Becoming an 'artist'

[rexbobcat]

That's so meta.

 

[photoguy99]

That's so meta.

And yet, telling.

Banksy is an artist. The guys spraying graffiti on the plexi are not artists. What's going on? It is not because Banksy is officially declared an artist. He is an artist first, officialdom follows.

Banksy is an artist because the social consensus is that he is an artist. You and I might not think he's an artist, but the tastemakers do, and "the public" have followed along, and now the government installs plexiglass over the work, which seems to be inherently missing the point. Simply declaring that what you do is art is not enough. You have to convince others.

 

[rexbobcat]

It also depends on the value of the art both financially and intrinsically in the eyes of the masses. while Banksy's graffiti and the no-name graffiti might both be considered art, Banksy's art is worth more in name than the cleanliness of the wall or the other person's graffiti.

People would care about the sanitation of the exteriors of their neighborhood buildings until Picasso came up and wrote "Picasso wuz hear." Then, all of a sudden, nobody cares about the "cleanliness" of the neighborhood because holy crap it's Picasso.

Celebrity trumps sensibility

Fun anecdote: My family had an early 80's velvet Elvis that kept being regifted every Christmas for 10 years. It's art...arguably...But it's made by a guy without notoriety and it's kitsch, so the value of using it as a family in-joke is worth more than displaying it or trying to sell it.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

That's so meta.

And yet, telling.

Banksy is an artist. The guys spraying graffiti on the plexi are not artists. What's going on? It is not because Banksy is officially declared an artist. He is an artist first, officialdom follows.

Banksy is an artist because the social consensus is that he is an artist. You and I might not think he's an artist, but the tastemakers do, and "the public" have followed along, and now the government installs plexiglass over the work, which seems to be inherently missing the point. Simply declaring that what you do is art is not enough. You have to convince others.

So was Banksy an artist before everyone thought he was as holy as the pope's piss?

I'd say yes.. but then again I'd say that a 4 year old drawing their family as stick figures in front of a house is an artist as well; and don't get me wrong, I really like what your saying here. Particularly the statement: "Simply declaring that what you do is art is not enough." I agree.. It's not enough to do anything of use with, however, I just think that public opinion, while being an important part in decearning what art is successful and what art is not, doesn't decide what art actually is. My photographs are photographs, no matter how popular they are.

 

[Designer]

I stumbled upon a graffiti by Banksy just one block from my office. Since all marks left by Banksy on London walls are precious, the authorities covered it with protective plexiglass.
So we have some graffiti here vandalised by graffiti. All that is behind the glass is art. Everything that is on the glass and around it is not art. This is official.

Pardon me while I reach down and pick up my jaw from the floor.

Who the heck is in charge over there?

 

[W.Y.Photo]

I stumbled upon a graffiti by Banksy just one block from my office. Since all marks left by Banksy on London walls are precious, the authorities covered it with protective plexiglass.
So we have some graffiti here vandalised by graffiti. All that is behind the glass is art. Everything that is on the glass and around it is not art. This is official.

Pardon me while I reach down and pick up my jaw from the floor.

Who the heck is in charge over there?

Someone who likes to save things that are worth millions and millions of dollars that they technically own.

 

[Designer]

Sorry, mate, you get the big red "X" this time.

There is no logical reason whatsoever that these works should ever be worth anything, let alone "millions of dollars", and the idea that the municipality "owns" them is preposterous. Even if the paint is on "public property", which is extremely rare, their intrinsic value is hardly worth the paint to cover them over.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

Sorry, mate, you get the big red "X" this time.

There is no logical reason whatsoever that these works should ever be worth anything, let alone "millions of dollars", and the idea that the municipality "owns" them is preposterous. Even if the paint is on "public property", which is extremely rare, their intrinsic value is hardly worth the paint to cover them over.

Tourists buy 31K Banksy art for just 60 each New York Post

Just an example of what his smaller works go for... Imagine what a large piece like that could be sold for. If I owned a building Banksy did work on I would do the same thing because someone out there would be willing to buy that building off of me for literally millions of dollars.

The Art world is in a tizzy over Banksy right now. He's considered the best street artist of all time. So yes, his works hold an extremely large value. If you were handed the Mona Lisa today, but told you had to leave it outside would you leave it on an easel and ask other painters to paint all over it, or leave it behind glass to protect it from vandals and weathering?

There's also no logical reason a Bentley sells for a quarter of a million dollars, but it does, because its one of the best cars in its class and its a status symbol that had a lot of work put into it. The same thing goes for art.

 

[Designer]

Yeah, sure, just like rap is considered music. BS!

 

[W.Y.Photo]

Yeah, sure, just like rap is considered music. BS!