Off The Wall

by Helen Jones on 19.04.09

As Banksy pieces sell for hundreds of thousands to eager art buyers, 4Q takes a look at the increasing value of graffiti art – monetary, social and political.

In recent months prestigious auction houses like Christie’s, Sotheby’s and Bonhams have been dealing an increasing number of ‘street art’ pieces by the Bristol guerrilla graffiti artist Banksy, selling them for thousands of pounds to celebrities and art collectors alike.

The high profile sales of these pieces throw several issues into the spotlight alongside the celebrated artwork itself. Such as, when does graffiti constitute art? How does it make that transition? And does the illegality of ‘street art’ determine it to be worth less (or worthless?) than other regulated public messages that we face every day – AKA ‘advertising’?

Notorious graffiti artist Banksy has become a celebrated artist, the quality of his work speaking for itself – and it kind of has to really as Banksy’s anonymity and conscious protection of identity doesn’t lend itself well to the role of spokesman. For those unfamiliar with his work, it presents the message that life, the world, and the people who run it, are all generally a bit ridiculous. But that’s just my interpretation. Which in itself is the purpose of all art surely? Whether it’s hanging in a gallery or spray painted on to the side of a building. It provokes thought, opinions and inspiration in those who survey it.

In Banksy’s published collection of work ‘Wall and Piece’ he states that his work is a ‘call for things no-one else believes in – like peace and justice and freedom’. His poignant works displayed on the segregation wall separating Israel and Palestine being a classic example of how graffiti can make a powerful statement about the state of the world we live in, however arbitrary it might seem as a backdrop to the gunfire. (Palestine jpeg – caption: Banksy meets Bethlehem, 2005)

It’s these socio-political messages that have gained him notoriety, as well as the obvious quality and thought that has gone into the predominantly stencilled pieces. This high quality of work, combined with the significance of the messages being conveyed, make his work stand apart from the tags and amateur images that make up and define the majority of other graffiti as vandalism, rather than art. As Banksy himself stated ‘All artists are prepared to suffer for their art but why are so few prepared to learn to draw?’

So, what if the graffiti on display looks a bit, well, sh*t, – does that then take away the impact of the message? Looking at it from an advertising perspective then the answer to that question would be yes. Effective ads tend to be highly styled, designed to sink into both our conscious and subconscious thoughts – you want this, you know you do. Well, some would argue that billboard advertising, thrust down our throats from every angle, are quite possibly the most offensive form of graffiti. Just because a company can afford to buy the space to transmit their message doesn’t validate the quality of what’s on display. I’d rather see an offensively bad piece of graffiti than be persuaded into buying into a lifestyle I neither want nor can afford, ta very much. At least graffiti, good or bad, can be thought provoking, evocative and expressive. An advert, however clever or amusing, is still an advert placed with the sole purpose of selling products and services to the public. From a cynical perspective it can be the difference of thinking for yourself or being dictated to – this is your option and this is the right choice.

And when it comes to choices, advertising isn’t the only medium trying to sway our opinions. This image of Barack Obama, discovered on a New York street in October 2008, shows the political leader depicted as superman – a political saviour in these worryingly volatile times. A message of hope? Or a cynical sideswipe at the notion that one individual can save the world from the damage caused by the previous Bush administration? It’s all down to personal interpretation.