While I was cruising around the Guardian website this morning I came across this post from arts & culture journalist/blogger Jonathan Jones. In the post Jones talks about his brief and impish consideration of nominating graffiti-artist Banksy for the Turner prize. First I suppose I should explain that the Turner prize is a pretty high profile art award that celebrates an outstanding British artist under the age of fifty, it also comes with some kind of monetary prize (£40,000 according to Wikipedia, which, as we all know, never lies). What made me raise an eyebrow initially was that Jones has always been a pretty vocal critic of Banksy’s work, so for him to even entertain this consideration was not what I would have expected to read. Luckily, the universe quickly righted itself and Jones said he quickly tossed the idea aside. Now, I don’t have any problem with that, he’s well within his rights to like and nominate whoever he damn well pleases, there’s no accounting for taste after all, especially in the art world. What I did strongly disagree with was what Jones wrote when he was articulating his reasons for not putting Banksy’s name forward:
“Anyway, I believe in education. The reason I don’t like street art is that it’s not aesthetic, it’s social. To celebrate it is to celebrate ignorance, aggression, all the things our society excels at. For middle class people to find artistic excitement in something that scares old people on estates is a bit sick.”
My first reaction would be that I don’t think street art is ignorant so much as it’s subversive. Well, allow me to amend that statement, some of it is subversive and not ignorant. I will be the first to admit that random defacement of street signs or indiscriminate posting of tags or gang signs is for the most part pretty ignorant, but I would also argue that such things aren’t street art but just graffiti. Real street art, meanwhile, is subversive and not ignorant, and I would say that while Banksy isn’t the end-all and be-all of street art (nor would I expect him to claim he is), his work certainly is street art. To say that his work (or street art in general) is ignorant and aggressive is to attempt to trivialize and demean it, and worse than that, it’s wholly inaccurate and unfair.
Looking at Banksy’s work specifically, I would say that it falls into two categories, that which is politically charged and markedly anti-establishment, and that which is merely mischievous (and still pretty anti-establishment). I would like to think that the picture at the top of this post is pretty characteristic of what his work looks like when it falls into the latter of these two categories (I took it on Melrose Ave. in Hollywood for those who are curious). While it doesn’t carry much of a political message, I certainly wouldn’t call it aggressive or overly ignorant so much as I would call it playful. Even if you were to take to take some leaps of faith and describe it as being ignoranct, it’s ignorant in a pretty harmless “slacker-uprising” kind of way (and I personally would call it more aesthetic than social). Now, I can understand it not being Jones cup of tea. I can even understand how he can look at such pieces in Banksy’s body of work and describe social but lacking social value. However, I don’t see anyway this description could fit when describing Banksy’s more political work, it is without a doubt both aesthetic and social (just stay with me here), but with a strong emphasis on social value. It is precisely because of this that I think Jones is very much in error, both about Banksy and street art as a whole.
In it’s very name street art is working class and proletarian in nature, that is to say that it’s of the streets. As such, I find it interesting that Jones should choose to bring class into the discussion. When he describes middle class enjoyment of Banksy’s work as “sick” or talks about it frightening the elderly, what he’s unintentionally channeling is the anti-establishment undercurrent to the art, its impatience with injustice and expressions of societal angst. I mean, what other than the middle class and elderly could possibly better serve as a tangible representation of the status quo? Now I’ll admit that street art often aims to disrupt, or at least interrupt, the status quo– what’s ironic, though, is that it’s precisely such tones of frustration and rebellion that gives street art, and Banksy’s work specifically, most of its value.
If you take a closer look at Banksy’s more political works you will see that it’s not celebrating ignorance and aggression in society, but rather it is railing against it. Like all good street art it’s the manifestation of a working-class feeling of helplessness, of frustration at being overlooked, it’s giving a voice to those who might not otherwise be heard. What we are then celebrating is not society’s ignorance and aggressiveness, but rather it’s independence and durability, its stubborn refusal to quit and continued ability to strive for more (and these things are universal, kids). There are many better examples of this (many of which can be found here on Banksy’s official website), but not wanting to violate copyright law I’m only going to post photographs that I’ve taken myself. Still, I think that the photo below can serve as an excellent example of the point I’m attempting to illustrate.
This is a piece that was up in New York City in the fall of 2008 (I’m pretty sure it has been painted over now). I wonder how could this possibly be interpreted as anything other than a sad and frustrated statement against the culture of greed and injustice in America? Look at the image of the trademark Banksy rat in a power suit, blood on his hands, briefcase spilling money into the air, his message of apathy scrawled on the wall. If you place this in the context of the failing American economy, where millions of people are losing jobs, and remember that it was largely caused by greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street, than the statement that the piece is trying to make is pretty clear. Sure it may be a bit frightening to the establishment, but it’s only frightening because the image is so powerful and because it calls attention to the failings of the establishment, its greed and its disinterest in the well being of the common man. Is it a little aggressive? Maybe. Is it justified? Probably. Does it have social and artistic value? Undoubtedly.
Art created by the working class has often lacked understanding from the “mainstream” at it’s inception. Blues music, pop art, much of independent cinema, hip hop music, all of these things took time before they were appreciated certain portions of so-called high culture. That didn’t make the work any less important or any less beautiful, though. I would argue that this is also the case with street art. Banksy’s work may not always be an example of the best street art has to offer, but it’s often very smart and is certainly the highest profile example at the moment, and as such it deserves some recognition and credit. Jonathan Jones may not get it, but somehow I think most good street artists would trade recognition and accolades for their work serving to generate discussion and maybe even change. I suppose in that sense the mission has already been accomplished.
I suggest that anybody who is interested follows the link above to Banksy’s website and decide for themselves. His work in Palestine includes some of my favorite pieces.
Read Full Post »
Hollering Into the Void 