Comments on: Banksy Rats Now In NYC!

By: regina hackett

regina hackett — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 07:02:16 +0000

Ok, I take back shallow. All of people, you’re not that. Wrong word. Ding! But The idea that only a few artists can use a medium like a billboard but many hundreds of thousands can use paint on canvas without complaint stops me.

What surrounds Banksy is not his fault. Reminds me of something Allen Ginsberg said about William Carlos Williams, honoring his life, “what he tried to be among the bastards out there.” I honor a guy like B, despite the hype, which is not his hype, and I honor a site like Art Fag City, where art and ideas matter. Regina Hackett

By: Art Fag City

Art Fag City — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:26:33 +0000

I suppose my pride has a stake in this, but I really am inclined to characterize that as a mistake as opposed to some kind of innate shallowness.

By: Lewis

Lewis — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:53:53 +0000

I agree that the sensationalism surrounding Banksy is more than a little overdone, especially at this point in his career. I think the shallowness comes about in criticizing him for something that he isn’t setting out to do (at least explicitly), which is to be groundbreaking or trail blazing. Instead, the attack should be directed at his self-defeating philosophical mission: If he seeks to question the ethics of letting someone write anything on a wall just because they have money, he’d be a lot more clever to do it without, you know, paying money.

By: Art Fag City

Art Fag City — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:07:07 +0000

Regina: You’re right to point out that the artist never claimed he was the first to use billboards, so the argument isn’t one he suggested. My issue would be better expressed with the people who cover this artist as though he is doing something groundbreaking. Thanks for that.

However, I’m not sure why changing the context should illuminate how shallow I’m being. The post illustrates misdirected hostility but I’m not sure that I could characterize that as a result of shallowness.

By: regina hackett

regina hackett — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 04:40:19 +0000

“Amazing! Subversive! And what a trail blazer! Who could have predicted artists would use billboards as a means of critical expression?”

And so what? Why the hostility? Change the context a little to see how shallow you’re being:

“Amazing! Subversive! And what a trail blazer! Who could have predicted artists would use pig’s hair tied to a stick to brush paint on canvas?”

Of course other artists have used billboards. Did Mr. B say he was first? You’ve enlisted him in an argument he’s not having.

(I love this blog. I do. Big testy ideas deep in the art realm.)Regina

By: t.whid

t.whid — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:30:39 +0000

the pet store…

It’s trite and ham-handed, obvious and cartoon-y (in a bad way).

It’s a not-so-smart editorial cartoon attempting to use the forms of contemporary art. Which, BTW, is most of his work.

By: Chris S.

Chris S. — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:55:51 +0000

So, while the works above don’t do much for you, any thoughts on the pet store?
http://www.woostercollective.com/2008/10/the_village_pet_store_and_charchoal_gril.html

By: Art Fag City

Art Fag City — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:35:59 +0000

Okay you two: The text I used simply pointed out one similarity. You’ll observe I never said: These feminist activists are commenting on the exact same thing. I didn’t say that because it’s OBVIOUSLY NOT THE CASE. The point is, he’s not doing anything all that challenging or original.

On the subject of why the press “loves” this work, I think it’s a very narrow interpretation to label those motivations as commerce and gossip or to pin interest in an artist entirely on one profession. Obviously there’s a lot more at play than this.

By: Arthur1

Arthur1 — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:46:47 +0000

to the comment: “adds a level of self-reference”, that is a game-plan long ago debunked as anything more than ontology-writ-obvious, certainly since the conceptual days and reinforced in the 1980s. It also doesn’t matter opearting within the reams of film scripts that made it to cinema - or did I miss the Hollywood implosion. Whatever, Banksy satisfies the desperate-liberals of this era, perfect-built for the shift from Bono to Brangilina worldview.

Yes, there IS a difference to the women or feminist-artists cited in the article: position. They remain fighting an uphill battle and in regards to representation particularly, and they address that. NOT some cod-politics about exposing how advertisment-system works.

Banksy is in as comfortable position as it possible in the art world of galleries and collectors: he gets to still stick to b.s. of “street cred” to pump up his sales to those buyers who need validation to spend too much and assuage their guilt. And the press loves it because of prices and Brangilina, not because any of them are going to discuss the politics of advertising billboards.

By: L.M.

L.M. — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:47:41 +0000

OK, I’ll play, here’s my fave artist billboard: Corinne Carlson