Banksy and the Art of Public Discourse

Banksy and the Art of Public Discourse

“I love graffiti. I love the word. Some people get hung up over it, but I think they’re fighting a losing battle. Graffiti equals amazing to me. Every other type of art compared to graffiti is a step down—no two ways about it. If you operate outside of graffiti, you operate at a lower level. Other art has less to offer people, it means less, and it’s weaker. I make normal paintings if I have ideas that are too complex or offensive to go out on the street, but if I ever stopped being a graffiti writer I would be gutted. It would feel like being a basket weaver rather than being a proper artist.” (Swindle Magazine)

“I like the idea vandalism has contributed to the local economy,” his (Banksy) message said.”In Britain they always complain graffiti costs the taxpayer millions of pounds but that’s a load of rubbish. Graffiti is free. It’s painting things grey again that costs all the money. Purported message from Banksy regarding sale of his art in Bethlehem.(TIM BUTCHER)

The core of this paper is Banksy’s use of public space for political discourse and, in particular, his use of the wall that separates Palestinians from Israelis.

The paper will also discuss how and should public space be appropriated and used as a forum to generate discussion about issues important to communities and nations.

Banksy has used graffiti art in Britain for many years to express his views on the police, freedom, Iraq, class and other issues.

Banksy, British anarchist artist/graffiti artist, has built his reputation on two foundations: 1) his talent; and 2) the secrecy surrounding his identity. He has been able to avoid detection for over two decades. Stories about his identify have surfaced from time, but have never been substantiated. In 2006, the BBC online identified him as Robert or Robin Banks, a man with no formal art education.  Last year he was “outed” by The Daily Mail in London. The newspaper said his name was  Robin Gunningham and that he was a “former public schoolboy from middle-class suburbia.”  The article went on to describe a fairly boring and normal upbringing that could have applied to anyone, including such revelations as Gunningham was a gifted artist and was “nomadic.”  At the end of the article a caveat is given: “there is, of course, the possibility that the trail we have been following is a red herring.”

Banksy has said many times that he has no interest in ever revealing his identity.  He was quoted in Swindle magazine, “I figure there are enough self-appointed assholes trying to get their ugly little faces in front of you as it is.”  Yet, it is almost unbelievable in this age of media that someone could remain anonymous for so long. It is even more improbable in England, where surveillance video is everywhere, that somewhere along the way has not seen and taken a picture of him.

But the fact of the matter is, whoever he is, Banksy is very talented and has been creating serious art in the form of graffiti since 1980s. His graffiti is now selling millions of dollars worth of art.

Writing about Banksy has its disadvantages. For the most part, academics have ignored him, or more to the point, he has ignored them. No one knows who he really is so there is distinct possibility that he doesn’t really exist. There is only trace evidence (“his” work–do we even really know he’s a “he”?) of his existence. Most accounts of his activities are chronicled in newspapers that have a vested interest in promoting the news that sells. His dealers/agents have a vested interest in perpetuating the mystery (or could this be part of his/her persona—the unknowingness?).   The unknowingness, the anonymity, deliberately or not, is part of  Banksy’s persona.

But writing about Banksy also has its advantages. If no one really knows who the artist is, or where the artist is, or very much about him  it frees me to make stuff up and speculate on his motives.

We can also hypothesize that Banksy is a woman. It would be a perfect cover. Banksy usually speaks through his agent or representative. Even if they “know” the person purporting to be Banksy, it may be that person is a shill. And although there is a photo of  “Banksy” painting on the wall in Israel, his/her face is covered. It could have been one of Banksy’s fellow artists who are as talented as she/he is. They could paint and if arrested by Israeli police, Banksy’s identity would still be safe.

Traditionally, modern graffiti artists use spaces that are in transition or are in a pre-transition. Often these are in poorer neighborhoods that we see eventually transition to a more affluent and desirable neighborhood. Once a neighborhood starts to change for the “better,” contesting of space begins because contesting it is about the money. Then the arguments begin to be about who has the right to be represented in public spaces. What are the goals of graffiti writers? Is at least part of it about this controversy?

Graffiti has been around for hundreds, if not thousands of years.  It has been found in Pompeii, the pyramids, ancient cave drawings and on the walls of catacombs by early Christians resisting persecution, to the cities of today (Rahn 2002, 167).  Duchamp is an early defiler and defacer in the style of Banksy and others. Duchamp created “Rectified Readymade,” in which he added a small mustache and the letters L.H.O.O.Q. which roughly translated means, “She’s got a hot ass”  (Varnedoe, Gopnik 1990, 77).

According to Varnedde and Gopnik graffiti went through an artistic re-examination  vis a vis the Surrealist movement of the 1920s and 1930s.  They were interested in graffiti’s unconscious motivations and use of the grotesque (See Figure 3). Brassai as well had an appreciation for graffiti.  Brassai’s was informed  “by his belief that graffiti writings were akin to cave art, as well as by a familiar Surrealist association  between the glamorously  ‘dangerous’  mysteries  of urban lowlife and the marvels of the deeper psyche” (Varnedde and Gopnik 1990). (see photo on right, Atlanta, GA graffiti, Burgamy, 2006)

Vagrants and hobos of the 1930s used signs and symbols to communicate with each other. The writing gave out practical information about where to find shelter and food without being discovered by the train company security. Graffiti helped them make sense of their relationships within the ‘community’ of hobos. (Rahn 2002, 167) Graffiti writers share this sense of community. They use appropriated surfaces to communicate to one another, to share a bond, to mark territory, as well as thumb their noses at authority.

In describing where graffiti artists’ venture, Reisner wrote, “the atmosphere is secret, confining, subterranean and conspiratorial…. In circumstances like these a man is likely to assert himself graphically, a silent means of inscription” (Reisner 1971, 26).

During my experience in Atlanta and surrounding communities photographing and interviewing graffiti artists (http://looseknitproductions.com/graffito.htm ) I learned that most of their graffiti is in places the average person would not venture, such as in rail and auto underpasses (like the one under the Jimmy Carter throughway)  viaducts, and the like. In Atlanta, most people are familiar with the Krog Street tunnel, which has long been a favorite venue for graffiti writers.  For many years it was considered a safe area and the artists could paint and draw at will.  Two years ago I was told (but never confirmed) that it was now verboten and anyone caught would be prosecuted. The turnover in the tunnel has slowed considerably and that would give credence to law enforcement taking renewed interest in taking legal action.

There are a few graffiti artists who deliberately seek out places that are virtually inaccessible.  In Atlanta, Dose, Born, and Hense are some of the tags seen on the tops of buildings or the back of a towering Coca Cola billboard.  The more inaccessible the “spatial conquest,” the more the respect afforded the artist. A Philadelphia graffiti artist named Cornbread sprayed his name on the wings of a TWA jet. “The conquest of territory even in fantasy is always an act performed for an audience. Locations have meaning; to claim access to an inaccessible location is to make a claim of primacy for oneself” (Ley, Cybriwsky  1991, 493).

The idea of public space, a place where politics, commerce and play intermingles, is an old one.  The Greek agora was such a place where many different political opinions and diverse social perspectives could be encountered (Young 119).    But even given this ideal description the reality was that these places were exclusionary.  The people in these spaces were homogenous and were people of power and prestige.  Citizenship was a right granted to a select few and denied many others, including women and slaves (Mitchell  1995, 116-121).

In many democracies the right to public space comes with many rules and regulations. Spaces that were once open to the underprivileged, the homeless, and the disaffected are usually in the transitional areas that aren’t contested.  It is only when the space becomes a commodity, useful to commerce, that the space becomes contested.  Then marginal people who occupy the space become undesirables or criminals so measures have to be taken by instruments of the state.  Control is exercised by closing public spaces by declaring them havens for the homeless and drug users (Mitchell  1995, 117).

It is in these contested spaces where graffiti writers will express themselves and articulate their feelings. Cabbagetown in Atlanta has been going through the cycle of gentrification.  As property values go up marginalized groups that include graffiti writers use the area to express themselves and mark the territory with their art.  As one of them, Cape, told me, “I don’t care if it flies for 24 minutes or 24 hours, I did it and its mine.”   Graffiti is a way of defending turf, expressing the self, that takes place the world over.  It is the politics of self expression and self preservation standing against an inevitable onslaught of commercialization.

Since Banksy is an anarchist/performance artist/graffiti artist, he has challenged the notion of public space and what activities are appropriate in public places. Retaking/reclaiming public space has been an ongoing contestation with graffiti artists vs. major cities. Banksy, in his art and politics, has been using public spaces to express dissent. His imagery is highly political, pointed, funny, and satirical. In specific his art is, among other things, art as anti-war, anti-surveillance, anti-establishment and anti-capitalist.  He receives worldwide attention wherever he paints but the work on the Separation Wall distinguished itself.

Construction of the fence, called Separation Wall, or Segregation Wall (Banksy 2006, 136) began in 2000 and continues to this day. The wall is a 25 foot tall barrier that stretches over 700km or 434 miles. It has been and continues to be built, by the Israeli government. This barrier is a meant to provide security to Israel from suicide bombers and other terrorist acts coming from Palestinian jihadists.  It was initially intended to prevent passage of motor vehicles. But in 2001 Premier Ariel Sharon came under great pressure from citizens in Israel. Suicide bombing was increasing and people were demanding protection.  The Israeli cabinet approved construction and in 2002 the building of the Separation Wall began. (Usher 2005, 33)  At over 30 feet high the wall is three times higher than the Berlin Wall. To give some perspective, the wall would stretch from Panama City Beach, FL to Chattanooga, TN (Usher 2005, 25).
The Separation Wall has been the subject of much controversy. The UN has declared it illegal and ordered it dismantled (Usher 2005, 35).  Israel continues to cite it as a primary deterrent against suicide bombers. But essentially it has made people of Palestine prisoners in an open prison (Usher 2005,  25).

Here, in an interview in Swindle magazine, is what Banksy was purported to have said regarding the conditions of working at the wall and the type of art he did there:

The murals you did in Palestine, I would assume, involved personal risk. You’re there, and you could definitely get some people pissed off and put yourself in jeopardy.

B: Every graffiti writer should go there. They’re building the biggest wall in the world. I painted on the Palestinian side, and a lot of them weren’t sure about what I was doing. They didn’t understand why I wasn’t just writing “down with Israel” in big letters and painting pictures of the Israeli prime minister hanging from a rope. And maybe they had a point. The guy that I stayed with got five days with the “dirty bag” for waving a Palestinian flag out a window. The dirty bag is when Israeli security services get a sack, wipe their shit on it, and put the bag over your head while your hands are tied behind your back. I spat out my falafel as he was explaining that to me, but he just goes, “That’s nothing. My cousin got it for two weeks without a break.” It’s difficult to come home and hear people complaining about reruns on TV after that. It’s very hard for the locals to paint illegally over there. We certainly weren’t doing it under the cloak of darkness; you’d get shot. We were out in the middle of the day, making it very clear we were tourists. Twice, we had serious trouble with the army, but one time the Palestinian border patrol pulled up in an armored truck. The Israeli government makes a big fuss about how they own the wall, despite building it right through the farmland of Palestinians who have been there for generations, so the Palestinian border police don’t give a shit if you paint it or not. They parked between the road and us, gave us water, and just watched. It’s probably the only time I’m ever going to paint whilst being covered by a cop from a roof-mounted submachine gun.

Did they realize that it favored the Palestinian perspective?

B: I have sympathy for both sides in that conflict, and I did receive quite a bit of support from regular Israelis, but if the Israeli government had known we were going over there to do a sustained painting attack on their wall, there’s no way that we’d have been tolerated. They’re very paranoid. They don’t want the wall to be an issue in the West. On the Israeli side of the wall they bank it up with soil and plant flowers so you don’t even know its there. On the Palestinian side it’s just a fucking huge mass of concrete  (Swindle Magazine).

The Separation Wall is one in a “long” line of contested wall space.   The Great Wall of China, The Berlin Wall and the wall being built between the United States and Mexico are additional examples of contested spaces.

The Berlin Wall was covered in graffiti on the West side and barren on the communist Eastern side. The blank gray East Berlin side was a telling picture as to who had access to the space.  The wall between Mexico and the United States is an ugly metal wall topped in many places by barbed wire.  The Mexican/U.S. border fence is, in my opinion, a fence that only suits the right leaning politicians and their constituents.  It is a space that will continually be contested, not only by Mexican immigrants but by citizens in the U.S. who oppose this method for controlling the border.

Banksy states in his above interview that on the Israeli side they plant flowers while the Palestinian side is “just a fucking huge mass of concrete.”  Banksy  has appropriated  that “mass of concrete” and changed parts of it to  create a vision or dream of opening the wall or of no wall at all.  Images of someone pulling an imaginary curtain aside and seeing through a cartoon living room with windows (see figure 1) opening to a realistic green forest and a snow white covered mountain in the background.  That scene is a real fantasy but conjures a different place on the other side.  A place of openness and freedom can be found and experienced not on the other side of the wall but without the wall.

Painting on the Separation Wall, no matter how great the intentions doesn’t always have the desired effect.  The barrier makes those inside it cynical and contentious. They are rightfully more than a little suspicious and skeptical.   Banksy had a conversation with a gentleman on the inside of the wall.   Old Man: “You paint the wall, you make it look beautiful.”  Banksy: “Thanks.”  Old Man:  “We don’t want it to be beautiful, we hate this wall, go home” (Banksy 2006, 142).

Banksy made one of his several trips to Palestine in 2007. He brought with him four other graffiti artists:  Blu from Italy, Sam3 from Spain, an associate Paul Insect and another artist from Britain, Gee Vaucher.  For several days they painted the wall and met with other artists.  They rented  a former fast food restaurant in Manger Square where they sold art by westerners and Palestinians.   In order to encourage much needed tourism in the area, the art for sale could only be purchased on site.  The sale netted over one million dollars which was donated to local charities  (Kennard 2008, 39).

These are positive ways in which art can make a difference in awareness to a political point of view.  A painting or sculpture in a gallery is more academic than effective.  The Palestinians see the gray wall every day. Its meaning is quite clear. However, through the power of Banksy and others painting and stenciling, the world sees the wall from a new perspective. I had read about the wall and only acknowledged it as a benign safety measure to protect Israel from terrorists. Its meaning to the people of Palestine was off my radar of consciousness. Through his art I now see the Separation/Segregation Wall in a different, more insightful way. I can contemplate its size and dimensions and grayness as if there was a wall running between Decatur and Atlanta. It is the simplest approach to a difficult problem. Unwilling to compromise and consider real solutions, the problem was “solved” by a remedy as old as the Great Wall of China.

The conclusion to the core issue of Banksy’s methods of public discourse on the wall is that his techniques and imagery are quite different—and even more effective and affecting–than the images and words he has used in other places and spaces. Banksy uses his art to criticize the Separation/Segregation Wall not directly but indirectly. He doesn’t attack the Israelis. His images are not as political or bitingly satirical as works he has done in England.

So while Banksy remains directly in the tradition of previous graffiti artists who stood up for the rights of the marginalized by laying claim to and attempting to “own” public space, he has taken the art form to a new, more inclusive, level, particularly in his graffiti on the Separation/Segregation Wall. Like Jonathan Swift Banksy is a master of satire and wielding  a sharp sword.  His images cut straight to the political chase whether its parliament, the police,  war or starving African children with a “I Hate Mondays” tshirt.  (see image on left, Banksy, I Hate Mondays)

When art makes the transition from being purely aesthetic (evoking a “beautiful” or emotional experience) to directly responding to or protesting current circumstances via contested content, there often begins a discussion about what constitutes “art.”   This question is always in the background where graffiti is concerned. Interestingly, Banksy’s work on the Wall does not fall toward either extreme, but is a subtle critique.  Yet his images gain power from subtlety and are emotionally evocative as he places the emphasis on the West Bank as a prison and his drawings as the dreams and hopes of the Palestinians trapped inside.

Bibliography (Chicago)

Banksy. 2006. Banksy: Wall and Piece. London: The Random House

Group Limited.

TIM BUTCHER. Banksy  Art on the Block in Bethlehem. The Daily Telegraph 2007.

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/banksy-art-on-the-block-in- bethlehem/68189/ (accessed November 1, 2009)

Kennard, P. 2008. Art attack. New Statesman. 21:38-40.

Lagerquist, P. Fencing the Last Sky: Excavating Palestine after Israel’s “Separation

Wall”. Journal of Palestine Studies. 33:5-35.

Ley, D. and R.  Cybriwsky. 1974. Urban Graffiti as Territorial Markers. 4:491-

505.

Mitchell, D.  1995. The End of Public Space? People’s Park, Definitions of the Public,

and Democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers.  85:108-

103.

Rahn, J. 2002. Painting without Permission: Hip-hop Graffiti Subculture. Westport:

Greenwood Publishing Group.

Reisner, R. (1971). Graffiti: Two thousand years of wall writing. Chicago:

Henry Gegnery Company.

Swindle Magazine. http://swindlemagazine.com/issue08/banksy/, Banksy the

Naked Truth (accessed November 7, 2009).

Temple, Julia. 2001. Graffiti and the Writing Arts of  Early  Modern England.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Usher,  G.  2005. Unmaking Palestine: On Israel, the Palestinians, and the Wall.

Journal of Palestine Studies. 35:25-43.

Varnedde, Kirk and Gopnik, Adam. 1990. High & Low: Popular Culture in

Modern Art.  New York: The Museum of Modern Art.  85:108-133.

Calvin Burgamy

November 18, 2009

Contemporary Art 4700/Susan Richmond

Banksy and the Art of Public Discourse

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s