Michelle & Banksy

In response to the media’s obsession over “British graffiti artist and public prankster” Banksy’s anonymity, his artwork has gotten even more popular. The New York Time’s article, “In the Land of the Beautiful People, an Artist Without a Face” by Edward Wyatt, with its alluring man of mystery appeal title, already encourages the reader into questioning Banksy’s identity.

            Has Banksy’s work gotten the attention it deserves? Better yet, has his habit of not revealing himself in public turned into a horrible publicity ploy that intrigues the media more than the artwork itself? Due to the media, Banksy’s anonymity has become his assumed identity. This unseen but heard artist consistently critiques society and modern culture, in a style that is easily recognizable as his own voice. Banksy’s artwork becomes his identity, but alas the media fetishes upon his anonymity. Wyatt spends two paragraphs discussing the main attractions of Banksy’s latest show in Los Angeles, and the rest of the article is dedicated to the possible faces of Bansky. He may not give a face to his pseudonym, but he is far from silent and the traces of his presence do not go unnoticed.

            Banksy’s “pieces” may be seen as pranks or desecration of public property, but they are valid sources of social commentary that provide content and information to the public viewer. This content is located in the most perfect inappropriate places around cities and screams at its viewers. Why must Banksy need a spokesperson like Mr. Munnery to say he “request[s] the right to remain silent” when his works speak for him and themselves?

            I believe an artist should be able to communicate to a person through his artwork. Banksy’s popular “anonymity” illustrates his ability to let his guerilla art demand a presence within the public atmosphere even if he insists to remain “silent”.