His last piece was generally seen as a statement on Gaza.

Can we please try to keep our expectations of Banksy realistic. He's an artistically talented piss-taker with a good heart and possibly high blood pressure. Whether he's working on this generation's Guernica at this very moment or not, the world is not waiting with baited breath to see Banksy's response to the atrocities in the Middle East.

Taking into account all the things he's already publicly done, none of us are privy to all he is doing, has done, or will be doing with regards to Gaza, Ukraine, the refugee crisis, or even his local dog's home.

And if the United Nations can't fix these conflicts, just what witty stencil piece do you suggest will do it? What humorously taxidermied animal will stop genocide? Plush puppets against starvation? What elaborately constructed model will raise awareness for issues that everyone on the planet is already aware of? If you're not aware of what's happening in Gaza, or if you don't care, then you've got bigger problems than having to wait for Banksy's artistic response to enlighten you or to realign your moral compass.

I don't want to come across as negative, but I just fear that in the face of real human tragedy and horror, a stencil piece looks mighty twee and perhaps even a touch self-indulgent. I mean, don't get me wrong, if any artist wants to insert themselves, creatively and morally, into tragedy, death, and suffering - that's between them, their conscience and their agent. But no war or armed conflict has ever been stopped by a painting. Started a few, maybe.

Whatever Banksy's doing or not doing, it's almost certainly already more than the vast majority of us. But let's just keep our expectations of him realistic. Global vandal superstar artist or not, even Banksy has his limitations. You've seen his current auction results and how he paints feet.

Can we please try to keep our expectations of Banksy realistic. He's an artistically talented piss-taker with a good heart and possibly high blood pressure. Whether he's working on this generation's Guernica at this very moment or not, the world is not waiting with bated breath to see Banksy's response to the atrocities in the Middle East.

Taking into account all the things he's already publicly done, none of us are privy to all he is doing, has done, or will be doing with regards to Gaza, Ukraine, the refugee crisis, or even his local dog's home.

And if the United Nations can't fix these conflicts, just what witty stencil piece do you suggest will do it? What humorously taxidermied animal will stop genocide? Plush puppets against starvation? What elaborately constructed model will raise awareness for issues that everyone on the planet is already aware of? If you're not aware of what's happening in Gaza, or if you don't care, then you've got bigger problems than having to wait for Banksy's artistic response to enlighten you or to realign your moral compass.

I don't want to come across as negative, but I just fear that in the face of real human tragedy and horror, a stencil piece looks mighty twee and perhaps even a touch self-indulgent. I mean, don't get me wrong, if any artist wants to insert themselves, creatively and morally, into tragedy, death, and suffering - that's between them, their conscience and their agent. But no war or armed conflict has ever been stopped by a painting. Started a few, maybe.

Whatever Banksy's doing or not doing, it's almost certainly already more than the vast majority of us. But let's just keep our expectations of him realistic. Global vandal superstar artist or not, even Banksy has his limitations. You've seen his current auction results and how he paints feet.

It is more of an observation, considering how involved he was in Palestine, and how much the humanitarian crisis is getting out of hand. Of course it is always easy to complain, and I don't want to be that guy.

But I would say art, and in this case Banksy, has more power then you think, hasn't this work been all over the bbc and basically any newspaper?  Art has always been a great to change people's perspective and to bring people together.  This conflict (originally) had similarities of the troubles in Northern Ireland, where ordinary folk, became terrorists because of oppression.  (At this point Gaza got so out of hand that it's hard to still see similarities and it just became a brutal display of power).  But back in the day, the art scene in Northern Ireland, especially the Punk scene, was massive in bringing people together... 

www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-62149191.amp

I was wondering what Ted Danson was up to these days. Cheers.

It is more of an observation, considering how involved he was in Palestine, and how much the humanitarian crisis is getting out of hand. Of course it is always easy to complain, and I don't want to be that guy.

But I would say art, and in this case Banksy, has more power then you think, hasn't this work been all over the bbc and basically any newspaper?  Art has always been a great to change people's perspective and to bring people together.  This conflict (originally) had similarities of the troubles in Northern Ireland, where ordinary folk, became terrorists because of oppression.  (At this point Gaza got so out of hand that it's hard to still see similarities and it just became a brutal display of power).  But back in the day, the art scene in Northern Ireland, especially the Punk scene, was massive in bringing people together... 

www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-62149191.amp

It’s just surprising Met never seems to be taken things like the artist borrowing ideas of others into account. And exactly that makes one wonder: why does he not mention it, since you all do not hesitate for a second to mention it isnt unusual in the artworld. So if it isn’t that bad, why not include it in the analysis? Because it is too obvious he isn’t borrowing them? It made me wonder since I saw this the other day: theartofokse.com/blogs/chatter-oks/banksy-ill-just-leave-this-here

We all know the painters of Banksy now arent the painters of the early Banksies, and it’s seems rather dumb Met speaks of banksies maturation as an artist. There is not one artist and Robin hasn’t been painting them for a while at all. And having said this, Met is rather capable of writing and I for one have read his analyses with pleasure. I am however less pleased with the undertone in this last analysis of his and that gives food for thought. Maybe it's time to give my support to artists with more integrity.

Are you now comparing Chris Oksenbury to Da Vinci? Chris shall be delighted. But what does that make banksy? An artschool teacher who is stimulating his students to find works they can duplicate?

Any rain down that neck of the woods?
Just wondering if my rain dance worked 🤔🕺

Do you find it difficult to go over there to see what happened? 😎

Oddly enough it's been really sunny all day then you posted this and the sky went slate grey and it's now pissing down.
*correction its hailing down - proper hail stones.
* Just for clarification I have no idea if that really is water soluble paint it just looks like it could be?  
*oh and the suns back out again now so maybe your dance worked for around half an hour.  Please stop dancing I have to go out soon.