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?
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.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?
Oh, I don't disagree. In fact, I would be willing to bet that one of the reasons he uses stencils and the medium of street art as his vehicle for high art is that very idea that separating the work from the artist is, if not impossible, very very difficult. This is something that Duchamp played with extensively with his readymades, which still upset and even anger people. I have to wonder what it might have been like for artists like Duchamp or Magritte if they'd been born in the era of streetart, computer manipulation and the internet.
I think Duchamp would have had a ton of fun with the internet. I think Dali would have found a way to make even more money with ridiculous stunts and frauds. Not sure about Magritte. I have seen a few exhibits of his, and I think he creates fantastic imagery, but I can't profess to know too much about him and his motivation. I think Banksy read the Fluxus Manifesto (pictured below) and thought to himself, "Well these guy were right, but why did that have to create such shitty art?" So he decided to do something about it.
Haha, it often seems like those that write manifestos end up creating shitty art, or art that doesn't really appeal to many people. Ideas and execution need balance. That balance is struck through feel and feedback. It's tough to get good feedback when you've issued a manifesto that is likely to provoke strong opinions about what you may yet create.
Your comment made me think of this quote from TED talks are lying to you posted yesterday. The quote talks about "creativity" but I think in this context it could be replaced by "value" since creativity is what we value in contemporary art (and to a lesser degree now - skill but that's a whole other debate). The "consumer" of the art decides of its value. Basic economic principles of supply and demand apply to art, except that for art we could talk about first degree price discrimination, which makes it a bit more adapted to each individual's tastes and expectations.Using Vincent van Gogh as an example, the author declares that the artist’s “creativity came into being when a sufficient number of art experts felt that his paintings had something important to contribute to the domain of art.” Innovation, that is, exists only when the correctly credentialed hivemind agrees that it does. And “without such a response,” the author continues, “van Gogh would have remained what he was, a disturbed man who painted strange canvases.” What determines “creativity,” in other words, is the very faction it’s supposedly rebelling against: established expertise.
That quote stood out to me too. I think that "skill" could be replaced with "execution", since both are expressions of taste, which is something that can only be cultivated, not meaningfully "improved upon", but I take your point. I feel like expectation is a big part of this too, but I'm not sure my ideas on that are solid enough to talk about.The quote talks about "creativity" but I think in this context it could be replaced by "value" since creativity is what we value in contemporary art (and to a lesser degree now - skill but that's a whole other debate).
Not trying to be flippant about the value of art, it's a tough question, but I can say up front that I would seriously consider spending all the money in my bank account (which isn't much to be fair) if Banksy would graffiti my house. I also don't have a house, I rent, so this is a double 'if'. But you get the point.
That doesn't sound flip in the context of you responding to what I wrote. It does make me curious though. Since you put it forward, can you identify what it is that would make that worth it to you? I expect that if there were a pool of people who were also willing to give all their money to Banksy to turn their houses into art, that there would be a variety of answers.
I think I can. The word that comes to mind is 'unique'. It would separate my (hypothetical) run-of-the-mill house from the masses, make it mine for a reason -- and it would energize me every single time I walked in the door. Spending time in my house would be that much more beautiful, and that's totally unquantifiable. (A bit similar to the difference between getting home every night to a TV dinner and a football game, or getting home to a wife and kids, if I may be so dramatic.) So it's not the value of the art, exactly. I'm trying to figure out in my brain if graffiti by a different artist would have the same impact -- I'm mentally replacing Banksy's art with some of my favorite Austin street murals, this is kind of fun actually -- and I've decided it totally would. But Banksy's street art is gorgeous and thought-provoking, so you know what you're getting. Hope that answers a bit.
So it's not the value of the art, exactly. That does answer the question and I actually think that given your answer, for you it is about the value of the art, though not in terms of financial value but rather in terms satisfaction via quality of experience.The word that comes to mind is 'unique'. It would separate my (hypothetical) run-of-the-mill house from the masses, make it mine for a reason -- and it would energize me every single time I walked in the door. Spending time in my house would be that much more beautiful, and that's totally unquantifiable. (A bit similar to the difference between getting home every night to a TV dinner and a football game, or getting home to a wife and kids, if I may be so dramatic.)