Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Suman Suhag's avatar

Millions of people think so. And I really don’t see that there is any other answer to that.

Sure, art isn’t a popularity contest. At its heart, it is about giving an audience an aesthetical experience or emotional reaction. It doesn’t need to be positive. If it’s intended to be ugly and revolting, and makes you go “Ew”, it achieved its purpose. If it’s intended to be beautiful and you find it ugly and revolting, it still achieved its purpose, because you still had an aesthetical reaction.

Banksy’s art uses a comparatively simple technique, and is quite stylised. It draws on poster art, it’s intended to be spray painted on walls, and it’s intended to evoke emotions using rather basic graphical elements. It’s more about juxtaposition – as he’s said himself, his art is designed to be quick to make, and can be as basic as “I plonk a traffic cone on the head of someone else’s statue and I’m done”.

I say it’s hugely successful at what it tries to do. It’s much more political than most art; the intended emotional reaction can arguably be described, in brief, as “fury that the world is a much worse place than it ought to be”. The artwork is extremely good at evoking that feeling. From that perspective alone, it’s a smash hit.

Personally, I also find it very aesthetically pleasing. I like to look at it. It might be stylised and basic, but another word for that is refined. If it were poetry, it’s like the collective corpus was made up of pastiches of The Iliad, tomes you’d not want to drop on your toes, or elaborate sonnets where you need to drag around a few reference works to just understand the allusions, and then there’s this one guy spray painting haikus everywhere.

Intellectual Finance's avatar

"Doing nothing is a strategy" might be the most counterintuitive piece of investing advice.

14 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?