feel and i think alot of people feel that he is being held up as some social changing force when in fact all he is really doing is creating (in my opinion mediocre) art, that overall has had little to no impact outside of the blogosphere. in the end he will make alot of money, he will market it to the masses under the guise of promoting his social issues. the kicker I think will be what he does with the monetary rewards he gains from all of the exposure and the brad pitts and perry ferels buying his work.
I got no problem with criticism of the wall. I do have a problem with the skewing of the view and therefore the reason for the wall. Bansky went down there and did his shock thing by painting the wall and portraying it in such a way that it looks like the Israelis are trying to restrict the Palestinian population from ever seeing the other side. His little message on his website makes it seem like Israel is constructing this wall without reason or care for the people on the other side.
There were countless attempts to stop the suicide bombers, talks with the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, etc. They couldn't control it so the Israelis took the best step they could at the time to protect its citizens which was the wall, am I fan of this monstrosity? Hell no, but I understand its purpose and do believe it has been incredibly effective in keeping innocent civilians alive and well.
Bansky's distorted showing of the wall does nothing but raise the anger of his shock-loving audience. While there is evil in the idea of erecting a wall to keep people out there is a sad neccesity in it as well (at least in this case)
Perhaps if Bansky went into Israel and made some sort of art instalation out of sites of suicide bombing tragedies I wouldn't have this view of his Palestinian work, but something tells me that being able to know both sides of a problem isn't in Bansky's best interest
but what in the fuck's so "barely legal" about selling some paintings [very highly priced if i may add] to the kind of celebrities that you mock in the first place???
i mean, dudes gotta get paid.. i understand that part... but the whole event was just misleading and apparently turned into some VIP hangout... pretty weak if you ask me.