I’ve been meaning to write on this subject for some time now. I must say that I’m very well aware that the words of an ordinary art student do not count much in the face of a Pulitzer winning critic and a well-known curator. But, screw it. Gonna speak my mind anyway.
Recently, Banksy has been criticized for being a “bad artist” by New York Magazine art critic Jerry Saltz and curator Francesco Bonami. Among other things, the main claim of their criticism is the idea that Banksy doesn’t transform reality, but rather uses it in a banal way and exploits it.
To give a little context, Bonami argues that Banksy is not an artist, and if seen as an artist, then he is only a bad one; saying that good art is one that transforms reality into another reality and the best example of this (for him) is the 19th-century painting “The Raft of Medusa” in which the artist took an event that happened, created a monumental canvas and composed it in his phantasy in a certain way- and all these are given as reasons that make it good art. Another example he provides for good art is Duchamp’s Fountain. Bonami argues that this work too transforms reality- the artist does not hang the urinal as they normally are but puts it on a pedestal, turns it upside down, signs it, and thus, presents a different reality. Well, the problem that I have with the examples he puts forward is basically how wacky they are.
Let’s start with “good art”. What is it even? It can’t be an absolute, universal, everlasting concept; since, in the most basic sense, it changes from period to period, from movement to movement, from culture to culture. Comparing two very different artistic creations with different philosophies and aesthetic values (that of 19th Century Romantic artist Theodore Gericault’s and contemporary street artist Banksy’s) according to an idealized, abstracted idea of art is simply condemned to be erroneous. Art evolves, its aim, material, and function changes; starting from the 1960s, art becomes more about the concept, the idea, the philosophy behind it. In Duchamp’s creation, the urinal itself is NOT important, it could’ve been anything, positioned in any way, it could be hanged properly and not been the subject of any change and still, if argued to be art by the artist, it would be seen as art, because what mattered was how radical the idea it posed (that anything can be art). The Fountain, and any other ready-mades for this matter, do not change the reality (this is what’s fun and tricky about ready-mades), it changes our way of perceiving it, plays with judgments, ideas, expectations about art. It is in this sense that Dada is not art, but anti-art. A similar approach can be seen in Banksy too- he’s not bothered to be recognized and accepted by the art world, rather, he mocks with its high brow attitude, lay bare its absurdity most superficially and this is in part what brings the charm.
Similarly, Saltz criticizes Banksy by arguing that what he does is not art and adds “Populist illustration is fine by me. I am just saying it is not any idea of art, form, surface, facture, materials, scale, internal scale, structure, color, or really much of anything else, and he does not transform any of these things. Is not original.” Of course, this is subjective, one can reject that art must do all or some of the things that are given above. Conceptual art gives us the power to do so. Nonetheless, I don’t think the criticism of Saltz is representing the truth: things like surface, material, scale, color are and have been important aspects of graffiti. And indeed it is a type of art, but not the type that you would see in institutions, it doesn’t conform to the values of them but stand against it. Walls are way better places to create an artwork than museums, anyways. Banksy’s participatory work the “legal graffiti site”, or the “vandalized old paintings” transforms their environment and given reality differently while adding another layer of meaning, or subvert the meaning of the context, its surroundings, and perception of these by the people.
“Good causes and actions have nothing to do with making good art.” is another reason why Saltz does not consider Banksy as an artist. And he’s got a point, good causes do not automatically make art, of course, no one’s going to have a problem with that. I also agree that Banksy is a political cartoonist-illustrator, but more than that, too: he is a graffiti and a performance artist. A good example of this may be the performance in which he makes an exhibition of his own in Tate Modern and Louvre by hanging a 19th-century painting ‘vandalized’ by him and his version of Mona Lisa with a smiley face. These examples show that he uses the concepts of postmodernism, ie appropriation, and decomposition to mock with the values, the representatives, and the authorities of the art world. Banksy’s works have good causes but that’s not why they are good art, they’re good art because he is able to use simplicity and irony in a way that sincerely discusses loaded issues.
As for me, Banksy is a lot better and evolved version of Warhol (I never enjoyed pop art). Just like Warhol, he uses the banal, things, ideas, icons from daily life, but with a remarkable difference: he does not use these for the sake of just showing the way things are, but to criticize, mock, question the way things are and to subvert their meaning. I think one of the best explanations of Banksy’s art comes from Evening Standart: “Superficially his work looks deep but it’s actually deeply superficial.” And Banksy wittingly uses this superficiality. To discuss an issue not always you need complex ideas, shapes, or sentences; in fact, the more simple it is, the better, more inclusive, and less cliquey. To understand his work one doesn’t need to have any art education, to know theories, to pay for it; it’s not disconnected from reality but engaged with it. Or as Banksy puts it- “Graffiti is the most honest artform available. There is no elitism or hype, it exhibits on some of the best walls a town has to offer, and nobody is put off by the price of admission.”
Activist, witty, and public art; just my cup of tea.
