Flibbertigibbet

Banksy

Now and then the vandal alleged to be an artist that goes by the pseudonym "Banksy" crosses my field of view and my curiosity is momentarily piqued.

Last night, I attended another art show by a young New York artist. I had seen his work before and I am sad to say that his earlier work shows far more promise than his later stuff, which could almost make interesting t-shirt designs.

People attend art show openings for the free booze. At the last show, I was standing in line to get a free martini and someone commented about a particular painting of the Brooklyn Bridge. They liked it.

I said, "I think you've chosen well; that one does show the greatest 'artistic' (I put gentle air quotes around that word) merit. The most interesting aspect is his combination of the cezannesque distortion of perspective there with the broken horizon line and the pop-art -- even lichtensteinian -- technique. I think he should explore this technique further and consider taking it back to its folk art roots by playing with pattern."

The crowd backed away slowly. I think they were afraid I was about to ask them if they could spare a dime.

I don't like pop-art and most of Cezanne's work warrants a strong dose of dramamine, but I figure if we're going to be pretentious and stand around in all black, sipping martinis, someone should at least pay some consideration to the things on the wall. And I'm a show-off.

My other comments about this particular artist's work weren't nearly so generous, but I kept those between me and my catty friend who was with me. I think I said something about "vapid" and "socially irrelevant" and "aesthetically stupid."

By coincidence Mister Bookworm and I were talking about Banksy earlier in the day. He sent me this article from the New Yorker.

Sometimes "Banksy" is very right.

Banksy agreed to answer some questions over e-mail. He was wryly eloquent, but his banter seemed less playful than it has in the past. “I don’t think art is much of a spectator sport these days,” he began. “I don’t know how the art world gets away with it, it’s not like you hear songs on the radio that are just a mess of noise and then the d.j. says, ‘If you read the thesis that comes with this, it would make more sense.’ ”

Most of the time he's not.

The things he's most famous for are vandalism and I think, regardless of any merit one may ascribe to it, he should be punished for it.

He does do canvases, though. Garbage.

Banksy and I are both surprised that people buy it.

I think the artist I went to see is terrible, but at least he has a certain innocence to him. He thinks his work is cute, fun, interesting. He's proud of it.

Banksy is malicious and vile because he knows that what he's doing is garbage. But he keeps doing it. And he continues to do it. Anonymity aside, he's proud of the mess he makes.

Instead of rebelling against the art world by producing garbage, why not produce art that is actually really, really good?

It's been done, I guess. Shit isn't any good if it's the same shit day after day, right, Banksy?