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.