Skip to main content

Banksy - artist or vandal?

Banksy is nickname of well known graffiti artist. His real name and look are mostly unknown. A lot of people query about him, if his works are "art" or rather vandalism, becouse his graffity are placed on public or private spaces without permission. But, from the other hand his art has very intellectual nature, what for many brand him a true post modern artist. 




One of the most popular arguments for taking Banksy's jobs as artifice is that they are on the public or private property without permission. But art is changing. Many artist from the past challenged with their art boundaries of what people see as art. Banksy figured out to take his art to the street, to the working class for whom his art is targeted. 



Banksy's art called out discussion whether graffiti are art or vandalism. Just the fact, that one man's paintings can encourage debate about if it is art or not means that the works are effective as an artistic force. Graffiti is art, that everyone can do, but not everyone can do a graffiti which we can call art. Everyone of us can grab a can and do some crazy painting on the wall, but that does not constitute art. Banksy's paintings attempts to affect the envoirment to be positive and subjective, thus moving his art into consederation as artworks.

Banksy's graffiti art will not suit to everyone, some of you can be really opposed to the idea of Banksy as an artist, and some of u can say, that by people who consider him as a vandal, made him gain the infamy, which in fact makes him artist. To go away from if he is an artist or not, Banksy's popularity has arisen to the enormous level. To prove that i can say that his mural "Slave Labour" was sold in 2012 for 750 000 GBT..

Comments

  1. Nowadays, graffiti has covered more and more space in our city. They are, nearly always they are made without permission owner of those space. There is a question which frequently crop up in the media. Are they the piece art or only the act of vandalism?
    Like everything it depends on a lot of conditions. Without any questions, there is plenty of significant works, which give positive message about values in surrounding world and just make grey buildings prettier. On the other hand majority of graffiti are stupid writings on the jus redecorated wall. It is vandalism in 100%, and it should be treated like a crime. As we can see it is very difficult to fight with such criminal. Usually, they make their creation in their neighborhoods, so they exactly know when and where do it to minimalize dangerous of meet police officers.
    A lot of people propose to sort out special spaces where graffiti will be legal. In my opinion it wouldn’t help. Many of these “artists” do it only for a thrill, which is incidental to illegal activity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In my opinion, graffiti - the art of writing on the walls - can be a way of commenting on current social and political events. But it is also a way of expressing oneself for people, who have no possibility to express their opinions in public.
    Unfortunately, you can notice graffiti which are a form of vandalism. Some graffiti writers destroy the walls of buildings covering them.
    For example, in England if someone catches you while you are painting the walls, you can be punished with a fine, or even sent to prison up to ten years. In my opinion graffiti is kind of art. Some of graffiti drawings are really beautiful.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think that graffiti isn't nothing wrong if it isn't painted on a newly built building or someones house. It's kind of art and some graffiti is truly amazing for me.In my opinion it should be some place where young people can be legally create graffiti. It don't solve the whole problem but it may at least partly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. For me,graffiti could be kind of art when it's use in proper way.It's real vandalism when group of people scribble on walls in public places,where grafitti is banned. There are a few places where artists can create graffiti,which some of them are really stunning.The government of city,where graffiti is real problem,should give more places to let artists express themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I like most of his pieces and I admire his creativity. In my opinion all art exists to transcend the status quo. The rest is advertising. Graffiti is a form of art as long as it meets this fundamental condition. The issues of ‘grafitti’’s political and ideological ramifications are too complicated to go into here. I consider Banksy as an aesthetic vandal and true graffiti artist

    Btw, If a rich a**hole spends about $1.000 000 on Banksy's work, it's good for his pocet - he'd never run out of spry paint!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I admire people who create kind of art for example graffitti. Sometimes watching drawings on the walls in the city is breathtaking for me :) I like it so much. Unfortunately nowadays graffitti associate with something bad, really bad. If someone writes something ugly on wall for example 'fuck the police', it will be vandalism. But graffiti is a beautiful, special art. We shouldn't think in stereotypes.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I heard about him but I have never seen his "art". In my opinion in Poland we have too many peoples who want to paint on the walls and too many of them have no talent. Everybody want to express on his own but painting their own names on street like Krakowskie Przedmieście is unacceptable for me. Banksy have talent and he`s good at painting. I would admire his works of art.

    ReplyDelete
  8. While I appreciate the arguments about legality, and I agree that graffiti is often placed illegally, such arguments are not relevant to the issue of art/not art. Monet could have put his paintings on a train. We might still call him art, but that he has created "illegally-placed" art. Legal or not, art's definition should have little or nothing to do with its place of installation.

    Likewise, we could argue --wrongly--that art depends upon a legal placement in a museum or gallery, in which case, money and wealth seem to define art, and that isn't fair, either. In other words, arguments of legality and arguments of money art moot.

    That leaves us with quality of art, complexity of message, nature of audience response, truth or honesty of expression. On which of these (if any) does graffiti qualify? I admit that most graffiti is an expression, but that is also like saying that all expressions are automatically art. Until graffiti somehow elevates our understanding of the world or ourselves, I am not prepared to call it art.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Graffiti on the new building are vandalism, bacause it destruct look of the building. Some graffiti are offensive and inappropriate text or drawing. Police should give much bigger fine for that. On the other hand some graffiti are beautiful and sometimes funny graffiti can amend our bad humor. This drawing can be in a special places or on walls. Graffiti are some kind of art which we can watch for free.

    ReplyDelete
  10. As everyone says it depends on what kind of graffiti it is and where we do it. I agree that painting some vulgarisms and strange sings it is a vandalism and we should bann it, but I think that graffiti could be art and it is really needed because it strikes to people who don't have opportunities to commune with art in every day life. And also this paintings have really valuable message like this: http://imgsrv.rock1061.com/image/wfxhf2/UserFiles/Image/Music%20&%20Art/Music%20&%20Art%207/I%20want%20change.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think graffiti is a form of art. For me it's something special, this is an example of street art, which every person can experience for free. Of course I'm not talking here about the forms of vandalism such as offensive subtitles on buildings or other. I mean really valuable 'images', in which you can really see the true artistic sensibility. For me it is something incredible that you one can create something that will be eye-attention on such a large area of the wall with the power spray. I think grafitii gives the city a new look and makes it more interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I never heard of Banksy before but I really like his work. His painting are really unusual and creative. It is different from graffiti I normally see. It is true art, but if someone paints on somebody’s property without his consent it is act of vandalism even if it is harmless.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I’ve never heard about Banksy but I have my own opinion about street artists anyway. I always appreciate their talent and the way they express themselves (or ideas they represent). Sure, I’m not telling about immature boys who are trying to change the definition of street art to the synonym of vandalism. No one likes shapeless and meaningless inscriptions on the walls. However, there are many other examples in which graffiti has a special message, hidden or clearly seen. In Warsaw you can find them a lot, that show, for example, the memory of soldiers from the Second World War. I can’t say it’s an act of vandalism, quite the opposite.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I really like Banksy work, because it's something diffrent then other artist. Sometimes his paintings are really beautiful. It's not vandalism, because a wall with his paintings looks much better than the empty one. Vandalismy is signing on buildings etc, but his work is really great.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Banksy work is an example of art but in my environment I don't meet such kind of the art. On the streets we may observe behaviours typical for vandalism and I think that government should find a solution to fight with young people who create a negative picture of our city. However, if are people like Banksy , their work should be appreciated. Moreover, the special places created for them could develop their creativity and give them opportunity to express themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Personally, graffity is vandalism because usually it presents really embarassing things and it makes me angry, it's some kind of lack of respect for public property. However, there are some artist like Banksy who do interesting and impressive works and I definitely admire his talent.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I can say that I totally love what Banksy does. He definitely is an artist, of course for me and in my definition of an artist. Above all, he has a great sense in choosing interesting and very actual topics for his works which often brings on discussion. We shouldn't consider creative, clever and beautifully done street art vandalism. It's just not right to compare artists such as Banksy to vandals whose main interest is to spoil someone's property or express their dissatisfaction in life with offensive words or symbols.

    ReplyDelete
  18. First time I heard about the phenomenon of Banksy was 5 years ago when I saw the film "Exit Through the Gift Shop". This is an extraordinary film about life of an extraordinary artist. The main difference between average street vandals's scribbles and the Banksy's compositions is the intention not just the aesthetics. Banksy wants to beautify the surrounding reality, wants to shock and ask questions. Unfortunately, our streets are full of ugly, vulgar phrases, but there are not an original, beautiful Banksy's and his followers's works.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I had never heard about him before but when I look at these pictures, I must say that he is an artist, because they are really great. Personally, I think that graffiti is a specific form of artistry, although many people say that it has nothing in common with the work of art. Every time I look at graffiti, I think that it is very difficult and somebody who creates them must be really talented artistically. Some time ago I even wanted to have graffiti on the wall in my room.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I like when art is presented in suitable place. With street art there is a problem because is making in public space. Street artist could destroy something by his art. It;'s thin board. Because someone could interpreted that like vandalism.
    In warsaw there is a lot of vandals and they made their graffiti on everything for example on train station. They destroy public space.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think that some part of graffiti is true art but on the other hand I have to compete with vandals who think that they are allow to express their love for their favorite football team on my walls - removing that statements is really expansive and it takes a lot of time. I think that there should be a lot of places where real artist like Banksy should be able to express themselves. They should remember that unlike other artists (performers, musicians, writers etc.) their work has a permanent influence on our public space and we have to agree what we want on the walls of the city we are living in.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I've also seen the movie about Banksy years ago. I was quite good. It shows how Banksy wants to make his surroundings nicer, more interesting. I do like art like that. Of course, I am not a fan of that type of art but I like it and I see that lots of people have an outstanding talent. I prefer colorful painted walls than drab buildings, especially in the city center. It is good and I think it should be allowed in public places, because it just makes a city more interesting. And saying that I don't think about a graffiti like a signature on the wall (or just renovated block of flats!), because things like that ARE act of vandalism. Graffiti is a symbol of modern art, modern approach to art. And people should have a possibility to express themselves (of course, in appropriate places :) )

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think that is a very thin line between art and vandalism. Looking at Banksy's murals I would say that this is rather art but it is because I like that sort of painting/graphics. If other artist who presents other style which is more abstract I may not be pleased with such a paintings on my block's walls. For me everything consider to quality and style of graffiti painter.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Single-sex education

A little bit of history Single-sex education was traditional and dominating form of education till 19th century. Almost all schools and universities were single sex, which in almost all cases meant – men’s schools. This situation started to change because of two reasons: emancipation of women (fight for equality) and introduction of massive education. The first mixed-sex boarding school in UK was formed in 1818, it was Scottish Dollar Academy, and in 1878 the first university- University College London, allowed women  to enter on equal terms with men. What is interesting, the first Cambridge collage, which admit men and women was founded only on  1964. Pros and cons The topic of single-sex education is quite controversial. Like always there are pros and cons, some of them are quite irrational, other have a scientific background. The most popular arguments for single-sex education: 1. Boys and girls are learning in the different way, so they need different progr
THE MOST TRUSTED  PROFESSIONS Many people say that their job is important for our society, but is it a trustworthy profession? A market research institute asked people about trustworthy professions. Here you will find its results. The Top Five Most Trusted Professions 1. Firefighters A 2009 poll conducted by market research institute GfK found that firefighters ranked as the most trusted profession in Europe and the United States with 92 percent of respondents fining them trustworthy. Perhaps it’s all in the job description—being required to step into the face of danger every time you head out for an assignment is not just admirable, it’s downright heroic. 2. Teachers In the same GfK poll that lauded firefighters, teachers ranked second with 83 percent. It’s a good sign considering that the people responsible for crafting the minds of our children are deemed trustworthy. “I think every teacher recognizes that they are part of a trusted profession—that parents

Does money spoil people?

Does money spoil people? There is a saying that ‘money spoils people’, which means that people who become rich also start being rude and nasty. Is this true or not? I do not like categorize people, all stories are different. Probably everyone knows someone who is rich and nice person, and someone who is wealthy and horrible…What can determine behaviour of these people? copyright:http://theundercoverrecruiter.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/money.jpg 1 .     First of all how they got their money. Some people are rich because they won the lottery and some of them because they are genius who made a discovery of new, brilliant solution. There are also ones who are rich because they inherit all wealth from their ancestors… It is not a rule, but I think that people who work hard for everything what they have are more stable and realistic than ones, who don’t need to do anything because they got everything for free (without dedication or hard work). They won’t probably understand