The world renown English graffiti artist, Banksy, is finishing up his one month “artist residency” in New York City. His month-long public art project, called “Better Out Than In”, has featured a new piece daily somewhere in the boroughs of NYC. These pieces have included a man holding a weeping bouquet of flowers spray painted onto the garage door of a strip joint, a replica of the Spinx of Giza made from smashed cinder blocks in Queens, and a graffiti depicting the twin towers on the side of a brick building in Tribeca.
While some of Banksy’s pieces have been well received by the public, many have been called acts of vandalism and have been disrespected by other street artists. Banksy’s depiction of a red heart balloon on the side of a building in the Red Hook neighborhood of Brooklyn was defaced soon after Banksy had completed the piece. The offender used red spray paint to scribble over the depiction of the balloon, thus effectively destroying the piece. Unfortunately, this incident was not the only instance of vandalism. Other pieces in Brooklyn and in other parts of the city were defaced by angry street artists, sometimes in broad daylight of a watching audience.
Some people might be confused as to why artists in the same profession as Banksy are disrespecting his work. While both graffiti artists and Banksy make public art, it seems that graffiti artists see Banksy’s graffiti as associated with gentrification. Graffiti is typically associated with crime and disorder, yet Banksy’s work appeals more to upperclass ideals of art appreciation. Banksy is what one would call a “street artist” as opposed to a true graffiti artist. His art goes against the values of New York City’s graffiti artists, and thus they feel no guilt from defacing his pieces. Graffiti artists also have a strong sense of “my turf versus your turf”. They believe that the Englishmen Banksy is intruding on their space and receiving the recognition that they have been striving for their whole lives. In a sense, they think that he is stealing their spotlight with his more “mainstream” street pieces.
The New York City graffiti artists are not the only group that disapproves of Banksy’s art. While New York’s Mayor Bloomberg claims that he is a big supporter of the arts, he does not view what Banksy is doing as true art. Bloomberg described Banksy as a vandal and stated that the city would not hesitate to remove his public pieces. In fact, a city worker was spotted removing one of Banky’s pieces with power tools. The New York Police Department is also on the lookout for Banksy. On October 23rd, Banksy was forced to suspend his art making for the day. Banksy took to instagram to inform people of his forced hiatus caused by police activity in the area. Since part of Banksy’s allure is his anonymity, the police discovering his true identity could jeopardize his career.
The citizens of New York seem equally as unappreciative of Banksy’s works. One of Banksy’s installations this month included a road side stall that was selling his art for a mere $60 a piece. While this may not seem inexpensive for a street stall, it is important to keep in mind that some of his pieces sell for well over $1 million. Banksy’s stall was set up in Central Park with about sixty canvases, yet he only sold five all day. Does this mean people only give value to his work when his name is attached to it and the piece is placed in an unconventional setting? Is the value of his art then in the design or just in the mystery behind the figure of Banksy?
This stall experiment seems to provide evidence that people only appreciate Banksy’s work when his name is attached to it. In this way, Bloomberg’s argument that Banksy doesn’t produce true art may hold some truth to it. If people cannot appreciate the purely aesthetic or moral qualities in Banksy’s work, then is his art anything other than an entertaining, rebellious spectacle? Does his public audience see any value other than novelty in his works? If Banksy’s pieces are in fact more novelty than art, then perhaps Bloomberg and the police have a point in wanting him out of the city. If an artist needs to vandalize public places in order to get the public’s attention and appreciation, then maybe his works aren’t effective in their own right.