With New York City being such a diverse city with so many different people and creative minds, there is no doubt that the city would be filled with art, ranging from graffiti to art paintings and exaggerated face paintings being sold on the street. That doesn’t mean all the art is respected or liked, though. According to the article, “Monthlong Chase Around New York City for Banksy’s Street Art,” someone was quite successful with his art.
Banksy, a famous and supposedly rich, anonymous British street artist, has been leaving his art all over NYC in all five boroughs for the month of October. Nearly everyday of his staying at NYC, he would post a picture of his art on Instagram and people would then go search for it. Banksy’s work sells for hundreds of thousands of dollars, so it’s no wonder why people would try and make some money off the free art.
Reactions weren’t the same in each location where Banksy’s work was found. People in East NY would charge viewers $20 while in TriBeCa, people would lay flowers at a stencil of the World Trade Center towers, while local street artists would insist that the Englishman had intruded on their turf. Banksy’s works have even found themselves on private buildings, but no complaints were filed, partly due to the fact that no one knew who he was, or if he even existed.
While Banksy had a large number of fans, he also gathered in some people who weren’t the most impressed by his work. Ruben Diaz Jr., the Bronx borough president, at first liked the attention that the Bronx got when Banksy graced the borough with one of his pieces. Then Diaz changed opinions of Banksy after he used a slur in one of his works, angry that Banksy perpetuated “outdated negative stereotypes.” Several residents of the Bronx were also appalled when people would coo over Banksy’s work, claiming there were pieces grander than that. On the Upper West Side, there was a stencil of a child striking a standpipe with a hammer, now protected by plexiglass, and a man with a child strapped to his chest said, “Is that supposed to be the Banksy thing? Man, that’s horrible. God, the hype. I grew up with real graffiti artists,” before walking away.
Personally, I have never even heard the name Banksy before I read this article. I would have thought that the name of such a famous person would reach my ears at least once, but apparently not. The fact that an anonymous person would gather in so many fans is quite shocking. I am actually quite dubious about this person and if he’s a fraud or not, since we don’t know anything about him. Who knows if this Banksy person is just posting random pictures onto his Instagram, pretending he created it? I can see why the people in the Bronx were surprised and maybe even offended by the crowds that Banksy’s art attracted, since the Bronx is filled with street artists yet the Bronx residents respect the art enough not to surround it. I might be biased in saying this since I’m not the hugest fan of street art, but I do think Banksy’s art is overhyped. If I passed by one of his works (and knew it was by him) while in the city, I probably wouldn’t give it a second glance.
Works Cited:
Buckley, Cara. “Monthlong Chase Around New York City for Banksy’s Street Art.” The New York Times. 28 Oct. 2013. Web. 02 Nov. 2013.
I think that this is a very creative way for gaining public attention. I believe that what is considered as art depends on the standards of who created it. If Banksy believes that his art is art, I would acknowledge that. Most people are not aware of popular artists today (including myself; I’ve never heard of Banksy). However, I would not care so much if he were a fraud. Many writers publish their works under pen names but people do not view that as fraud, so the question is: why art?
I did not know of Banksy until I watched a video on the front page of Youtube. But I have to say I really like his artwork. His unorthodox manner of stenciling and graffiti art is amazingly realistic, both in the artwork itself and the intended message. There is almost always a story behind each artwork and it is usually very controversial, but the presentation is truly unique and noteworthy.
I actually think I have heard of Bansky recently, I believe he set up a table by the park selling his drawing for 20 bucks a piece and proved to the world that often times we view art in the context in which it is represented. Anyway I do actually like his art but do understand how he is being intrusive. I believe he is out to prove something and I am sorry to hear it is back firing.
I’m not the biggest fan of Banksy, but I really do appreciate how he doesn’t make art for the money, but rather for the message and for his viewers. His works are truly interactive. People will search for them throughout the city; some will even add their own touch to his graffiti, like some Cooper Union students did to a tag near their school. (http://animalnewyork.com/2013/cooper-union-students-alter-banksys-concrete-confessional/)
It’s all about how people react to his art and it’s meant to be controversial. Honestly, he’s probably relishing in both the positive and negative attention.
I believe that Banksy’s mystery adds to his appeal and hype as a street artist. In my mind, I have this idea illusion of a dark hooded vigilante running around NYC at midnight, spray painting and stenciling politically influenced and visually pleasing art. I absolutely detest the defacement and “selling” of his art . http://nypost.com/2013/10/11/east-new-york-jerks-charge-to-see-banksy-piece/ Street are is for everyone, thus its medium.
I had never heard of Banksy either until he was brought up in my English class in September. I just google imaged some of his works, and I personally think it’s impressive. He’s smart in how he attracts crowds to his art- using both his mystery and the controversial messages behind his works. When we see controversial things, they become well known and often talked about, even by politicians (like the one in this article that you mentioned). Everyone of course would love to know who the source of that controversy is, but instead we have no clear image of Banksy, and therefore he is all the more intriguing. Whether he is creating the art or not, he knows how to get attention and you have to give him credit for that. I hope someone finds out who he actually is soon – but then again, maybe I don’t.
I knew about Banksy before entering college–he directed a movie called “Exit Through the Gift Shop” and I got curious about who he was. Research ensued. But I digress.
So over the course of analyzing all of these NYT articles, we found out that experts can tell if something has been created by a certain artist because the piece will have a signature detail. Though we’ve been seeing the experts do poor jobs of analyzing the art’s authenticity lately, it doesn’t eliminate the fact that artists do leave their mark on their work. That being said, one would probably be able to tell if Banksy had indeed created the graffiti art by his signature style.
Banksy’s art IS probably overhyped; then again, couldn’t we say that about a lot of things? Does that change the actual quality of the object that is overhyped? One of Banksy’s motives is to cause controversy–that’s why he’s a graffiti artist, and it would explain the offensive qualities of his work. As to the question of whether he’s “intruding” on New York territory: is he? Or is he simply attempting to contribute internationally to a community he belongs to (the graffiti art world)? Artists cross borders all the time. Why should Banksy’s crossing the pond be any different?
Yay! My feature article is going to be about Banksy. I agree with you that Banksy’s project is overhyped. I actually respected street art because most of them represent our culture. Banksy makes me feel discouraged. Although his work can be seen in an activist light: he is criticizing certain parts of the American government and society – and sure, this is a free country so you can say anything – his work is too extreme. The radical aspect of Banksy’s work mocks our culture and sometimes in stereotypical ways. That is not cool. And the “Ghetto 4 Life” he incorporates in his South Bronx graffiti is mean. Is he implying that street art is ghetto? That is a wrong interpretation of street art. Initially, I imagined Banksy’s work to be supporting the legality of street art, but I guess I was wrong. He seemed to be contradicting himself.
I really appreciate Banksy in his way of delivering messages to public and catching attentions. Also, his art is not for profit. However, I am not sure if those who spent time and energy searching for his work really care about the art itself. Maybe they just want to get money(as indicated in the article, the viewers are sometimes charged). Also, Banksy seems like a person who does not want to give the credit of his work to himself because not everyone heard of him. I doubted the credibility of his works.
When I first saw Banksy’s graffiti online a few years ago, I was really captured by the connection his pieces tried to tie to the environment he painted them on. I was really impressed with the creativity and his fearlessness in painting on private buildings. However, since his art has been monetized, I’ve grown less fond of it. As the article mentions, people flock to see each piece, protect it, and then charge money for others to see it. I think that money has distorted Banksy’s original purpose. Furthermore, if he is truly perpetuating racial stereotypes, then I think that Banksy’s purpose has changed for the worse. I always saw his work as a light-hearted commentary on mundane objects. Trying to elevate his art to use as social criticism actually cheapens his work for me.