An interesting, though rather harsh (in my opinion) article on the art of Banksy and whether it's worth depends on the fame generated through it's "controversy" or if it can actually stand on its own feet separated from the celebrity of everything "banksy."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2013/feb/19/banksy-overrated-art?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
While i think the article brings up an interesting question, I don't know if I agree with the conclusion. The simple act of questioning art's worth is packed with opinion and pretentiousness, and when the art being spoken about is contemporary, I think people have a tendency to downplay it in regards to the "masters" no matter it's actual strength.
I think the better question would be to wonder whether the art holds the same interest and meaning if it was simply a gallery piece or does the life his work seems to get come from the "shared" feel of it all.
I think the author takes a bit of an elitist approach in deeming Banksy unworthy of the praise he gets...but I don't think he's completely off-base in wondering whether Banksy's work will stand up to time. On some levels the work seems like it's on par with other great statements, at others it just kinda seems "cool."
I think the discussion of Banky's work's durability is an interesting one and worth discussing, but to outright dismiss the guy because his work doesn't match up to the Mona Lisa, I think, simplifies and damages the overall argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment