As interesting as this is, the article doesn't talk about how art is valued and why. Instead, it takes the angle that Banksy was simply "putting one over" on the public and almost with a wearily sighed, "again." I don't think that this can really be said to be a mere prank, especially not when one considers Banksy's other work.

Banksy is often kind of whimsical and silly, but there is always that element of commentary even if it's not entirely clear what the comment is. This instance seems to be about the monetization of art and how people see the value of art as a commodity. This isn't to say that the man that bought four of the canvases simply to hang something on the walls of his new house should be looked down on, nor the woman who bought the pieces for her children. Both were simply looking for decoration rather than Banksy. Moreover, they were willing to buy it and in the woman's case, to buy it at the price they felt that it was worth without knowing that a famous artist produced it.

This brings up a heavily debated question in art: what is true of value? Is it the work, or is it the artist? If it is the work, then how can say, a Rothko be worth more than a Tomas Kinkade? If it is the artist, then of what real importance is a work as a physical object?