‘Art’ is a broad word. Some will consider a Picaso just another painting, while others would see a fully restored, lime-green GTO as a work of art – a masterpiece! Some even consider graffiti art, which is something I never really understood, until a professor of mine explained that art can be beautiful, or it can be ugly. What matters is that it makes you feel something when you see it. That always stuck with me.
Now, take Banksy. His art is what I’d consider graffiti. He makes his art in public spaces for everyone to see, weather anyone asks for it, or not. It’s not always nice to look at and it can be offensive. But, there is no question, it’s a far, faaarrr cry from kids running around at night with spray paint, tagging buildings. Banksy’s work is on a level of its own. It certainly gets a reaction from you, and causes you to ‘feel’ something.
Wikipedia discribes Banksy, thusly:
Banksy is an anonymous British graffiti artist, political activist, film director and painter. His satirical street art and subversive epigrams combine irreverent dark humour withgraffiti done in a distinctive stencilling technique. Such artistic works of political and social commentary have been featured on streets, walls, and bridges of cities throughout the world.[1]
If you check out his portfolio on his site, you’ll see he’s done some really meaningful and impactful work – some hilarious, some disturbing and always clever, making him a true phenomenon. So of course, now Banksy isn’t so anonymous anymore. He’s been unmasked and his inspired style of rebel, street-art now sells for mad gobs of money and his work hangs in the collections of notable Hollywood celebs. He’s even getting referenced on t-shirts, like the above nifty mtb graphic. I’d wear that shirt.
Is Bansky’s work graffiti? Yeah. But is it also good art?
P.S. If you’re interested there is a documentary on Banksy called, ‘Exit Through the Gift Shop‘.
I recently watched “Exit through the Gift Shop,” and it was my introduction to Banksy and the progressive world of Street Art. Pretty darn cool.
As much as I am guessing he would hate the title, he is a brilliant marketer. I always find the follwoing conundrum an interesting one. A person wants their art to be seen so it can be impactful, but the art was not created to be popular. It’s the fine line of being seen as a sell-out or not. It looks as though Banksy has managed this fine line well.
I’m not sure I can agree. Every artist I know wants to, if they are not already, make a living by doing their art. That means selling it. I do not see making a living as selling out, I see it as living. And who doesn’t what to be able to make a living doing what they love?
I think artists create work they want to be meaningful/impactful, and that they don’t necessarily create it to sell it, but rather because they have something to say. But once its done, selling it is very interesting prospect; not only for the money, but because having someone like/understand your work is gratifying. And the more the better. I also think that typically those artists that are successful (i.e. able to support themselves though their art and getting their message out there) are those that are good a marketing themselves — popular. An artist that expects a buyer to find them will be waiting a pretty long time.
@ Myra
I can see your point. I think, for me, I always wonder if the original ‘value’ of the work, normally that it’s new and clever, never seen before, gets lost when it becomes ‘known’ or commercial. I guess there are pros and cons to anything. Artists we like being able to support themselves and create more art we like is a good thing. There is a happy medium I suppose, like with all things, where the art is still done for ‘art’s sake’ and not for profit. If those two things can be independent, you’ve likely got the best of both worlds – great, meaningful art, that also just happens to sell.
I think there is a distinction that needs to be made between an artist being popular and an artist selling out, or as it is also being referred to here as, going commercial. A work of arts integrity is not connected in any way to it’s popularity. Also, if you aren’t interested in your work being seen by the public, then keep it in the attic. That is the only time an artist creates art purely for arts sake. Otherwise it is to be seen. If you’re not saying anything worth saying in your art, then why create it in the first place, and if you are, then not saying it to anyone seems a terrible waste of time.
Now, a sell out is born when there is a shift from creating art/music/literature/etc out of a desire to convey a message through creative means, expressed on the artists terms, to creating art/music/literature/etc out of a desire to convey whatever message from whomever is paying you that will bring the biggest financial/social advantage to the artist.
There is still a line, sometimes fine, sometimes less so, between these. I think it lies in the motivation of the artist. Some artists desire being in the spotlight right from the start, so you might argue that they aren’t sellouts because their motivation never changed. Others are, and are quite obvious, but many make a conscious decision to make a living doing what they love to do. Were Da Vinci or Mozart sellouts? Their work was commissioned, but it’s still brilliant.
@ Graeme,
I’d have to agree with you on this. Being popular and selling out, aren’t always directly related.
What I wonder though, is how does an artist keep the x-factor of their work going? What I mean by this is, how do they keep the excitement. Banksy is a good example I think. He rolled around making his art to be seen, but not for sale. Then, one day it was worth selling, so he did. Now that there is a demand, and your work is hanging in collections all over the world, does your work still hold that appeal that it did before it became a product for purchase?