Not that I know many artists, but Banksy shows over and over that he's the best living artist.
His work is funny, poignant, expressive, imaginative, and shows up in the most incredible places, from Gaza to a big installation a couple blocks from my home once.
Sometimes I see articles on ads, privacy, debates between public and private use of spaces, surveillance, and such, and, as fond as I am of clear, precise language, I find Banksy's artistic statements are more clear and meaningful that what I read in mainstream media.
So, he's become the employer/corporation he regularly criticizes? What's his net worth now? I read its in the millions. So, how much do you pay him to tell you how terrible the world of commerce is? Why does the completely ridiculous and unbelievably commercial world of fine art get a free pass here?
Also, criticizing Disney? Talk about unoriginal attacks and low hanging fruit. What's next? A big expose on McDonalds? Banksy looks like the kind of art you're into when you finally leave home from college and pretend you're this self-liberated rebel with all the answers. I imagine most of his fans will look back onto his cookie-cutter anti-authoritianism and cringe once they get older and realize they, yes, they are the "establishment" he's laughing at, all the way to the bank.
The piece on the events page[1] is Josh Keyes[2]. Another artist that hasn't done anything new in years. It makes me chuckle when artists that claim to be so anti-corporate practice exactly the same techniques of brand management to inflate their bank accounts.
PS. I'm not calling them out on hypocrisy, but instead on spending the latter 2/3rds of their careers cashing in as opposed to taking a risk and pushing their work forward.
EDIT: I do not recall much of Josh Keyes' work being anti-corporate in case the wording above appears to sound like I'm saying that. With him is just the typical unoriginal sameness over the last 10 years.
If you are affiliated with any government, anti-piracy group or any other related group, or were formally a worker of one you CANNOT enter this Hotline server, and cannot access any of its files. If you enter this server you are not agreeing to these terms and you are violating code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act signed by Bill Clinton in 1995 and that means that you CANNOT threaten our ISP(s) or any person(s) or company storing these files, and cannot prosecute any person(s) affiliated with this page which includes family, friends or individuals who run or enter this server.
The goatse.cx lawyer has informed us that we need a warning! So.. if you are under the age of 18 or find this photograph offensive, please don't look at it. Thank you!
I'd be there for the music and maybe to see the art if I lived in the area.
Suggest providing good beer, wine, mixed drinks, and food trucks or similar food merchants along with some affordable art and t-shirts, since it is an art festival of sorts.
The logo, similarity of the name, and Cinderella's castle spell trouble with Disney folks. It'd be one thing if it were local, but since it got press, that's just asking for it.
Pretty certain it would fall under parody/satire so would be protected use, plus given that Banksy is well known around the world I don't see this staying under the radar at all given that the BBC has already covered it.
Plus all the commercialisation you suggest would pretty much be the antithesis of what the event sets out to poke fun at.
These days? The hell you on about? As far as we can tell the order of human inventions went: fire, wheel, beer. Humanity consumes far less alcohol today than in the past.
Banksy himself on the issue: "I asked myself: what do people like most about going to look at art? The coffee. So I made an art show that has a cafe, a cocktail bar, a restaurant and another bar. And some art."
My favourite part was most people there were "normal" people and absolutely loved it. I've been to i.e. Damian Hurst / White Cube / Rothko etc. etc. London poseurs everywhere.
>My favourite part was most people there were "normal" people and absolutely loved it.
Why wouldn't they? In your tweet you praise the project as "inclusive" but that is exactly how I would condemn it. Banksy seem to me to be an artist who through iteration has arrived at a near-perfect way of packaging 1960s-inspired rebellion for the summer blockbuster audience. The average summer blockbuster makes you feel exhilarated while you watch it but doesn't have a serious takeaway. For Banksy "exhilarated" is replaced with "clever" and "righteous" but the end result is the equally empty.
There is a wide gap between the poles that are poseur-inviting nihilism of Hurst and Banksy's Upworthy-like quality. I think good art should not stand too close to either of them.
"Banksy's now ubiquitous anti-consumerist and anti-authoritarian tropes are fully exhausted in this most recent packaging and Dismaland is, quite literally, art about nothing. Consumerism is bad, Disney is evil, advertising is dishonest — we got it."
People on tumblr probably don't realise when they are using a Banksy picture, much like they assumed daft punk ripped of Kanye West with harder better faster stronger or that Kanye was helping out an undiscovered musician when he partnered up with Paul McCartney.
The author's "his overwrought images continue to be rooted in the same, familiar liberal values that people are all too eager to agree with" kind of implies he's going to be anti anything a bit lefty.
Banksy was always more interesting for his visually interesting images and choices of location than his politics though, and some of his best graffiti was literally "about nothing". I've always imagined him as someone who spends his nights as a caped crusader against consumerism but designs print advertising for FMCG companies for a day job...
Anyway, it can't be as unoriginal as the "I'm going to take the highly original step of lampooning Paris Hilton... and fuel demand for an album most of us didn't realise she'd released" stunt he pulled off several years ago. But that got more attention than most of his street art too.
> Dismaland is, quite literally, art about nothing. Consumerism is bad, Disney is evil, advertising is dishonest — we got it.
This is just a completely nonsensical statement. Since when has art been about intellectual knowledge? "Yeah, yeah, trees are beautiful, I get it, stop with the landscape paintings please".
The purpose, at least in this case, is to take something that people already probably know, on an intellectual level, and give them some more visceral reaction to it.
And, to repeat myself from the last thread about this, Banksy is repetitive and cliche-ridden, but if marketing/advertising/campaigning bludgeons the point home (Eat such and such fast food and have a happy relationship with your children! Use such and such deodorant and have a sexy girlfriend! Have you absorbed this political talking point yet!?) it's only fair that people trying to puncture that are allowed the same license to labour the point to the edge of boredom and despair.
I think he's saying "Consumerism is bad, Disney is evil, advertising is dishonest" is by-literally-I-mean-figuratively "nothing", as in this is not a relevant current concern. When you think "evil corporations doing bad things" are legacy media companies really what come to mind? Is it even in the top 10?
The installation about Princess Dianna's death really adds to the "by and for people who stopped paying attention to anything 20 years ago" vibe.
i mean- how many "legacy media companies" have world class tourist attractions? ignoring their shows, movies, and music all together- how many celebrities do they create? they are a staple of American consumerism.
Princess Diana seems carefully selected to me. a more recent death would be "too soon". a less famous death wouldn't be familiar. a less public death wouldn't prove the point. a less innocent death wouldn't be sympathetic.
It would seem the art world has finally become weary of Banksy. Some of his works now sell for millions at high brow auction houses all over the world. For someone who espouses the evil of Disney, it looks as though he has a lot in common with the very things he apparently stands against in his art.
Perhaps people are finally seeing the hypocrisy? FYI His net worth is estimated at somewhere north of $20 million:
Looks like a good exhibition - I'd go if I could get over to Weston-Super-Mare easily...I never liked the big hype around Banksy but did like seeing his work when it appeared. And there are other really good artists there too (ones I prefer to Banksy).
58 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 117 ms ] threadHis work is funny, poignant, expressive, imaginative, and shows up in the most incredible places, from Gaza to a big installation a couple blocks from my home once.
Sometimes I see articles on ads, privacy, debates between public and private use of spaces, surveillance, and such, and, as fond as I am of clear, precise language, I find Banksy's artistic statements are more clear and meaningful that what I read in mainstream media.
Also, criticizing Disney? Talk about unoriginal attacks and low hanging fruit. What's next? A big expose on McDonalds? Banksy looks like the kind of art you're into when you finally leave home from college and pretend you're this self-liberated rebel with all the answers. I imagine most of his fans will look back onto his cookie-cutter anti-authoritianism and cringe once they get older and realize they, yes, they are the "establishment" he's laughing at, all the way to the bank.
[1] http://dismaland.co.uk/events/ [2] http://www.joshkeyes.net/
PS. I'm not calling them out on hypocrisy, but instead on spending the latter 2/3rds of their careers cashing in as opposed to taking a risk and pushing their work forward.
EDIT: I do not recall much of Josh Keyes' work being anti-corporate in case the wording above appears to sound like I'm saying that. With him is just the typical unoriginal sameness over the last 10 years.
However, I wonder if there may also be an issue with tagging at something like this?
If you are affiliated with any government, anti-piracy group or any other related group, or were formally a worker of one you CANNOT enter this Hotline server, and cannot access any of its files. If you enter this server you are not agreeing to these terms and you are violating code 431.322.12 of the Internet Privacy Act signed by Bill Clinton in 1995 and that means that you CANNOT threaten our ISP(s) or any person(s) or company storing these files, and cannot prosecute any person(s) affiliated with this page which includes family, friends or individuals who run or enter this server.
what a title...
Suggest providing good beer, wine, mixed drinks, and food trucks or similar food merchants along with some affordable art and t-shirts, since it is an art festival of sorts.
The logo, similarity of the name, and Cinderella's castle spell trouble with Disney folks. It'd be one thing if it were local, but since it got press, that's just asking for it.
Economist article: http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2015/08/anti-establi...
CNN style article with video of the inside: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/20/arts/banksy-dismaland-art-...
Many more photos tweeted with #Dismaland here: https://twitter.com/hashtag/Dismaland?src=hash
The castle there looks amazing, and so does some of the other art.
Good luck!
Plus all the commercialisation you suggest would pretty much be the antithesis of what the event sets out to poke fun at.
However, that law has since been (at least partially) quashed by recent court rulings: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/17/high-court-qu...
(It's unclear if the whole of the law is now revoked, or just the personal-use parts)
Providing food and drink is commercialization?
I think you are missing the point.
https://twitter.com/jgumbley/status/635895637503025152
Recommend, especially for the Gallery.
My favourite part was most people there were "normal" people and absolutely loved it. I've been to i.e. Damian Hurst / White Cube / Rothko etc. etc. London poseurs everywhere.
Art that connects.
Why wouldn't they? In your tweet you praise the project as "inclusive" but that is exactly how I would condemn it. Banksy seem to me to be an artist who through iteration has arrived at a near-perfect way of packaging 1960s-inspired rebellion for the summer blockbuster audience. The average summer blockbuster makes you feel exhilarated while you watch it but doesn't have a serious takeaway. For Banksy "exhilarated" is replaced with "clever" and "righteous" but the end result is the equally empty.
There is a wide gap between the poles that are poseur-inviting nihilism of Hurst and Banksy's Upworthy-like quality. I think good art should not stand too close to either of them.
Perhaps see it for yourself, if you can.
http://www.businessinsider.com/banksys-dismaland-is-bad-and-...
He's getting mocked pretty bad on Tumblr too, which is notable considering how popular pictures of his work have been on there in the past.
Anyway, it can't be as unoriginal as the "I'm going to take the highly original step of lampooning Paris Hilton... and fuel demand for an album most of us didn't realise she'd released" stunt he pulled off several years ago. But that got more attention than most of his street art too.
This is just a completely nonsensical statement. Since when has art been about intellectual knowledge? "Yeah, yeah, trees are beautiful, I get it, stop with the landscape paintings please".
The purpose, at least in this case, is to take something that people already probably know, on an intellectual level, and give them some more visceral reaction to it.
And, to repeat myself from the last thread about this, Banksy is repetitive and cliche-ridden, but if marketing/advertising/campaigning bludgeons the point home (Eat such and such fast food and have a happy relationship with your children! Use such and such deodorant and have a sexy girlfriend! Have you absorbed this political talking point yet!?) it's only fair that people trying to puncture that are allowed the same license to labour the point to the edge of boredom and despair.
The installation about Princess Dianna's death really adds to the "by and for people who stopped paying attention to anything 20 years ago" vibe.
Princess Diana seems carefully selected to me. a more recent death would be "too soon". a less famous death wouldn't be familiar. a less public death wouldn't prove the point. a less innocent death wouldn't be sympathetic.
Perhaps people are finally seeing the hypocrisy? FYI His net worth is estimated at somewhere north of $20 million:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/daniellerahm/2013/10/22/banksy-t...
Strictly for the little ones – an area that combines soft play and loan shop.
This is fantastic. I wish I were in the UK for its 5 week run.
PS. Mike Nudelman clearly doesn't get it