rileyuk.co.uk

The Mail on Sunday is claiming to have unmasked the Graffiti Artist Banksy. I personally think that they have a great scoop for selling papers and news but this is bad for the Artist and for his work. I personally think most of his appeal (apart from his cutting edge commentary through his art) was his anonymity. Its a shame they went to such bother, though I am impressed that it took a year to unmask him. I don't think it would take that long to unmask me if I tried to set up a secret identity and be as active a 'urban guerilla'.

What do you recon? Shame he was unmasked or not?

Why bother unmasking him? Surely the time and effort (and their undoubted investigative geniusness) spent by the paper could've been better used tracking down Bin Laden?

i dont see what the point of identifying banksy is, i dont think knowing the man behind the art really changes my opinion of it. whether a public school boy or a working class grunt, his work remains enjoyable and often insightful, managing to bridge the gap between modern art and public exceptance with relative ease, something even the likes of damien hurst have struggled to do on occasion. isn't there any actual news to report these days?

I agree, it does not really add anything to knowing his identity. The shame is that he will now be invited to every art thing going which will be weird.

It's a definite "who really cares?" article. The main point of his anonymity (asides from avaoiding arrest) seemed to me to be that people could just view the art and the meaning behind it without their views on the artist's personal life getting in the way of things.

They bothered because it would sell papers. That's pretty much it.

I do appreciate his work I am currently reading his book and looking closely at all the pretty pictures.

He is a great designer/guerilla artist but I find it difficult to condone drawing and writing all over buildings or anything else. It sets a dangerous precedent, yes there are some great street artists out there but most of them are little oiks who just want to tag every clean surface with their own brand of indecipherable scribble, not everybody has the wit, elloquance and talent of banksy. For that reason alone he should get treated the same as all the rest of the Gafitti artisists.

What i would like to see is dedicated areas, where it is permitted, panels mounted on buildings (to avoid the costly removal) skateparks, even a nice long snaking wall in your local park. Not just anywhere.

Given how much some of his works are selling for, I'd think some people would actively encourage him to graffiti their buildings.

As an example of Banksy's work, the stuff on the Israel-Palestine wall is brilliant (both political and poignant). That said, I hear a lot of tagging is related to gang activities, to mark their territory. I could understand anyone who was against his work to avoid setting the precedent. Would designated graffiti areas defeat some of the point of it, though?

Therer are some graffiti competitions around where they get a lot of wall space, and some of the work was mind-blowingly good.

I can't imagine that he would be interested in using a designated wall. Personally. Think that the really good stuff like his should be allowed, tagging and scrawling your name on a building should be banned as it a nothing more than vandalism. Hell if Banksy wants to come and decorate my front wall great, I doubt he would be interested in the offer though!