Sacked...
Full Member
Posts • 7,978
Likes • 1,338
October 2007
|
The Vilification of Banksy’s Success., by Sacked... on Jan 3, 2014 21:36:58 GMT 1, In late 2000's London, Banksy became overexposed. The free evening papers (the now defunct London Lite and The London Paper) published Banksy stories daily. There were endless photographs of new works, new records at auction, and updates on acquisitions by celebrity collectors such as Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, and Christina Aguilera. At some point, Banksy crossed the line between success and establishment hack. He should have seen it coming. The art world, with its unforgiving addiction to novelty, always sneers at popular success. The critical backlash was two fold. He wasn’t just a populist icon; he was also a street artist who had ‘sold out’. A best seller at the auction houses, his mocking iconography of Disney characters and scenes of capitalist abuses felt increasingly hollow.
Banksy’s month long New York residency, Better Out Than In, might as well have been entitled, ‘The Banksy rehabilitation program.’ In coming to New York, the artist wasn’t simply courting a new American audience. He sought to rehabilitate his image with his former fans.
More here :
hyperallergic.com/99929/the-vilification-of-banksys-success/
In late 2000's London, Banksy became overexposed. The free evening papers (the now defunct London Lite and The London Paper) published Banksy stories daily. There were endless photographs of new works, new records at auction, and updates on acquisitions by celebrity collectors such as Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, and Christina Aguilera. At some point, Banksy crossed the line between success and establishment hack. He should have seen it coming. The art world, with its unforgiving addiction to novelty, always sneers at popular success. The critical backlash was two fold. He wasn’t just a populist icon; he was also a street artist who had ‘sold out’. A best seller at the auction houses, his mocking iconography of Disney characters and scenes of capitalist abuses felt increasingly hollow. Banksy’s month long New York residency, Better Out Than In, might as well have been entitled, ‘The Banksy rehabilitation program.’ In coming to New York, the artist wasn’t simply courting a new American audience. He sought to rehabilitate his image with his former fans. More here : hyperallergic.com/99929/the-vilification-of-banksys-success/ |
|
randomname
Junior Member
Posts • 1,962
Likes • 1,810
June 2013
|
The Vilification of Banksy’s Success., by randomname on Jan 3, 2014 21:45:09 GMT 1, Sounds like a bitter, hack writer trolling for clicks.
Sounds like a bitter, hack writer trolling for clicks.
|
|
|
|
The Vilification of Banksy’s Success., by graffuturism on Jan 3, 2014 22:06:47 GMT 1, I read this the other day I think its a good read, I never get why everyone gets so upset when people are critical of Banksy. This article was not bashing the artist in my opinion he has some good points after that initial paragraph. for instance
"Some attitudes towards Banksy (and indeed street art generally) reflect certain biases that aren’t relevant to the question of artistic skill or talent. The hypocrisy of these attitudes are more irritating than the press overkill that accompanies the elusive artist. The very same issues raised by Banksy’s market stall piece can be applied to those who argue that he is a street art sell out, or not a proper artist. The latter argument is more erroneous than the former. It’s a view expressed by the same crowd who deride Jeffery Deitch for curating Art in the Streets (2011) and pandering to populism. Banksy is an artist. Whether he is a good one is a matter of opinion. The art world’s snobbery is really a mask for unease. The artist has played a huge role in the popularization of contemporary art, especially audience participation."
I read this the other day I think its a good read, I never get why everyone gets so upset when people are critical of Banksy. This article was not bashing the artist in my opinion he has some good points after that initial paragraph. for instance
"Some attitudes towards Banksy (and indeed street art generally) reflect certain biases that aren’t relevant to the question of artistic skill or talent. The hypocrisy of these attitudes are more irritating than the press overkill that accompanies the elusive artist. The very same issues raised by Banksy’s market stall piece can be applied to those who argue that he is a street art sell out, or not a proper artist. The latter argument is more erroneous than the former. It’s a view expressed by the same crowd who deride Jeffery Deitch for curating Art in the Streets (2011) and pandering to populism. Banksy is an artist. Whether he is a good one is a matter of opinion. The art world’s snobbery is really a mask for unease. The artist has played a huge role in the popularization of contemporary art, especially audience participation."
|
|
curiousgeorge
Junior Member
Posts • 5,833
Likes • 1,091
March 2007
|
The Vilification of Banksy’s Success., by curiousgeorge on Jan 3, 2014 22:45:18 GMT 1, " But now the artist needs to switch focus. In order to counter the argument that his work is shallow or simple, he needs to create something new"
Did this fella not see the crazy horse piece??
" But now the artist needs to switch focus. In order to counter the argument that his work is shallow or simple, he needs to create something new"
Did this fella not see the crazy horse piece??
|
|
Dungle
Junior Member
Posts • 3,994
Likes • 5,127
June 2011
|
The Vilification of Banksy’s Success., by Dungle on Jan 3, 2014 23:20:12 GMT 1, Well written article which makes some valid points whilst also making some jealous stabs at his success.
I liked this:-
"Back then, the London art world was, and in many respects still is, cloyingly enthralled with its 90’s YBA legacy. If you picked up a British newspaper, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin are our only national artists. "
Well written article which makes some valid points whilst also making some jealous stabs at his success.
I liked this:-
"Back then, the London art world was, and in many respects still is, cloyingly enthralled with its 90’s YBA legacy. If you picked up a British newspaper, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin are our only national artists. "
|
|
swamped
New Member
Posts • 525
Likes • 41
January 2009
|
The Vilification of Banksy’s Success., by swamped on Jan 4, 2014 3:22:07 GMT 1, Yeah something new ...like a print!
Yeah something new ...like a print!
|
|
|
|
johnnyh
Junior Member
Posts • 4,492
Likes • 2,102
March 2011
|
The Vilification of Banksy’s Success., by johnnyh on Jan 4, 2014 3:26:40 GMT 1, Strikes me as someone has written a very clever article...it sounds and reads very clever...but at the end despite all the clever language etc what really was the point.it may be a vilification of Banksy's success but it also could be said that the writers judgement of the artist is the justification of his stature.
It reads like a bad poem in that it just tries to hard to be clever and misses the real point therefore leaves you actually wondering what the point actually was.
bit like this post. I suppose
Strikes me as someone has written a very clever article...it sounds and reads very clever...but at the end despite all the clever language etc what really was the point.it may be a vilification of Banksy's success but it also could be said that the writers judgement of the artist is the justification of his stature.
It reads like a bad poem in that it just tries to hard to be clever and misses the real point therefore leaves you actually wondering what the point actually was.
bit like this post. I suppose
|
|
simona
New Member
Posts • 128
Likes • 138
November 2011
|
The Vilification of Banksy’s Success., by simona on Jan 4, 2014 13:32:58 GMT 1, Its an interesting article.
My opinion on why someone thinks that x is a good artist or not basically mainly comes down to how complex the piece seems to whoever is looking at it. For example, lets take a stencil image. I think some people see a stencil image and think 'ah, thats easy. I could've done that'. Well, yes you probably could have, but you didn't.
I think they forget that the image, or whatever it is, is the end product of a thought process thats starts with an idea, then moves onto finding the perfect placement, then the execution of it etc. Sometimes these pieces are put up in an amazing timescale, with daring feats of bravery and perfect placement. And that is all part of the talent of the artist in my opinion.
Then, as the artist becomes more popular, moving the image to a neat bit of paper does take something away from the original out on the street. But, the artist needs to live, eat, pay bills, fines etc so thats fine by me. And I get to own a bit something (if I'm lucky and the f5 gods are smiling). Doing shows, selling your art for $60 is creating something new. Long may it continue.
PS - Lets not forget that Banksy also provides a pretty easy access point into the art scene for many people to enjoy and then learn more and find other artists they like.
Its an interesting article.
My opinion on why someone thinks that x is a good artist or not basically mainly comes down to how complex the piece seems to whoever is looking at it. For example, lets take a stencil image. I think some people see a stencil image and think 'ah, thats easy. I could've done that'. Well, yes you probably could have, but you didn't.
I think they forget that the image, or whatever it is, is the end product of a thought process thats starts with an idea, then moves onto finding the perfect placement, then the execution of it etc. Sometimes these pieces are put up in an amazing timescale, with daring feats of bravery and perfect placement. And that is all part of the talent of the artist in my opinion.
Then, as the artist becomes more popular, moving the image to a neat bit of paper does take something away from the original out on the street. But, the artist needs to live, eat, pay bills, fines etc so thats fine by me. And I get to own a bit something (if I'm lucky and the f5 gods are smiling). Doing shows, selling your art for $60 is creating something new. Long may it continue.
PS - Lets not forget that Banksy also provides a pretty easy access point into the art scene for many people to enjoy and then learn more and find other artists they like.
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
The Vilification of Banksy’s Success., by Deleted on Jan 4, 2014 13:33:34 GMT 1, I read this the other day I think its a good read, I never get why everyone gets so upset when people are critical of Banksy. This article was not bashing the artist in my opinion he has some good points after that initial paragraph. for instance "Some attitudes towards Banksy (and indeed street art generally) reflect certain biases that aren’t relevant to the question of artistic skill or talent. The hypocrisy of these attitudes are more irritating than the press overkill that accompanies the elusive artist. The very same issues raised by Banksy’s market stall piece can be applied to those who argue that he is a street art sell out, or not a proper artist. The latter argument is more erroneous than the former. It’s a view expressed by the same crowd who deride Jeffery Deitch for curating Art in the Streets (2011) and pandering to populism. Banksy is an artist. Whether he is a good one is a matter of opinion. The art world’s snobbery is really a mask for unease. The artist has played a huge role in the popularization of contemporary art, especially audience participation."
I've just read the article. I think he has some valid points and this certainly doesn't come across as a 'hack' writing nasty things for the sake if it but instead seems to be a well balanced article.
I read this the other day I think its a good read, I never get why everyone gets so upset when people are critical of Banksy. This article was not bashing the artist in my opinion he has some good points after that initial paragraph. for instance "Some attitudes towards Banksy (and indeed street art generally) reflect certain biases that aren’t relevant to the question of artistic skill or talent. The hypocrisy of these attitudes are more irritating than the press overkill that accompanies the elusive artist. The very same issues raised by Banksy’s market stall piece can be applied to those who argue that he is a street art sell out, or not a proper artist. The latter argument is more erroneous than the former. It’s a view expressed by the same crowd who deride Jeffery Deitch for curating Art in the Streets (2011) and pandering to populism. Banksy is an artist. Whether he is a good one is a matter of opinion. The art world’s snobbery is really a mask for unease. The artist has played a huge role in the popularization of contemporary art, especially audience participation." I've just read the article. I think he has some valid points and this certainly doesn't come across as a 'hack' writing nasty things for the sake if it but instead seems to be a well balanced article. |
|
anodyne13
New Member
Posts • 432
Likes • 212
April 2008
|
The Vilification of Banksy’s Success., by anodyne13 on Jan 4, 2014 20:38:51 GMT 1, One thing I think a lot of urban art critics miss is that at its base street art needed to be relatively straight forward from a design and messaging standpoint. The idea is that the artists are communicating a message to thousands as they are passing by in places where it was illegal to paint. There was no time for painting elaborate murals in the places that received the most eyeballs, and there was no expectation that the viewer would stop and ponder the art like they would in a museum. The art needed to be quick, efficent, clever, or blunt in it's messaging. There was only a few seconds to get your message across, and the piece could be gone at any time. To say that Banksy or Fairey's work is simplistic, I think misses the point entirely, it's supposed to be very straightforward, you dont need to ponder the meaning of most Banksy or Fairey street pieces for 30 minutes, you should be able to get it in 3-5 seconds because thats all the time the majority of the intended audience will give it.
One thing I think a lot of urban art critics miss is that at its base street art needed to be relatively straight forward from a design and messaging standpoint. The idea is that the artists are communicating a message to thousands as they are passing by in places where it was illegal to paint. There was no time for painting elaborate murals in the places that received the most eyeballs, and there was no expectation that the viewer would stop and ponder the art like they would in a museum. The art needed to be quick, efficent, clever, or blunt in it's messaging. There was only a few seconds to get your message across, and the piece could be gone at any time. To say that Banksy or Fairey's work is simplistic, I think misses the point entirely, it's supposed to be very straightforward, you dont need to ponder the meaning of most Banksy or Fairey street pieces for 30 minutes, you should be able to get it in 3-5 seconds because thats all the time the majority of the intended audience will give it.
|
|
Quinnster
Junior Member
Posts • 3,628
Likes • 2,771
January 2006
|
The Vilification of Banksy’s Success., by Quinnster on Jan 5, 2014 11:44:38 GMT 1, One thing I think a lot of urban art critics miss is that at its base street art needed to be relatively straight forward from a design and messaging standpoint. The idea is that the artists are communicating a message to thousands as they are passing by in places where it was illegal to paint. There was no time for painting elaborate murals in the places that received the most eyeballs, and there was no expectation that the viewer would stop and ponder the art like they would in a museum. The art needed to be quick, efficent, clever, or blunt in it's messaging. There was only a few seconds to get your message across, and the piece could be gone at any time. To say that Banksy or Fairey's work is simplistic, I think misses the point entirely, it's supposed to be very straightforward, you dont need to ponder the meaning of most Banksy or Fairey street pieces for 30 minutes, you should be able to get it in 3-5 seconds because thats all the time the majority of the intended audience will give it.
I agree with this ^^^^^
One thing I think a lot of urban art critics miss is that at its base street art needed to be relatively straight forward from a design and messaging standpoint. The idea is that the artists are communicating a message to thousands as they are passing by in places where it was illegal to paint. There was no time for painting elaborate murals in the places that received the most eyeballs, and there was no expectation that the viewer would stop and ponder the art like they would in a museum. The art needed to be quick, efficent, clever, or blunt in it's messaging. There was only a few seconds to get your message across, and the piece could be gone at any time. To say that Banksy or Fairey's work is simplistic, I think misses the point entirely, it's supposed to be very straightforward, you dont need to ponder the meaning of most Banksy or Fairey street pieces for 30 minutes, you should be able to get it in 3-5 seconds because thats all the time the majority of the intended audience will give it. I agree with this ^^^^^ |
|
spencerlee
New Member
Posts • 853
Likes • 27
May 2006
|
The Vilification of Banksy’s Success., by spencerlee on Jan 5, 2014 16:01:38 GMT 1, ^^^^
Same here. I have read some right pretentious twaddle regarding Banksy's work. He makes a point in a short, intelligent, funny way...that 9 times out of 10 doesn't stand up to overanalysis.
^^^^
Same here. I have read some right pretentious twaddle regarding Banksy's work. He makes a point in a short, intelligent, funny way...that 9 times out of 10 doesn't stand up to overanalysis.
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
The Vilification of Banksy’s Success., by Deleted on Jan 5, 2014 18:56:06 GMT 1, It's one of the better articles I've read the past few months, but seriously let down by this last sentence, which kind of shows the writer doesn't really know the artists body of work.
"But now the artist needs to switch focus. In order to counter the argument that his work is shallow or simple, he needs to create something new".
Animatronics, Sculpture, Performance, Film, Painting, Street Art, Ready Mades, Graffiti, Music, Shop Drops to Museum shows, Interventions, New Media. The list is endless. One of the few contemporray artists to explore the myriad of media at today's artists fingertips, and to do it really well.
It's one of the better articles I've read the past few months, but seriously let down by this last sentence, which kind of shows the writer doesn't really know the artists body of work.
"But now the artist needs to switch focus. In order to counter the argument that his work is shallow or simple, he needs to create something new".
Animatronics, Sculpture, Performance, Film, Painting, Street Art, Ready Mades, Graffiti, Music, Shop Drops to Museum shows, Interventions, New Media. The list is endless. One of the few contemporray artists to explore the myriad of media at today's artists fingertips, and to do it really well.
|
|
📸