• Banksy street artist emerges with new artwork and message in Gaza
    36 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47219131]How can it be any kind of challenge to understand Banksy's art It's so blatant and shallow, it can all be summed up as "Consumerism = Bad", "Rich people = Bad", or "War = Bad" There's no depth or thought put into any of them, it's trashy vandalism hyped up as some deeply thoughtful pretentious garbage[/QUOTE] It doesn't have to be deep it just has to be right. He's making fun of westerners for our apathy, while simultaneously telling us that our apathy only worsens the situation.
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47219131]How can it be any kind of challenge to understand Banksy's art It's so blatant and shallow, it can all be summed up as "Consumerism = Bad", "Rich people = Bad", or "War = Bad" [B]There's no depth or thought put into any of them, it's trashy vandalism hyped up as some deeply thoughtful pretentious garbage[/B][/QUOTE] [quote=banksy][B]Banksy became an international star in 2005. In August, he arrived in Israel, where he painted a series of images on the West Bank’s concrete wall, part of the barrier built to try to stop suicide bombers. Images of a girl clutching balloons as she is transported to the top of a wall; two stenciled children with bucket and spade dreaming of a beach; and a boy with a ladder propped against the wall were poignant meditations on the theme of escape.[/B] Two months after returning from Israel, Banksy’s London exhibition “Crude Oils” took the art of the subversive mash-up to new heights—Claude Monet’s Water Lilies reworked to include trash and shopping carts floating among lily pads; a street hooligan smashing the window depicted in a reimagining of Edward Hopper’s Night Hawks. A signature Banksy touch included 164 rats—live rats—skittering around the gallery and testing critics’ mettle. The riots in the Stokes Croft area of Bristol in spring 2011 offer a cautionary tale. The episode began after police raided protesters, who were opposed to the opening of a Tesco Metro supermarket and living as squatters in a nearby apartment. The authorities later said that they took action after receiving information that the group was making petrol bombs. Banksy’s response was to produce a £5 “commemorative souvenir poster” of a “Tesco Value Petrol Bomb,” its fuse alight. [B]The proceeds, he stated on his website, were to go to the People’s Republic of Stokes Croft, a neighborhood-revival organization. Banksy’s generosity was not universally welcomed. Critics denounced the artist as a “Champagne Socialist.” The irony, he added, that his anti-establishment art commands huge prices isn’t lost on him. “I love the way capitalism finds a place—even for its enemies. It’s definitely boom time in the discontent industry. I mean how many cakes does Michael Moore get through?” [/B] [B]While the value of his pieces soars, a poignancy attends some of Banksy’s creative output. A number of his works exist only in memory, or photographs. When I recently wandered in London, searching for 52 previously documented examples of Banksy’s street art, 40 works had disappeared altogether, whitewashed over or destroyed.[/B] [url="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/the-story-behind-banksy-4310304/?preview=&page=1"]source[/url] [/quote]
the cool stuff about this is actually going to the place and doing something, even if it's not impactful in the least to the people directly. I'm usually one to get mad about people fantasizing about how ~deep~ they think he is, but that's always been his M.O.- - reminding of obvious problems that the masses usually ignore (child labor, war's effect on youth, etc etc) - doing it in an easy to understand way (shallow metaphors and variations of common sayings) (really, [i]really[/i] shallow at times) - making sure it's heard with a medium that gets people riled up, because you get that polarized divide over "oh no it's graffiti illegally on someone's property what an asshole" vs "it's a famous person's [i]arte[/i] you can't just destroy it!" vs "you fucking mongs are forgetting about the child labor" he's obnoxiously to-the-point, but for good reasons. People need to understand he's doing it to keep you talking on issues, not just to be cool and deep. don't romanticize him more than you criticize the subjects he's pointing to
[QUOTE=Primigenes;47219258]I like this quote because for the most part, lots of people don't seem to understand that by not taking a side in a conflict in society (Can be whatever really) then whatever the status quo is at that period of time is something you're allowing to run rampant. I do understand why people may sometimes say they're neutral or they don't care but again if people don't fight for change then nothing will happen[/QUOTE] I don't want to involve myself in a conflict I do not understand well enough but I also have other things like work and studies to do so I have no time to educate myself on this matter. Why exactly is it bad to be neutral then? Yes, situation in Gaza sucks but I also have my own life to live and fight for. It's not about fighting or status quo or stuff, it's about priorities.
[QUOTE=arleitiss;47218689]I love Banksy's art, it's not your typical daily shit graffity on wall saying "Rap 4Eva" or some other kind of crap at which you just look at think - "oh god, fucking vandals" , when you look at Banksy's art you think - "....." trying to understand meaning of it and think about it, I often spend lots of time just looking at his art and understanding context of it.[/QUOTE] this is the kind of banksy fan that devalues street art that isn't trying to have deep meaning or societal value. it's dumb. banksy produces some great art. a lot of it is not so great, and a lot of it is really blown out of proportion much like the quotes and some pieces in the article [editline]26th February 2015[/editline] getting pretty tired of seeing people that probably know fuck-all about street art and the history behind it praising banksy as some kind of god among men. he's not a bad artist, but he doesn't make any other great artist worse
[QUOTE=Primigenes;47219258]I like this quote because for the most part, lots of people don't seem to understand that by not taking a side in a conflict in society (Can be whatever really) then whatever the status quo is at that period of time is something you're allowing to run rampant. I do understand why people may sometimes say they're neutral or they don't care but again if people don't fight for change then nothing will happen[/QUOTE] So why do you support the oppression of Tibetans by the Chinese, the rape and murder of innocents in Ghana and the Congo, and the forcible relocation of Native Americans to reservations? Or is verbally saying 'I'm against those things' while doing nothing whatsoever to actually address the problem enough slacktivism to be considered 'taking a side'? Nobody says it's rhetoric because they think problems are solved when nobody talks about them, they say it's rhetoric because it's emotional baiting that's applied inconsistently. Most people are neutral and uninvolved on an enormous number of issues because they A. aren't informed enough to form an opinion, B. aren't in a position to effect change, or C. don't want to take sides in a divisive conflict that they feel isn't their business. None of that is synonymous with supporting and enforcing the status quo.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.