Lauren, Banksy, and TDCA

Banksy

Banksy is an interesting figure, and not just because he works anonymously. The fact that he specializes in graffiti and performance art that breaks laws is what makes him interesting to me. Here in the US, we’ve had cases recently about grafitti taggers being shot in the act, and some people think that’s acceptable because the owner is protecting their property. It makes me wonder…I enjoy Banksy’s work and I love his sense of humor, but I think he gets a free pass because his work is quality and his concepts are evocative. I admit, I’m a bit conservative when it comes to grafitti and vandalism—I think it’s a crime that should be prosecuted. But I really like Banksy’s work because it’s not just scrawling his name on a wall a dozen times. It’s not ugly, it’s not obnoxious. It’s funny, clever, and decorative. Yet ultimately, there is no difference between what he does and what a “bad” vandal does. I’m not sure if it’s inspiring that we can give something as culturally “low” as graffiti a value if it’s well done enough, or if it’s a little insulting that we are so judgmental about something’s worth depending on who does it. People will argue that Banksy’s work is art simply because he’s Banksy.


TDCA

This reading raised the issue of what purpose art has in the public, and what the artist’s responsibilities are in communicating to the public. To begin with Serrano’s “Piss Christ”, there are a few different thoughts that cross my mind. I do not think art should be limited, but I do believe that anyone who creates art they know will be offensive is, as Mr. Helms put it, a jerk. Shock value has no artistic integrity, and although Serrano’s piece can be explained and interpreted in a conceptually interesting and perhaps even acceptable manner, that is not the reaction the majority of people who see it will have. And it is evident. I strongly dislike people who do things just to get a knee-jerk reaction; trying to explain away that petty attention-mongering with grandiose meaning is both insulting and pointless. Art like Serrano’s pisses me off (no pun intended), and it’s not because my faith is insulted--I’m an atheist and I wish religious folks would stop acting so affronted every time their faith is questioned or put in a bad light. But I’m insulted by Serrano’s work nonetheless, because it insults my own integrity as an artist and degraded the validity of art as a means of communication.

It comes down to communication. Weber made some very good points about the responsibility and challenge a mural artist has to be both universal and community-specific in their works. In other words, they must be sensitive to how their art speaks to others. That sensitivity needs to be considered by all artists, not just muralists. We create art in order to communicate, and we need to be aware of how our work will be interpreted by different people. I refuse to believe Serrano was unaware that his “Piss Christ” wouldn’t offend people. He wasn’t making a statement, he was just trying to get some attention. Unfortunately, some fine art is currently at a place where offensive means effective--a pity indeed. Why communicate when you can insult?