"Not to completely nerd out, but that number's a nucleotide sequence for Homo Sapiens (in the skeletal muscle). Super clever."

If its true thats really genius

Warning long boring post, hit your ignore buttons now if you don't want to see the result!

After he posted on his website saying the 'Waiting in vain' guy was not a permission piece; aka not legal, so illegal. I thunk something...

Graffiti from it's inception and by it's nature is illegal, painting on someone else's property without permission, that the owner didn't want, is illegal vandalism.

Banksy's 'Better out than in' show is all about him going back to his routes as an illegal graffiti writer (he used 'graffiti' rather than 'street artist' in the voice interview I think). Following on from 'Exit through the gift shop' and perfectly summed up with the Central Park $60 stall, he is telling us the values of illegal graffiti are where his heart is rather than the shallow b*llsh*t of the art establishment.

He's eschewing immediate financial gain to do wot he loves in the only way he knows how, and I say 'immediate' because I'm sure he's well aware that through his audacity, the world's media and social media hype, the long-term career benefits far outweigh a few dollars now.

But this where my little mind got confused, and his post about the 'Waiting in vain' guy started it... the scenario is Banksy's back painting illegally, on the streets of NY, and telling the world this is what he's gonna do, giving everyone knowledge on advance (which must be a first in itself!).



So my point is, although he's doing all these paintings illegally on peoples properties around NY, no one's gonna complain, no one's going to report him to the NYPD, and scrub their wall 'til it's totally removed (unless he hasn't owned up to doing it). In actual fact they're protecting them, even after they've been tagged or damaged. So are they still illegal?

m.animalnewyork.com/2013/can-banksys-illegal-art-defy-nycs-graffiti-law/

I think the article animalnewyork posted the 23rd addressed these points rather well. I do agree that he is emphasizing the graffiti aspect as well as the illegal aspect and is definitely listening to what's being said.

I feel he prides himself on doing things the old school way so to speak illegally and wants to make sure people understand this. Thus the clarification in the hustler piece. know matter how much money you have being true to your roots is the best you can do regardless of what anyone does with his pieces after the fact. As long as he knows he did them for his reasons, those same reasons he probably started painting on a wall in the first place. Regardless if people call it street art I call it graffiti because he still represents that aspect in his work. A progressive form of graffiti.

These are all interesting points, and I agree with the majority. But has anybody considered the idea that Banksy just wanted to go back to doing some illegal pieces for nostalgic purposes, for the buzz, for fun! I mean, I used to paint (badly) when I was a kid, and felt a buzz not getting caught - there must be differences painting legally and illegally (in terms of how much enjoyment you get from them.)

A lot of people believe he will go into retirement and this is his last show, maybe he did it this way as this was the most enjoyable...

 

thing is he doesnt even paint these pieces... his minions do.. so what happens when they get caught