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?

I don't think it's possible to separate the work and the artist. The work is an extension of the artist in the same way a child is an extension of its mother. Two pieces may be equally beautiful to you, but if one is done by Goya and the other by a college age art student, I can guarantee you that you will hold the Goya with more reverence (disclaimer: there's nothing in the world I want more than a signed Goya or Rembrandt print; I shall have one of each sooner or later). Looking at a piece of art where you know something about the artist (Where did he grow up and when? What was he thinking of when he made the piece? How does this compare to the rest of his work and to those of his contemporaries?) gives so much more depth than just "what does this look like to me?"

Banksy is Banksy not just because he makes crazy awesome street art. There are many artists who make awesome street art. Banksy has a persona and a cause and forces all of his admirers to ask themselves why they value art (as if that's even a question that can be answered intelligibly). He's a transcendent artist in that regard, I think. He's bigger than any piece he creates, and he's aware of this fact, the fact that he can print money, something typically reserved for only the most revered artists. The difference is the rest of them want to protect their brand, whereas he wants everyone to realize the silliness and arbitrariness of the art scene. Amazing person, IMHO.