I think one major difference that we need to take into account is the difference in rates by which Obey and Banksy release prints. Obey churns a new out out every week, while Banksy's are pretty much sporadic at best. Given the same time frame in which the most recent street art craze blossomed as a whole, it's impossible to see the same gradual increase in Banksy's artwork as in Obey's, for the simple reason that there's a lot less data points (if you think about it graphically). Instead of going progressively from (as an arbitrary example) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 in the case of Obey, we have only 1,3,7,10 for Banksy within the same time frame, creating the illusion of Banksy's work booming insanely 'out of control' relative to Obey's at first glance.

I think what this also shows is that it's the recent art craze that's driving the demand (and hence prices) up, not necessarily just the artists in question. Sure, some artists are perceived as being 'hotter' than others, but I believe that the prime driving force is the demand for street/contemporary/urban art in general.

As for the sustainability of Banksy's work in the future, I think it'll again depend on the general demand for street/contemporary/urban art. If it falls, the demand for all individual artists will also show the same general declining trend. But that's not to say that they'll all fall to the same lows; this is where the perceived 'hotness' of the artists come into play in keeping them afloat. Speaking for Banksy only, I think he will forever be viewed as a legend and (arguably) the most prominent poster child of this recent street/contemporary/urban art boom, and even for that reason alone, his demand (and hence prices) will never drop too drastically.

Just my humble opinion I'm no economist nor art critic/analyst though, so I'm by no means an expert!

I agree with much of what you say Slowmo. The people who are collecting the works of Banksy, Shep, Faile etc are in a totally different place to those collecting abstract artists such as Terry Frost (although very few of either would suggest that Frost can't paint!). I would wager that a lot are real art lovers but have never been really able to afford to buy art before.

People criticise Shep for churning out prints but you can't say he hasn't stuck to his original goals of creating a global (underground) brand and making it accessible to all. His prints are still $35 each, still all signed by him, the guy is incredible.

The same can be said, to a lesser extent, with Banksy. We can all for the time being just afford a banksy print (unsigned). Which is not necessarily true of nearly any established artist you can think of in the UK. Even smaller artists can be out of our price range. I really love Ray Richardson's work for example (especially the cinematic stuff). But his prints are expensive!

The is another reason why I love the RCA Secret show. It gives me an opportunity to buy work by artists I like (if I can spot them) for a sum I can afford.

Gradually I think the art world is changing. Banksy, Shep and all are at the vanguard of it. Who knows where we will all be in a few years time.

;D

Its the exact same article as cited above. This link is a blogger that has posted the original article to their blog (with attributions).

In any case, it seems another example that great minds think alike.


So, Viva Hate, why not weigh in on the reasons for which you like the article? Some good opinions above, and as they sometimes say, the more the merrier!

read it this afternoon. slowmo your spot on IMO, my art history starts from Seen and Mad, forget the rest. for me, you cannot quantify banksy as there is no comparible. his kind of observationalism and humour is more akin to the sketch writers in the newspapers who parody the news of the day.

i don't pretend to have an extensive knowledge of art but he has no peers. no-one has pulled off the same stunts, tried to turn the market to his way of thinking and generally stuck two fingers up to the traditionalists. what's the brian sewell quote? genius. only warhol compares in his mantra of trying to take art to the masses but that's where the story ends.

you really have to rip the rule-book up and start again on this one, no amount of second guessing will predict the future of the market. my opinion is, the people that are investing in bansy are doing so because they absolutely love him, mostly. this is unprecedented in the art world. most invest because they like someone and want to support them further. they also want to protect their investment. from city boys and premiership footballers, to civil servants, medics, teachers, students and even roofers we buy a banksy to hang on our walls and look at everyday.

has any other artist on the planet, or in it's history, had such a large and loyal demographic?

unless he symltaniously (sic) manages to alienate us, one and all, then i think the future banksy market will be pretty secure.

(cue egg on face)