Banksy is a graffiti artist from Bristol. He is mostly a political activist and above all, he is against capitalism.
According to Banksy, big companies use advertisements in the street to “attack” people.
Nevertheless, his favourite place to practise his art is the street. Effectively, using the street as an art gallery, his productions are exposed in everyone's faces and he can explain his point of view in this way. In fact, he use the same methods as the big companies which he hates to follow his own advice!
So, should we consider his work to be art or vandalism?
It is true that the quality of his works is exceptional. His paintings are really well realized and the details are generally well shown. His messages are often clear and almost vindictive with lots of realism.
However, he practises his art without any authorisation and this fact is not acceptable. The owners of these walls are generally not responsible for the capitalism that he fights against so I think he is mistaken about his intentions.
If everybody started to paint anything anywhere, it's going to become a real mess in the street. In this case, society should support the cost of the cleaning and that would be counter-productive.
It could be better if some places were allowed in order for people to express their point of view. In this case, all artists like Banksy could practise their art legally. Unfortunately, this activity could not have the same impact!
In conclusion, I think painting on walls without any authorisation is definitively vandalism even if the quality of some of these graffiti is sometimes exceptional.
No comments:
Post a Comment