People often decide whether they like something based on who else likes it, rendering taste a team sport. Pseudonymous British artist Banksy is a an example of an artist who gained notoriety in a uniquely modern way – through social media, word of mouth, and using infamy to gain popularity. However, many who are familiar with traditional art notice that the throngs of people who like Banksy might just be bandwagon fans.
A good artist creates an interesting idea and then visualizes it in a way that commands the viewer’s full attention. Banksy is a conceptual artist whose visual puns may, on the surface, appear sophisticated, but in actuality represent a third tier, third generation, Andy-Warhol-wannabe sensibility. The lack of depth in his creations leads me to believe he would make an excellent creative director at an advertising agency. His work is neat, cool and interesting – to a certain extent. That said, it simply does not provoke extended meditative thinking; there is nothing terribly marvelous about it.
My training tells me that a piece that demands a mere second of one’s attention does not deserve the label “good art.” But maybe art can be reduced to the equivalent of a 140-character tweet or a 6-second vine. In today’s visual culture, a person can see something, superficially understand it, and move on, unsure whether he or she saw art, advertising, or something in between.
Banksy’s work is witty, surprising, adequately sophisticated street art. Some say that you can take it at face value and I would certainly agree by virtue of the fact that it makes a dull street interesting. I am not arguing against his work; rather, I am saying Banksy does not belong in a category with truly great artists such as Francis Bacon, Philip Guston, Alice Neel and Egon Schiele, to name a few. At its best, Banksy’s work will have some sort of place in the archeology of New York City and London after the apocalypse.
