With the opening of Dismaland, there's been a trend on some social media networks to badmouth Banksy. I went into this with a reasonably open mind - while I've seen and enjoy a lot of his pieces, I wouldn't consider myself an avid fan, and I was perfectly willing to listen to the arguments against him. If he were genuinely problematic, I'd prefer to know about it and inform myself. But the more I listened to other people's genuinely angry discourse, the more I felt like they were wrong. They bought up a variety of points, some which were nonsensical, and others which, while they had a very strong point, felt somewhat unfair to use as an attack on a person, when they were addressed to a culture as a whole. So, for my own benefit, I'm going to look at the key arguments against and explain why I feel this isn't a constructive movement to criticise both Banksy himself and the wider art world.
He's marketable and successful
On the surface, this almost makes sense. After all, his art is openly and repeatedly critical of capitalism and how it hurts people, so how can an artist profit from the system they despise? Except the problem is that we live in a capitalist society. You can't dismantle a system from within without using the tools of that system. In order to change anything, you need power. And for the most part, in a capitalist society, power comes from money. Now, you can be critical of what Banksy does with his money - does he use it as a force to help others or not? But I haven't seen anyone touch on this, possibly because of Banksy's own anonymity. However, while researching, I did come across this story of how he helped a homeless man who was displaced by his art. I'd like to believe that's typical of his actions, but I have no way of knowing for sure. Just as I have no way of knowing that he doesn't do more actions like this.
By being marketable, his art is getting into the hands of the people who should, by all rights, be the biggest proponents of capitalism. Banksy's works have been sold in Sotheby’s in London (extremely upper-class auction house for art). They were selling for hundreds of thousands of pounds. Not exactly pocket change for the buyer - this is the kind of money that could outright buy a house in most areas of the country. These are people who have greatly profited from capitalism buying anti-capitalist art...there's a certain level of irony there. His success has given his anti-capitalist ideas a platform that he wouldn't otherwise have had. You can bemoan the evils of capitalism all you like, but if no one listens, what's the point? This way, at least people have thought about his art, and maybe gone on to learn more and work towards making a change. Art is a starting point for discussion, but no one can discuss it if they never see it.
So at the end of the day, this is an argument that goes roughly: I don't like that this artist gets paid for his art. I don't like that his career is successful and that he can afford to support himself on the back of his art. And that feels like nonsense to me, especially when said by the same people who openly support artists, stop art theft and think artists should be paid reasonably for their work.
He's popular/He creates art that takes no skill
Much like the argument above, it attacks him personally for something he has fairly little control over. It also comes with the implication that there are other artists more deserving. But mostly it smacks of 'hipsterism' to me. Liking things because they aren't mainstream, even if that means abandoning artists once they achieve a level of notoriety. And that's ridiculous.
However, the implication that other artists deserve more attention is actually a good one. Because I can't argue. Art is subjective; people are never going to agree on who the most 'deserving' artist is. There are almost certainly artists with better ideas than Banksy, and greater technical skill than Banksy. It's not fair that he makes a lot of money off his work while others don't. It's not fair that there are artists who are living in abject poverty while he isn't. The world isn't fair.
If you really feel that strongly that other artists deserve more attention/exposure/money, then rather than hate on one artist, and tear him down, love on the artists you like. Elevate them up. Blog about their art. Buy their work. Recommend them to friends. Make a positive difference.
He creates art that's too easily accessible
I've seen this alarmingly often. It has the smack of artistic gatekeeping to me. My inability to agree with this argument is the same reason I really dislike a lot of modern art. I really hate what I feel is pretension around art. I have a degree in film, and I can't stand this. This is a very personal one for me, and I'm fully willing to admit I'm wrong on this point.
Basically, if you have a message in your art, and it's an important message, why would you ever want to make it more difficult to understand?
Modern art is apparently full of hidden depths and means. I use the word 'apparently', as I wouldn't have guessed without reading the caption besides the piece. There's actually a lot of pieces that I wouldn't have guessed were art without reading the captions besides the pieces. That's okay. I've long known most modern art isn't for me. I'm still convinced that the modern art world is something of an 'emperor's new clothes'-style delusion, and that by interpreting new 'meanings' to a piece, we somehow aren't meant to see its lack of skill or originality or intent.
All this means that I really don't mind that an artist's work is easy to understand. At least I am sure that they had a meaning and a driving force behind creating it.
He is celebrated for making art when other artists (predominantly black) are criminalised for exactly the same thing/He's white and male
This is a genuine problem. It's racism, and it's all kinds of hypocrisy to reward one person for their behaviour, while criminalising the other, based solely on the colour of their skin. However, this is a cultural problem, not an individual one. This isn't helped by attacking the artist who benefits. Bring up an awareness of it, definitely. Point it out. But you don't need to be hostile towards the people who can't control it.
Again, take constructive actions. Get involved in politics. Write letters to politicians. Form petitions. Raise awareness. On smaller levels, look into local arts projects and see how they systematically exclude certain types of people. Raise awareness of gentrification of areas and what that means for many types of people. Notice who profits from the system being organised in this way.
Banksy made graffiti art popular and a lot of businesses are employing artists to decorate their buildings as a result. But they predominantly only want graduate artists. Why? It systematically cuts out a large proportion of artists. Write to them. Ask why they wouldn't hire an artist who hasn't been lucky enough to afford a degree. Put pressure on them to change.
He built an art exhibition on that site when he could have done something useful, like build a home for poor people
He's an artist. He has the skills and experience and contacts needed to set up an exhibition. I doubt he does have the relevant contacts to get a building planned, approved and built. Even if he did, the cost of a safe, permanent building would be many times more expensive than a temporary 5 week exhibition, much of which is outdoors.
Even setting that aside - Dismaland has drawn people from all over the world to go to Weston-Super-Mere. That's insane. For those who don't know, Weston-Super-Mare used to be a popular seaside town before budget holidays meant you could go to Spain as easily and cheaply. Now it's a rundown town with a small population and a sizeable drug problem. It's not a place you travel to, you travel through it. I've gone through Weston-Super-Mare more times than I can count, but I've never stopped there. And now people from all over the world want to go there. Not to mention that where there are people, there's money. Dismaland is estimated to result in £6 million being spent in the area from the influx of people. An extra £6 million in 5 weeks. That's phenomenal. That's actually going to make a good deal of difference to a lot of local businesses in the area.
If he'd built housing there, even assuming that he got planning permission to build a permanent structure and everything else that's so unrealistic: how many people would have benefited? Maybe 4000, in a block of flats. How long would the benefits have lasted for? Who would be responsible for maintaining the housing? How are the people who're going to live there going to eat? What jobs are available in the area? It's run-down and has very little industry. It would be a temporary fix to a very longterm and complicated problem.
-------------
In short: are any of these reasons worth attacking an individual over? By all means, don't like his art. Discuss the issues surrounding the art. No art exists in a vacuum, and it's good to have these discussions. But can't we be civil about it? Can't we just have the courage to say we dislike something, without personally attacking the creator for it? Or can we at least direct the anger to where it actually belongs - upwards.
One last point that I didn't feel were relevant to any particular argument, but relevant as a whole:
Dismaland isn't filled with Banksy's work. He has 10 pieces in there. He's displaying work from other artists, including people of colour, and if anything, he's using his name as a way of promoting the exhibition. I can virtually guarantee you that only the most dedicated of art buffs would have trekked out to Weston-Super-Mare for an art installation if his name hadn't been attached, and it wouldn't have attracted national news, let alone international news.
No comments:
Post a Comment