Once again, I feel compelled to address some claims made by the art critic Jonathan Jones at The Guardian. This time, Jones has written a piece attacking Banksy. This in itself is not the problem. The problem is that the attack makes very little sense under close examination.
Here is the crux of Jones’s argument:
Some art can exist just as well in silence and obscurity as on the pages of newspapers. The Mona Lisa is always being talked about, but even if no one ever again concocted a headline about this roughly 510-year-old painting it would still be as great. The same is true of real modern art. A Jasper Johns painting of a network of diagonal marks surrounded by cutlery stuck to the frame, called Dancers On a Plane – currently in an exhibition at the Barbican – was just as real, vital and profound when it was hidden away in the Tate stores as it is under the gallery lights. Johns does not need fame to be an artist; he does not even need an audience. He just is an artist, and would be if no one knew about him. Banksy is not an artist in that authentic way.
I strongly disagree that art can exist in a vacuum; I think it needs an audience to be art. Thus, I cannot fathom the absurdity in the statement that Jasper Johns “does not even need an audience” to be an artist. How does that work exactly? It doesn’t. Jones is simply presupposing a metaphysical reality in which art possesses inherent value independent of humans. This presupposition, being fictional, remains unsupported. How can a work remain profound if no one is around to bestow the value of profundity upon it? And does it not take a human mind to transform Jasper Johns’s “network of diagonal marks surrounded by cutlery stuck to the frame” into a cohesive whole? Truly, then, one cannot dismiss Banksy on the grounds that his work demands an audience. All art does.
Another problem that I have with Jones’s argument is that he takes the properties that make Banksy aesthetically interesting to most people and transforms them into Banksy’s aesthetic shortcomings:
Banksy, as an artist, stops existing when there is no news about him. Right now he is a story once again, because a “mural” by him (street art and graffiti no longer suffice to describe his pricey works) has been removed from a wall and put up for auction. Next week the story will be forgotten, and so will Banksy – until the next time he becomes a headline.
Part of Banksy’s “art” is in the impermanence of his pieces and in the confrontational nature of his “murals” that are designed to disrupt people from their daily routines to make them stop and notice something, to see things differently. Perhaps comparisons to static pieces like the Mona Lisa are not the best means to understand performance-based work of this nature (though I admit that because the art market has laid claim to Banksy, such comparisons are not necessarily off base, either).
But “street art” is hardly the first recognized art form to be temporary and confrontational in the manner adopted by Banksy. And why does Jones consider fame and branding as faults or weaknesses of the artist? These attributes were obviously as essential in solidifying the legacies of the artists whom Jones admires as they were in elevating Banksy above his peers.
Jones claims that he wants “art that is physically and intellectually and emotionally real.” Unfortunately for him, as his blog on Banksy makes clear, he seems to have no idea what that even means.