They have managed to include "unauthorized" on their website and Instagram account. I think their Bansky exhibition will run till 19 Jan 2019...

all he has done is say they are not his shows

So if people are unaware, and they see on the site then they will know


I don't see where its a performance?

It's just stating things as they are

is it not?

How exactly?

Think about it, how could Banksy stop it, through legal means ??

Under whose name in court would it be done?

How would they prove they are Banksy?

So instead of commenting about me.

Why don't we discuss the topic? I'd love to hear your opinion on something besides me 😆

Ok, I’ll be clearer. How exactly could Banksy “put a stop to it”?

outrageous !

I wonder what he means by "treat them accordingly"?
What does he have in mind?

I would imagine, but of course don’t know, that it has something to do with bearing in mind that it is not how he would have wished to present his work (or charge for viewing it).

Yes. It's the 'fans' that misconstrue it. I mentioned that above. The performance by banksy is quite good. It's the fans and the Twitter style outrage that piles onto it that makes the whole thing bizarre to me.

I agree with you that most artists like their work exhibited, no question.  But this reality is so extreme/atypical that it boggles the mind.  I believe all 9 of the "fake" exhibitions on his site have taken place over the past year alone, certainly the past 2. Contrast that with the fact that his 9 authentic shows listed have taken place over the span of 15 years.  He's said as much as he's going to say so I'm speculating at this point as an avid admirer for most of those years.  He appears to me to be a less is more artist and a perfectionist with his best work free for all. 

So the fact that you have a couple handfuls of shows hosted by others for profit conflicts with the very ethos of this artist.  Most artists are not working in a context where 5 or 10 shows are open concurrently without permission.  Most curators work in concert with a living artist and if that artist said no thank you, that would be the end of the discussion.  In one case (mocco) you have a institution charging entry and leveraging receipts to purchase work on secondary to improve their collection and therefore garner more attention over time.  I can't think of another situation where an institution behaved similarly with a living artist objecting.  There is nothing he can do to remedy the situation apart from pointing out that these things are unsanctioned.  It's going to continue regardlessly and some of these are so poorly curated that they are hanging photos of work and charging entry.  All of these shows are dilutive and sterile by comparison to the genuine shows he unveils on his own and they're charging a premium for entry. 

While we are on the subject, it looks like Steve is at it again... Tickets for entry will be $36.00





"commercial success is a mark of failure for a graffiti artist. We're not supposed to be embraced in that way. When you look at how society rewards so many of the wrong people, it's hard not to view financial reimbursement as a badge of self-serving mediocrity." -BANKSY

I will be there, too. Ticket sale starts this Friday :-)

It appears banksy doesn't care about the rights. So if that's the case what's the problem?