You must have noticed that as prices rise on this mad planet of ours, values
descend. I keep reading things that convince me the art world has gone
completely bonkers. The other day, the record producer David Geffen sold a
Jackson Pollock for $140m. Yes, $140m, or £73m. For a painting. I admire
Jackson Pollock as much as any man, but in a world where a qualified nurse
in Yorkshire earns £17,900 per year, no painting, whoever it is by, should
ever cost £73m. The amount of money being spent on art today has passed
through the realms of mere obscenity and entered the previously uncharted
universe of cosmic insanity.
To my eyes, the least likely participant in this insane orgy of acquisition is
the graffiti artist Banksy. How Banksy, this rebellious Robin Hood of the
spray can, the rebel from Bristol who started smearing graffiti onto passing
trains at the age of 14, managed to get himself sucked into the mad
whirlpool of contemporary art prices is possibly the weirdest art mystery of
the 21st century so far. In his own terminology, Banksy is supposed to be a
guerrilla artist. His shtick is supposed to be dodging the police and
illegally depositing amusing examples of graffitied agitpop around the city
at night. He’s an outlaw, a system-smasher, a thorn in the Establishment’s
side, the painting Pimpernel.
Yet at the London auctions last month, a Banksy spray-painting called Bombing
Middle England went for £102,000, a new auction record for him. The next
day, another piece went for £96,000. In LA a couple of months ago, Angelina
Jolie spent £200,000 or so on his work. Brad Pitt collects him too. As do
Keanu Reeves and Jude Law.
All this is deeply confusing, of course, not just in the Middle England that
Banksy is supposed to be bombing, but out here, too, in the unaligned
sections of the thinking art world. Banksy’s progress has now reached that
dangerous and fascinating point where separating the facts about him from
the fictions is becoming really difficult. There was a story in the papers
recently claiming that Prince Harry had commissioned a Banksy to give to
Chelsy as a token of his love. According to the artist’s website, this is
untrue. Which is a relief. But did I think it was impossible the moment I
read it? I certainly did not.
Which is why I ventured into Knightsbridge last week, turned left past
Harrod’s, went down Pont Street, past Louis Vuitton, past Hermãs, veered
right onto Walton Street, past the Meissen porcelain shop, till I reached
the Andipa Gallery, the only gallery in London designed in the Spanish
pueblo style, where, believe it or not, they currently have a Banksy show.
Six months ago, this would have been shocking. Not any more.
The type of art Banksy makes — agitpop — is probably the grooviest sector of
the art market right now. Agitpop is protest art with a smile on its face.
Red Nose rebellion. Comic Belief. A typical Banksy will show two furtive
squaddies in combat gear painting a peace sign on a wall in Iraq. Make ’em
smile and you’ll make ’em think, seems to be the strategy of the
agitpopster. And, in fiscal terms at least, it’s working terribly well.
The Andipa Gallery is offering lots of Banksys for up to £70,000 a picture.
That’s what is being asked for a stencil of a protester throwing flowers at
the police, produced in an edition of 25. Laugh Now and Keep It Real, two
spray paintings of monkeys holding up signs, are both on sale for £50,000.
Kids on Guns is also from an edition of 25, and costs £45,000. You do the
maths.
But just in case Banksy sues me — the richer our artists become, the more
litigious they seem to grow — I should immediately point out that he himself
is not responsible for the Andipa exhibition, or its image-ruining decor, or
its price scales. When he found out I was reviewing the show, he e-mailed me
this message: “If I was conspiracy-minded, I’d say this was a plot to
destroy my last shred of credibility. But then I do a good enough job of
that myself.”
My guess is that the gallery started vacuuming up his prints when his prices
began rocketing and is now selling them on at a handy profit, as galleries
do. While I was there, I overheard a fascinating conversation on this very
topic between the chap behind the desk and a potential Banksy buyer. The
gallery guy was adamant that it is wrong to think of the huge sums being
charged for Banksy as unreasonable, because all that is happening is what he
called “positive catchup”. Come again? “Banksy’s prices are being pushed up
at this accelerated rate in order to catch up to where they should really be
in the market.” So the real mystery of Banksy is not why his work costs so
much today, but why it cost so little yesterday, when nobody had heard of
him. I love it.
The truth here is that everyone is squirming. Banksy is squirming because his
work has been robbed of its rightful meaning by its abrupt transformation
into chic gallery fodder. The gallery is squirming because, although it
might enjoy shifting all these pictures, no amount of gallery insouciance
can disguise the fact that among the enemies being attacked by Banksy is the
gallery system itself.
His chief achievement, and I believe it to be a mammoth one, was finding a way
to operate so successfully outside the art world. That striking image that
went up overnight on the walls of the Roundhouse, of the black maid lifting
up a wall and sweeping stuff under the carpet, wasn’t just a witty
encapsulation of the Aids situation in Africa, it was also a terrific piece
of urban design that used the city as its gallery.
Banksy fans will recognise most of the images here from their subversive
original appearance on the streets or in those interestingly makeshift shows
he mounts. There’s Queen Victoria sitting on a lap-dancer’s head. There’s
Mickey Mouse and Ronald McDonald leading the napalmed Vietnamese girl on a
grim victory parade. There’s the girl clutching the nuclear missile. These
are images that look very right in a Banksy context. And very wrong in here.
Speaking of Mickey Mouse, I’ve recently been making a film about the
pioneering Edwardian artist Walter Sickert, and one of the sequences was
supposed to be set at the Lyceum theatre, off the Strand, where Sickert
worked briefly as an actor under the theatre’s founder, Sir Henry Irving. As
soon as we began filming, two officials with clipboards came out to tell us
we weren’t allowed to feature the front of the building because Disney’s The
Lion King was playing there, and Disney did not allow any filming of the
theatre without its permission. I explained that we were making a film about
Sickert’s work with Irving, and that the last thing we wanted to feature was
The Lion King. Besides, we were on the other side of the road. But the
clipboardoffi-cials were adamant. Our right to film on the streets of London
was outweighed here by Disney’s right to stop us doing so.
I mention this now in my investigation of the confusion between corporate
truths and artistic ones that is currently continuing across the art world
because I see that the Disney corporation has expanded its reach still
further by commissioning two Brazilian artists called the Campana Brothers
to make a set of chairs decorated with Disney characters that has gone on
show at the Albion gallery.
The chairs are ghastly. One is made entirely of scores of stuffed Mickey
Mouses writhing like a tin of maggots. Another mixes writhing Mickeys with
writhing Minnies, and the third features Pluto as well. They all look really
stupid. Yet they are on sale for between £70,000 and £130,000 each. Now,
tell me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the idea of asking £130,000
for a chair made of stuffed Disney toys even madder than paying £73m for a
Pollock? Or am I losing it too?
Banksy at the Andipa Gallery, SW3, until March 24; Cartoon Chairs at
Albion, SW11, until March 19
Banksy and good graffiti artists in general are a great thing in my opinion. I would much rather see a colourful piece of art than just a bland wall. Good graffiti gives real character to a place. The only griffiti councils should remove are the stupid things little kids write like "WaYnE WoZ eRe."
Jack, Bristol, UK
I find the fact that Banksy's work sells for huge prices is irrelevent. He is still the same artist, pulling the same stunts. It is not that Banksy has turned around and put a price tag on his work it is that people with too much money have decided they like it. Does this make the work less relevent to those of us who cannot afford it? No, it does not.
Julian, Melbourne, Australia
Paying hundreds of thousands of pounds for art is insane - but then most of everything is completely out of reach of most people and therefore irrelevant. It is impossible to own anything that we really need - like a house - without worrying about how possible it is to buy something by Banksy or something ridiculous commissioned by Disney Corp. in a gallery. Am I alone in feeling entirely alienated by the way the world has outpriced a good deal of the population from something that should be so simple as buying a decent cup of coffee to owning one's own tiny, inconsequential patch of ground?
Kylie Johnston, Brighton,
Its called supply and demand. Banksy has wit and style not seen in British art for a long time. Since most of British culture is now just a bland wall of bitter criticism - like the article above - people are going to pay through the nose for anything with a creative sense of humour.
Charlie, LA,
In my opinion, Banksy has gone full circle...He came from a provincial town and used graffiti as a means to express himself. The stigma attached to the spray can gave him credibility as well as an alter ego. By selling his art and becoming the new Soulages, he seems to have lost his anonymity and thus his spark. Banksy was an underground artist who is now part of the posh pad's furniture.
Natacha Cullinan, London,
Is it me but I find the whole Banksy argument quite perverse. Bristol Council is apparently considering a civil action against the clean up crew who removed a piece of his art. Fact graffitti is a crime, it costs british society and taxpayers millions of pounds per year to police and clean up. And yet here we are applauding the work of Banksy - a criminal who has not yet been caught. What sort of message is that sending to all those budding graffitti artists out there - its ok and oh by the way you can earn a mint. I believe efforts should be made to find who the real Banksy is and bring him to justice. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act all his wealth earned from illegal acts could then be confiscated - that would send a real message - graffitti is vandalism and is a crime, plain and simple.
Michael, Uckfield,
I was having a discussion about the decline in credibility of graffiti artists' work yesterday, and it seems to me that the artworld has robbed them of all their power by endorsing their work and using it to make revolting profit. So I think Walter's right - the galleries are protecting themselves, but at what cost to creativity?
Becca, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
Modern art is so far up its own artists it thinks it's important and means something,. Duh! wrong.
d h rowlands, cardiff,
There is a strange dichotomy here whereby on the one hand Banksy has lost credibility and on the other he is an artist who has the right to earn a living. It is a difficult dilemma to resolve. I admire his work but now feel that it has lost some of its political message- although without the publicity the message would have never got out to a wider audience…. The thought tho that Bristol is not clearing up Banksy graffiti because it may be “valuable” is quite revolting. Maybe Banksy should sell by invitation only instead of allowing some arsehole gallery owner/counsel to get fat on his respect.
Lea, Birmingham, UK
You've nailed it Waldemar. Maybe the Pollock is worth something but the Mickey chairs are a joke. And the galleries will always appropriate someone like Banksy. It's how they protect themselves.
Walter King, Columbus, OH