thanks for that, considered it

Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

First off, welcome to the board!

I think there's no doubt that Banksy is real and is one person. The question in it's most simple form is ridiculous, hence the short answers you've got from other members. Though you raise some interesting wider points, which have been discussed from time to time.

While Banksy may be an individual, there's absolutely no doubt he's now got a whole team of people around him who assist with his work and, in particular, his public stunts and shows. We all know about Laz and his publicist. It's very common for artists, who often have little idea of business, to rely on such people for artistic direction. Representation can make or break an artist's career.

Obviously the completion of his public stunts requires more than one person. For example, no one would ever think that Banksy carried all those portaloos and set them up at Glastonbury without help. Artists commonly have relied on the help of others to create their works. Throughout history artists have looked to craftsman for help - with the artist conceptualising the piece and giving artistic direction. Warhol and Hirst, for example, are famous recent examples of artists who rely heavily on other people to create their works. Though the list is literally endless.

What I find more interesting is how far Banksy relies on his friends/craftsman to create his gallery works. Here's a point I've been pondering for a while - did Banksy actually paint the crude oils series or did he come up with the concepts and commission someone else to paint them under his direction? I'm not sure. Does it even matter?

The other interesting point that your post inadvertently raises, is that "Banksy" now transcends one man. Banksy, like Warhol before him, is a brand. It's coming to the point where he's almost more of a brand than an artist, which others are exploiting (through no fault of his own). This is the notion that STOT's recent piece plays on.

Finally, in terms of how can you publish a coffee table book of illegal street art and not be arrested. It can really only come down to the fact that the police have better things to keep them occupied. Plus, who says he's not been arrested in his time?

That would be my guess too. Though wonder what the concensus is.

SBC - I completely agree that if you look at Mr B's body of work, including the sketchbooks he's posted on his site, it seems extremely unlikely that he actually painted the crude oils. I haven't been to the Banksy vs. Warhol yet, but may pop down this weekend.

Like you, I don't think it really matters whether a craftsman created the work under instruction - it makes it no less a Banksy. Indeed I have no issue with artists relying on craftsman to assist with their works. As I said above, it's been a common practice throughout art history. Though it's interesting because I'm not so sure that everyone will have considered this notion.

he didn't install the portaloos at all- eavis' men did that so he obviously doesn't do the 'sculptural' works but i've never considered him not doing the crude oils. I too saw the chair oiece at w v b and thought it was amazing- if he didn't paint it himself then i think it would ruin it a little for me, dont know why as it is the idea which is the main thing.

isn't there a video somewhere of him painting the crude oil girl with a mask? but i suppose even that might not be him.

Nahh i think Banksy is a subversive advertising campaign by saatchi and saatchi to get peolpe to buy trainers and black hoodies

hands!

its the concept that is the art in some cases,
henry moore never got to work in a foundry to build a reclining figure a,
Warhole hardly had anything to do with his work a hand print now and again,
Duchamp didnt even make his own fountain,
yet it is still art that can be accredited to the artist who thought of it.
if he painted it or not the work can still be his.

if you where buying a frank lloyd wright house , who would you want to build it,
frank or builders?
its the same for art,

what is a Banksy.

Once an artist becomes so in demand they get understudies to do a lot of the work for them. Im not sure Damein Hirst has picked up a brush in ages as he gets others to do it for him.

As for Banksy, yes he's real, he has three toes, seven fingers and eats only pork scratchings.

I don't think you should mention Barry Scott and Banksy in the same breath....... oops

No doubt.. I have worked for the man and he's a cleaver sod.. Yes it was my skills that made the end product what it is but without that seed(idea) in the first place there would be no finished product.. Is the art actually what ends up on the canvas or is it the idea itself.. And after all the key to good leadership is delegation

Well I have seen him at work designing and cutting stencils there is no doubt in my mind that he is for real.. Spent alot of time with him working through stuff and believe me it was all real..

No I'm just referring to the debate about him using other artists to produce work for him. If banksy commissions a piece of art by another artist and sells it within the banksy brand that makes it his art. If I commissioned a piece of work from banksy and sold it under a 'finsburyparkranger' brand with contractual agreement would that equally mean that it was essentially my art and that i should be given the majority of the artistic merrit for its existence?