Great article. There are lots of highly talented contemporary artists around it's just that Banksy isn't one them.

CHARLIE, LONDON, UK

I love it!!. So called Contemporary street artist(Banksy) turned
multi millionaire. Please do not divide us in this cultural debate street art vs.gallery art . Its more like beauty is in the eye of the beholder and money in your pocket to buy it, if that
is what you desire. The artist creates out of necessity and
passion be it Banksy or Da Vinci.

e galgano, philadelphia, usa

In order to make his case here, Collings presents us with a fallacy of limited options: Banksy either has to be Rembrandt or he's rubbish. On the other hand we have exceptional cartoonists and illustrators who create inspiring work every day and who don't claim to be anything "higher" than their occupation. Banksy creates simple, striking work, which often provides concise and scathing criticism of authoritarian government, surveillance society, and war. I imagine, to some extent, it may be your conservative sensibilities Banksy has offended, more than your sense of aesthetics. So be it.

Robert S., New York, NY

Wow, judgemental much? Have you heard about postmodernism? What constitutes "great art" anymore, are there universally-held standards? That having been said, I think street art should stay in the street where it belongs, and all the decorative painters can hang in galleries.

MW, Cambridge, MA

Congratulations, Mr. Collings... I was doubtful at first, but with this article, I believe you truly have been reborn, and have finally become the art critic it has long been alleged you were. Gone is the unreadable, tragically hip tripe you used to peddle, in favour of what now is a wonderful level of keen scrutiny.
Thank you.

Ryan McCourt, Edmonton, Canada

I agree that bringing street art into the gallery setting is compromising its vitality and integrity. Miwon Kwon, in Site Specific Art and Location Identity traces the developments of post-minimalist site specific work since the likes of Micheal Heizer. Her conclusion is that much of the conceptual developments lead to an increase in the very commodity systems early site specific work was rejecting. Banksy is a clever and a talented stencilist, but that is the depth of his work, and am appalled (and I hope he is as well) that his 'vandalism' is now adding value to the sites he wishes to transgress. Ultimately Bansky is a populist propaganda painter. His work is fully accessible without any intellectual foundation, and conceptually he working in fully explored territory. Not to get down on him too much, I enjoy the work, but the depth of it is an allusion.

Dave Olsen, Boston, MA

How you are allowed to keep your job is a mystery to me when you analyze art thusly:

“Vitality in art is a rare quality, it means life – you see it and you feel life is worth living. It goes with originality and surprise, a mixture of the fresh and the eternal..."

You're assigning enigmatic qualities and descriptors in order to justify depriving an entire group of artists of a vocal position within the art world. Don't insult your readers. Provide what is requisite for every art historian/critic to offer: visual analysis. Did you not learn at a young age to "show" rather than "tell"? Describe how the visual qualities and performative aspects of street art is "adolescent" or "puerile". Juxtapose that with something comparable at least in terms of palette or line or subject. Matisse, whom you mention, is a good start.

Whether or not I agree with you is irrelevant. The point here is that you are not evalutating art. You're bloviating.

Sonja, New York, USA

New art is important and it should confuse the establishment and you won’t find it in the galleries selling for hundreds of thousands of $$$$ – sorry banksy is for t-shirts which is fine, but it’s not new and it’s not original and i fine him kinda naïve like haring – and really does anyone really haring, I mean really.

dfb, toronto, canada

There has always been little artistic merit to Banksy: one-look art for the eBay aesthetes. If chavs collected art it would be towards Banksy that they'd gravitate but it is the middle classes that it largely appeals to. In the same way that New Labour once courted the banal whims of 'Mondeo Man', Banksy has managed to court the banal whims of know-nothing gentrifiers. I'm interested in the popular reception of the work by these powerful partisan groups (Mondeo Man seems to like Banksy too though he can't afford him). The appeal is, I think, that to engage with Banksy at his level is to feel a little frisson of resistance without actually having to stop 'playing the game'. Though you're mortgaged up to the hilt and swamped by credit card debt, you can still feel that you're up there on the barricades, showing a finger to the Man. It's an empty experience though, because there is nothing new in Banksy - he's both derivative and banal. http://www.kurtenscharfer.net

Kurtenscharfer, Little England,

I almost stopped reading after that first paragraph but then caught that Basquiat was the exception. He certainly is the exception.

If these collections were being sold 50 years from now I'd be equally confused. Suffice to say that the simplicity of street art language while it may not have the legs to stand strong in 50+ years (maybe even 10) it is easily understood today. But it's a short term investment.

Josh, Chicago,

You're old! I answered yes to all three questions. Have some tea while you figure out what to do with me. The best new art should confound you, because the fact is you're far too comfortable. Banksy makes you uncomfortable. It makes you uncomfortable to see others, whom you don't know what to do with, praising him.

Ray, Charlottesville, USA/ VA

What 's surprising is that the authors of the two posts above, were able to maintain concentration long enough to read, let alone understand Collings's piece.
My question would be the elevation of all this crappy graffiti, to the level of 'joke', with the expectation, that they might be funny or clever.
Matthew Collings is pretty accurate, in just about everything else.

FC

francis Convery, aberdeen, scotland

Doesn't every new movement meet the revulsion of the critics? You love Basquiat now, but until his death he was parodied as being puerile and lacking depth. As were most ground-breaking artists - even Van Gogh.only sold one painting in his lifetime. This ability to miss every important trend and judge purely on what has gone before is one of the amazing things about art critics. Thankfully, Banksy's massive popularity (his book Wall and Piece has sold over 300,000 copies) is nothing to do with what pompous cultural luddites like Matthew Collings. And if you want to see 'real' art on the streets, take a look at Jose Parla - whose 21st century take on abstract expressionism is every bit as powerful as Pollock and de Kooning (both of whom were lambasted by the critics in their day). Banksy, Adam Neate, Parla and Faile will survive because they are moving art forward in a way that real people genuinely respect and enjoy.

Ed Baines, London,

Matthew Collings this is the worst piece of journalism I have seen in quite some time. Banksy provides stunning stencils in minutes, on street corners etc that the vast majority of us find very clever,witty and artistic. Unlike your reporting

Patrick, Oldham, lancs

The transaction from street to gallery is compromising street art vitality. The art market could be crazy as always has been. I could have an arrested mentality, and I am not a teenager. But man, you are boring and sooo last century. Accept the idea that things change and evolve.

Margherita , Roma, Italy