Saving Banksy

This is an OK doc on a very interesting subject. It raises the question of who owns a piece of public art, using the work Banksy did in San Francisco and the quest of a man to try and save one of his pieces from being destroyed or forgotten. It is a valid and interesting topic, but for a documentary to be successful, in my opinion, it needs to be neutral and informative, and this one is not very neutral. After asking those questions it takes the point of view of many street artists and villainizes one of the art dealers whereas I don't think it's that simple. It is a good look at the art world and at the Banksy phenomenon and I do like the guy that's only trying to do what he thinks is right with his work of Banksy, but overall I think this theme deserved a bit more.

This is the second doc in the past couple of years discussing Banksy and also a worthy contributor to those who are distant from, yet interested in, his drawings. As an alternative school teacher I sometimes would take ss on graffiti wall art tours (and/or Rocky Horror showings) so I have a little appreciation. And, to be up front, not all wall tags are positive contributors to a wall. Many are just self- aggrandizement and show little respect toward the people who own that wall or passers viewing their scribblings. It's another double edged sword issue.

Should those drawings be saved; sold or erased? Well, the answer is in one's personal definition of art. Some view art like everything else in life - temporary and at some point will no longer exist - so why bother! Others say the role of art (or all human endeavours) is to see if we can improve toward some idealized state of being/mind/behaviour thus art (or anything that helps in that journey) should be saved & promoted. Does Neanderthal wall art help us when we happen upon it in a cave and ponder what it tells us about humanity tens-of- thousands of years ago?

What Banksy did with the Palestinian wall drawings may help ease Palestinian, by analogy, ever decreasingly sized Indian reservation style imprisonment. Only time …

What Brian Grief is trying to do in putting one up for public tour is no different than a thousands-of-years old Egyptian or Chinese sculpture on tour to peoples around the world that offers first-hand experience of an event well beyond anything they are likely to ever experience. Or that fossil of a dinosaur in transition to bird (Archaeopteryx) being viewed in person. As is often said - let time be that judge. There's truth in art, established over time. But, can time get it wrong?

An episodic account of a philanthropic art lover trying to save a Banksy public work plays like an ongoing chapter that began w/Exit Through the Gift Shop. Coming on the heels of HBO's Year of Banksy, a doc which followed Banksy month long art exhibit in New York, one of the storylines followed one of Banksy's works taken by some opportunistic money grabbers & the art dealer who becomes their mouthpiece. Although it is a double edged sword of an artist painting works in the public hoping to leave a mark in the world only to have the same public take the work to profit from it, one comes away feeling conflicted. A good view but where does it end?

This film purports to examine the question whether it is legitimate to remove street art and transplant it into the capitalized art world, where it can be sold for thousands or even millions of dollars, with none of that money going to the artist himself.

It is an interesting question, and the director clearly has strong views on the matter, as do all of the artists interviewed. Only a few characters, portrayed as dark, criminal, mercenary forces of evil (especially one gallery owner in particular, who is painted in an especially sinister light) disagree with the high-minded artists´ perspective that the artist himself should have the last word on what happens to his work.

The perspective presented here certainly sounds logical and moral and nice, and makes it seem as though ¨all good people will agree¨, but in fact this take commits a fundamental fallacy: the intentional fallacy. The artist creates a work, throws it out into the world, and then he/she no longer has any say in what will be done with his work. It will be interpreted--and reappropriated, and sold or kept and viewed or forgotten--by other people, entirely beyond the artist´s control. He creates a work which becomes the property of humanity once it is released. I do appreciate the strong sentiments of people who wish to respect the artist´s intentions (in this case, Banksy´s), but ´ought´ implies ´can´, and if we cannot know the artist´s intentions, then it seems foolish to assume what they are and insist that they be respected.

We actually have no idea what Banksy is doing, and perhaps he wants to keep it that way. All of the uproar in this case merely adds to his fame.

Internationally known graffiti artist Banksy left his mark on San Francisco. This act of vandalism would spark a chain of events that includes one of his rats being removed from a wall, museums ignorantly turning down a free Banksy street work, and a New York gallery director who has made it his business model to remove Banksy street works from all over the globe doing whatever it takes to get the rat in his possession.

I suppose I would consider myself a fan of street art. I enjoy pop art in general and much of what these street artists do -- Banksy included -- is very eye-catching. There is no doubt in my mind that he is worthy of being in a museum. But some interesting points are raised here.

Mostly: Who owns the art? If the canvas used is a home or business and no permission was given, does the art become the property of the homeowner? This seems to make sense. But many other legal and moral ramifications abound -- if the art is illegal, can anyone own it at all?