I was a little disappointed with John Stewart’s piece on art authentication. While humorous, he attacked the notion of art and consumerism but skirted the more controversial subjects of graffitti and censorship.

It seems to me that Banksy would have been a better example than Van Gough or Pollock. He is apparently about to have an auction and many of his works are said to be worth hundreds of thousands, while at the same time others still brand his work as too controversial or just an eye-sore. His themes remind me of the sharp jabs of Tom Toles yet in a more public forum and without the consent of the people who own the canvas. On the flip side he does not charge for admission.

I would like to think it is a particular work or theme that is found objectionable, rather than the nature of the art form, but that is not the message from those involved:

A spokeswoman for Tower Hamlets Council said it had not thought of selling the potentially valuable artwork to help raise money for council services, but did not rule out such action being considered in the future.

[…]

Tower Hamlets councillor Abdal Ullah said: “We need to be clear here, graffiti is a crime.

“It spoils the environment, makes our neighbourhoods feel less safe, and costs thousands of pounds each year to clean – money that could instead be paying for valuable local services.”

It is not yet known how many of the artist’s works would be affected.

The future of a Banksy piece painted on a wall in Bristol recently went to public vote, with 97% of people saying it should be kept.

Perhaps, then, Banksy’s crime is not in the manner chosen to create art but in the message. My guess is that an authority has to be exceptionally confident and secure in its position to allow freedom of expression and creative works. The Tower Hamlets insecurity and subsequent reaction (on the premise of exerting control) could actually increase the value of Banksy works and raise support for graffitti.

The cost of preventing an immitator of Banksy is higher than most tagging artists since the originals come from stencil. Can you tell a real Banksy?

The Tower Hamlet could use this point to their advantage and host talent competitions to supplant Banksy’s stencils with local ones with more general appeal. On the other hand, his work is nothing if not controversial and sarcastic and so a mainstream competition might not have the appeal for rebellious “artists” — like most competitions in art, even Banksy could lose if the criteria includes making people comfortable. He certainly has critics:

Here’s a mystery for you. Renegade urban graffiti artist Banksy is clearly a guffhead of massive proportions, yet he’s often feted as a genius straddling the bleeding edge of now. Why? Because his work looks dazzlingly clever to idiots. And apparently that’ll do.

Clever to idiots? That about sums up the definition of something with broad appeal, no? How long did it take for Pollack and Van Gough to be seen as genius? Mainstream? How much longer would it have taken if they used graffitti as their medium rather than private canvas?

I love the “anti-climb paint” sign, almost as much as I like the rat characters themselves.

Here is an excellent commentary on the surveillance society in Britain, which has been unable to crack the identity of Banksy.