REVISIT SERIES -
An edited post from October 2014
I find it interesting the way that the media gets in a state of outrage when someone defaces a Banksy artwork. It feels a touch hypocritical. The image shown here has according to Wikipedia been 'defaced by a paintball gun’. Actually the 'defacing' is quite effective as it looks as if someone has shot at the people with a paint gun, which itself could be interpreted artistically (in fact, I didn't know it was 'defaced' until I looked it up). Admittedly if all someone does is scrawl a tag over it, it's not a great contribution. But even so, I'm not sure we have any right to complain. The artists in question need to expect that their audiences may abandon the reverence that is adopted by the audience for traditional art.
This occurred to me when a friend was describing attending a play at Bristol's fairly avant garde Old Vic Theatre. Apparently the performance was of a Samuel Beckett radio play, and as Beckett had specified it should never be staged, they told the audience that they had to wear blindfolds. Thinking about this, I realised that my immediate reaction, had I been in the audience, would have been to have cheated and taken the blindfold off once they got started. Because once you break the rules as an artist, why should your audience be forced to stick to rules? It seemed to me that it was just as acceptable for me as an audience member - as art, if you like - to take off my blindfold as it was for the performers and/or the late Mr Beckett to insist that I wear it.As I wasn't there, I don't know how the artists would have reacted. I do know that on other occasions when the audience has not behaved as expected, the answer has been 'not very well.' This was certainly the case in one of the early performances of one of Stockhausen's more approachable pieces, Stimmung. In the piece, lasting about an hour, a cappella performers sing a single chord. However, it is a genuinely interesting piece because they vary how they sing the notes throughout - using different octaves, sounds and words, tones - I rather like it. At the performance in question, the audience members started to join in, singing in their own notes in the chord. Now, to me, that's brilliant.
In an ordinary concert, this would have been disruptive. But given the way Stimmung (it means 'tuning' by the way) corrupts and opens up the form, it seemed both a natural and creative thing to do. Yet Stockhausen was apparent furious and stopped the performance. It might be structured disorder and chaos, but it had to be his structured disorder and chaos. Which makes you wonder, is this about art, or is it about ego? Who was to say that the version with the audience joining in wasn't better? It was certainly likely to have been more enjoyable for them.
So to Banksy. It's interesting that a Metro article on a different modification was titled New Banksy artwork attacked by vandals. It would have been just as accurate, but would underline the potential hypocrisy better, had it been headed New Banksy graffito has more graffiti added. Interestingly, in the case of Banksy, the motivation for the hypocrisy is likely to be more about money, now his pieces are worth a lot, rather than about ego. But even so there is something here that really gets to heart of what art is and what art isn't.
What is the difference between Banksy spraying on a wall and someone else? Because Banksy's art looks prettier? That's hardly a good way of making a distinction in modern art. No one ever accused a Tracy Emin piece of being pretty. Neither is the fact that Banksy's picture takes more skill that the other graffiti artist's scrawl - if you make that suggestion I have two words for you. Jackson Pollock. Does something have to have a message to be art? Arguably the 'vandalism' graffiti have more of a message (however unwanted) than this particular Banksy. As far as I can see, the only difference is that Banksy's graffito was witty. But is that enough? Should that really transform vandalism into art?
Don't get me wrong, I like Banksy's work. I think it genuinely is art. But I suggest that it underlines the way we need to get the skill back into modern art. Banksy is very skilful. His work looks good and gets the message across. It shouldn't be enough that any old tat can be interpreted as art if you give it the right label. A true artist needs more than that. Otherwise, perhaps, he or she is just a piss artist.
Intrigued at the thought of Stimmung? Take a listen (darkened room and medication recommended):
Image by the author
These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee:
See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
A lot to unpack here. But let’s start with this: “Should that really transform vandalism into art?”
ReplyDeleteI take issue with “ vandalism”. Vandalism is a loaded word, suggesting destruction rather than creation. One might argue that the perps ( see how I did that??) ARE making a statement about the target for destruction , if it is symbolic, let’s say, of oppression of a minority. But the impulse is to deface or destroy, rather than create- to make something new from disparate inputs, if you like. Graffiti is an ancient form of, often, protest, found in Pompey, eg. Spraying paint can be graffiti ( which has become an art form when other than random) but is, in your example, an act of destruction. Banksy clearly creates. One has appeared next to Kew Bridge. The placing, using the architectural features of the building, is part of the work - a mountain goat perched on a ledge with bits of rock tumbling down. It’s witty, well-executed and unique. It’s also been rapidly protected with a Perspex screen!
So, no, not hypocrisy. Not rationalised, perhaps, but I think people know the difference when they see it.