banksy

Picadilly is one of the busiest road junctions in the London's West End and thus reminds us of a more radical artwork which Banksy created on the Israeli West Bank barrier, the internationally infamous wall. Banksy says, “How illegal is it to vandalize a wall if the wall itself has been deemed unlawful by the International Court of Justice?”ii The metaphor that is created perhaps aims to infiltrate the public spaces by producing an antithetical disposition. A fusion sculpture of The Statue of Justice and The Statue of Liberty as a figure of a prostitute, at a location where he was arrested in London is a
similar example which creates a paradox; the space allows for that paradox to pan out.iii

Art therefore depends on the vantage point of the public and stands as a stark question mark while interrogating society‟s bourgeois conventionalities. “Banksy reclaims public spaces as places for public imagination and enlightenment, breaking through propagandistic barriers to thought and awareness...,” says Nigel Parry quite aptly in his essay on Banksy's graffiti in Israel.iv

Since these pieces of art are on public display, it raises questions of ownership in several cases. 'Mobile Lovers' was one such work which Peter N. Salib discusses in his essay, 'The Law of Banksy: Who Owns Street Art'‟- “Almost immediately after Stinchecombe's possession of the piece became public, the Bristol City Council intervened, confiscated Mobile Lovers and placing it on display in a municipally owned museum. Its claim was that, because Banksy painted Mobile Lovers onto a piece of public property, the painting belonged to the city.” Soon after Banksy intervened and the ownership was granted to the former founder of the art piece. A fundamental question is thus raised about who really owns street art? The one who finds the art piece or would it be the one who holds the property rights to the surface on which the art on which the artwork resides? Several contestations have been made in the name of constitutional laws as well as by academics who work in this field. John Berger also mentions spatiality in his book, Ways of Seeing where he says- “The uniqueness of every painting was once part of the uniqueness of the place where it resided.” When we examine this statement in context of this discourse, we might be able to come up with a liberal idea of where this art really belongs or doesn't. At the end however, the matter remains more or less disputed. However, a rudimentary irony thus arises- Banksy's artworks which condemn capitalist structures in the end conform to these ideologies. His pieces have become worth millions of dollars and are held in high esteem within collectors' circles. Banksy's castigating of the 'McDonaldisation' of the global market is thus proved disposable.

Yet, if we analyse the content, the discourse of the art remains constant. Banksy's subversion of space is best illustrated by a notorious experiment of his wherein he went about in the streets of London and San Francisco, designing on certain walls the text, “Designated Graffiti Area” along with an official looking crest on top of the text which was taken from a cigarette packet. This influenced a lot of graffiti artists to freely draw on these walls; a mere indication of this being a legal area for street art gave them the courage and freedom to practice this art form freely. The Public space was thus disrupted for a point that was adequately proven.

One of Banksy's most compelling works which is worth mentioning in order to further the argument of this paper is regarding a historical event- the time when lipstick was brought into a certain concentration camp in Nazi Germany. The event has been recorded in the following diary entry by a certain Lieutenant Colonel Mervin Willet Gonin DSO-
“It was shortly after the British Red Cross arrived, though it may have no connection, that a very large quantity of lipstick arrived. This was not at all what we men wanted, we were screaming for hundreds and thousands of other things and I don't know who asked for lipstick. I wish so much that I could discover who did it, it was the action of genius, sheer unadulterated brilliance. I believe nothing did more for these internees than the lipstick. Women lay in bed with no sheets and no nightie but with scarlet red lips, you saw them wandering about with nothing but a blanket over their shoulders, but with scarlet red lips. I saw a woman dead on the post mortem table and clutched in her hand was a piece of lipstick. At last someone had done something to make them individuals again, they were someone, no longer merely the number tattooed on the arm. At last they could take an interest in their appearance. That lipstick started to give them back their humanity.”v

The artwork reflects this event in a manner which voices the violent truth of contemporary reality. It questions where our humanity exactly resides, where we identify with ourselves. An artwork of such, when produced for the vantage point of a public, is altered in the sense in which John Berger mentions in Ways of Seeing:- “The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe”. The street artworks produced are thus appropriated by the perceptions of the public- the thoughts shaped by the government, society and personal lives.

Another structure that Banksy's artwork has infiltrated to is of the classroom. Sheng Kuan Chung in a narrative regarding teaching methods in the American educational system, 'Banksy's Role in the Classroom', mentions that presenting explicit content of art in the classroom is essential for him. A popular graffiti of two policemen in London, engaged in a passionate kiss [vi] on a busy street, ignited a passionate discussion about homosexuality in his class which led to an uninhibited learning session for all. “It is virtually impossible to understand real-world art without considering controversial social issues”.vii

Banksy uses subversion through a form of guerrilla communication which induces his art to ask provocative questions. That is what makes this world-famous “vandal” what he is and subsequently his “public” artworks worth millions of dollars. The juxtaposition of familiar images with his subversive tropes alters and politicizes the public structures. The
consequent aesthetics produced thus becomes a metaphor for a revolutionary ideological stance that Banksy perhaps intends to portray.

Banksy writes in his book, Banksy Wall and Piece- “They say graffiti frightens people and is symbolic of decline in the society, but graffiti is only dangerous in the mind of three types of people: politicians, advertising executives and graffiti writers.”

To examine the final thesis point of the anonymity that is ascribed to the artist is a clear opposition to how the art is portrayed in the public spectrum. In most of his interviews, he keeps his face in the dark or under the hood of his sweatshirt. In the documentary surrounded around Thierry Guetta, Exit Through The Gift Shop (2010)
[viii], in which Banksy plays quite a dominant role, the audience is able to hear his voice but not particularly see his face as he remains seated in his art-studio. The footage of this documentary in which he features are also specifically directed in a way that his face never appears in the scene. Interestingly there are certain scenes which show the very intricate workings of the artist‟s hands while working on the stencils of his graffiti.

The notorious anonymity that is created is through this invisible public identity creates an evident irony as to how he believes in the presentation of his art. Is this a specific methodology which enables him to publicise his street arts and its ideas in a certain way, by creating an element of perpetual suspense or just another way of evading the constant arrest warrants issued against him on the charges of vandalism?

A concrete answer to that remains ambiguous; the ambiguity is perhaps intended to question dominant ideas of both Art and Law.

End Notes

i Banksy. McDonalds is stealing our children. 2004. Post nine hours, the balloon lost pressure and was hit by a bus.

ii Nigel Parry mentions in his essay „British Graffiti Artist, Banksy, Hacks the Wall‟. (p. 90)

iii Banksy. Justice Monument, Clerkenwell Green.

iv Nigel Parry mentions in his essay „British Graffiti Artist, Banksy, Hacks the Wall‟. (p. 91)

v Nigel incorporates in his essay „British Graffiti Artist, Banksy, Hacks the Wall‟. (p. 90)

vi Banksy. Kissing Coppers, Soho. 2005.

vii Sheng Kuan Chung. „Aesthetics of Confrontation: From the Streets to the Classroom‟. (p. 95)

viii The documentary however is focused upon the street artist, Mr. Brainwash on whose art and life Banksy played a substantial role.

Works Cited

Parry, Nigel. „British Graffiti Artist, Banksy, Hacks the Wall‟, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2006, https://www.jstor.org/stable/43876305. Accessed: 09-09-2018 13:15

Kuan Chung, Sheng. „Aesthetics of Confrontation: From the Streets to the Classroom‟, Peter Lang AG, Counterpoints, Vol. 356, 2010, https://www.jstor.org/stable/42980603. Accessed: 09-09-2018 15:03

Banksy, Banksy Wall and Piece. London: Century. 2006. Print.

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. Penguin, 1972, http://waysofseeingwaysofseeing.com/ways-of-seeing-john-berger-5.7.pdf

"Banksy Documentary." YouTube, uploaded by Jaap Elbers, 5 August 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evbHCAn4jto

Banksy. McDonalds is stealing our children. 2004.

Banksy. Kissing Coppers, Soho. 2005.

Banksy. Justice Monument, Clerkenwell Green.

Banksy. Mobile Lovers, Bristol. 2014.