Urban Art Association

Good interesting stuff thanks for the link

really great read, thanks mike!

Just looks like he read the thread we had talking about this a few days ago and decided to copy it into his own words

Another golden nugget from little lord whatever, the sooner he finds another interest the better

Wow. That was taken massively out of context in an attempt to make me sound like an idiot. If you read the post, it's clear that in this case I'm talking about the death of Banksy the brand/fictional character, not the person. The second sentence in the post is "I’ve got no doubt that the man who was writing the name Banksy on Bristol’s walls in the 1990′s can and will, at some point, die."

Good job.

First of all. Thanks for the honesty and your attitude. It's totally cool with me if people don't like my blog, you have every right to think that, but lot of people seem to not like Vandalog and then still feel the need to read it, which I just don't get. I I figure, if you don't like it, don't read it and we can all get on with our lives and be happy. I don't usually like forums, so I rarely come here. This way, I'm happy and you're happy and it's all good, and when we do interact, we can be respectful like this, rather than rude and hateful because we're already upset by reading too much of something we don't like to read. So kudos for that attitude. I really appreciate it.

Anyway, to your question...
I don't think you're entirely wrong. While I think the post is grounded in a few core facts (or as close we can get to facts when it comes to Banksy), it's not something with much "real-world" relevance today or probably for many years to come.

The basis of the post comes from 3 core things that we know or that enough people assume that I felt they were worth considering as true for the purposes of that post: Banksy doesn't do his own street work, Banksy does not do (or could get away with not doing) his own gallery work and other people can come up with ideas as well as Banksy. I don't think those are pie-in-the-sky assumptions, but let me know if you disagree.

After that point though, yes, I pretty much start making some educated guessing and day dreaming.

I say educated guesses because I was thinking about how the estates of artists like Haring and Basquiat in particular, but many others as well, have essentially continued to produce work from those artists after their deaths, but more commonly in the form of products and the use of existing imagery. Those are facts, and it is how many modern artists' estates seem to behave these days, but that's no guarantee that a similar thing would happen with Banksy.

The point of the post are this: Banksy, in a move not possible by any other major artist throughout history that I'm away of, could continue to make new art 100 years from now. And then my hope was that people would question that hypothesis both on its validity and whether that's a good thing or a bad thing and what the impact on the rest of art would be. If course, there's no guarantee that Banksy would continue as a brand after the man's death, so I'm also asking if people think that would happen. Personally, I'm not sure of my own opinions to many of those questions, which is why I'm hoping to hear from other people.

The post involved some imagination, creativity and daydreaming about the future and it may never be relevant in the real-world, but there's not harm in thinking about the possibilities that I tried to raise. And perhaps Banksy will one day no longer be anonymous or maybe his death will be announced or Banksy will just disappear, but the ideas that I had aren't only relevant to Banksy. Theoretically, any artist could do these things. In fact, it was pointed out to me that the Guerilla Girls sort of have done this by having a rotating anonymous membership.

The point of the post was to get people thinking about 1 of many possibilities for the future of art, not to predict it.

It does look that way doesn't it

What happens is that between noticeable traffic spikes from when people on this forum link to me or websites like Street Art Is Dead steal my bandwidth by using my images, I do notice when I am mentioned. If you had looked at my profile on this forum before today though, my last login probably would've been at least a month or two ago. I don't think I've posted on here in about 6 months.

I would generally agree with you: people promoting the street art scene, monetarily or however else they find it possible, is a good thing. That doesn't mean I will like everything though. Just as I'd guess you like some galleries and find that others are just trying to make a buck at the expense of the scene and of artists. Like I said in the post you are referencing, Wynwood Walls rubbed me the wrong way, and I acknowledge that my dad and I may be part of why the problem I perceived at Wynwood Walls exists in the first place. I enjoyed some of the art at Wynwood Walls, but find their motives questionable. Does the street art community want to actively and knowingly participate in the gentrification of neighborhoods to the extent that property prices increase and longtime residents are pushed out? Additionally, much of my discontent with Wynwood Walls actually comes out of how they essentially took Primary Flight's concept and twisted it to their own needs without any respect for Primary Flight.

Why does everything thing my dad works at a hedgefund? Yes he does collect art though. I think collectors supporting the scene is generally a positive, although that's definitely not always the case. Yes collectors and brands bring in a lot of people who are motivated by dollar signs and are trying to capitalize off of something "cool", but it also means there is support for street art that wasn't there 30, 15 or even 10 years ago. That support leads to the creation of more street art.

I actually gave the Retna show in Miami a pretty lukewarm review and I think it was mentioned once (or maybe twice) before opening and once after. Completely reasonable given that a. I generally like Retna's art and b. He was recently on the cover of Juxtapoz, so I must not be the only person who wants to know what Retna is up to. That said, Retna's show was affiliated with Primary Flight and I gave them a lot of coverage, but it was actually less coverage than I gave them last year (based on a quick look at number of posts I tagged "primary flight"). So I think I did a pretty good job handling that possible conflict of interest.

If anything, I felt that having my dad's name out in the open for the Retna show made things much more transparent. 99% of the time, I'm posting about something where conflict of interests might not be clear. I know I'm happy with how I separate what my dad collects from my opinions and coverage on Vandalog, but I'm sure some readers are not. I know that I've promoted things he hates and dissed things he owns, but unfortunately I have to ask you to trust me on that and I'm sure some people, understandably, will not. In a perfect world, I would be able to write be more more clear about anything that might possibly be conceived as a conflict of interest and I would like to do that for people, but first and foremost I have to respect my dad's privacy.

In other words an opinion?

Surely its ok for him to post his opinion on his own blog

Never heard of this Vandalog before now.

Back on topic it is ridiculous to suggest that when Banksy the man dies there would still be "banksy" art being released. It is of course likely that after Banksy's death the images he created will still be used for commercial products in much the same way as you can buy Vincent Van Gogh tea towels or even unsigned basquait prints produced post-mortem. But this in no way suggests that it is art.

Everything that we know about Banksy suggests that he is meticulous in terms of ensuring that artwork signed by him is to his exact specifications. Can anyone really see Banksy agreeing to artwork being created in his name after his death?

How you could draw a logical connection between Banksy arranging for other people to do parts of his work for him (under Banksy's supervision) in much the same way as other artists do and say that this means that will continue after his death is beyond me.

I think the article is absolutely fine, and his assessment regarding Banksy's unique and cleverly planned situation is not illogical. Whether Vandalog is anti-Banksy or not doesn't make the article any more or less valid.



The reason "Banksy" could potentially keep releasing art works sometime after his death, or even, say, "retirement", is that only a small number of people know who "Banksy" is and if they decided to keep it to themselves no one else would know if the real "Banksy" is no longer able to produce new art works. That's what I think, and I believe that's also what Vandalog suggested too.

At the end of the day it is a blog.....One persons views, not everyone has to agree with it, would be impossible to write something everyone did agree with.

The writers of these blogs, purposely write things they know people will find faults with , it's what gains them an audience.

More people tend to comment if they disagree, it is wrote to cause debate, as are most blogs.

I don't see any problem with what is wrote, he is asking the simple question "COULD Banksy's work continue after he'd died".

In some ways it will anyway, Banksy has been the driving force behind the scene, many others have used stencils before, but Banksy has took it to the next level.
Any street work to the untrained eye, or people who don't follow the scene, is automatically accredited to Banksy.
How many times have we seen pieces in local newspapers asking "Has Banksy struck again"? No matter how skilled or shoddy the piece actually is.

Banksy will forever be associated with street art and asused his anonymity to great use, giving himself an air of mystery, which no other artist has had before.
Everybody excepts that Banksy no longer does ALL of his street work, and has a team of helpers, so why if he puts his trust in this team could they not carry on after he'd give up/retired/died.
It would be a team he has personally picked, to make sure they had similar idea's, and were highly skilled in the execution of the stencils.

It may just be the bloggers day dreams, but the points he makes seem valid to me, he's not saying it will happen, just what would you think if it did??

tbh in 30 years id like to think he has progressed from the streets, so wouldnt be out climbing rooftops anyway

Im not for one moment thinking his legacy/name would carry on, was just a hypothetical question