An open letter to Banksy regarding ‘The Advertisers’
EDIT March 1st, 18:30pm // The ‘letter’ to which I was referring here is a quote taken from two of Banksy’s books, ‘Cut it Out’ and ‘Wall and Piece’, only one of which I’ve read but clearly not recently enough that I remember the rant. It surfaced again this week, isolated from the rest of the material and context. That doesn’t change anything in particular, I just wanted to note it.
EDIT 2 March 24th, 09:18am // It was brought to my attention that the passage of text supposedly by Banksy we’ve all been so eager to debate was in fact plagiarised from Sean Tejaratchi’s essay ‘Death, Phones’ Scissors’ (http://gawker.com/5892332/). As far as I’m concerned, Banksy stealing someone else’s argument basically makes the whole thing void, so I’ve disabled comments on this post.
Dear Mr Banksy,
I read your recent open letter regarding ‘The Advertisers’ and I have to say I didn’t much like your tone, particularly coming from one of the art world’s greatest marketeers since possibly Warhol.
Allow me to say from the offset that I don’t much care for the advertising industry as a whole either, though having worked at several agencies in my career (as a typographer), I’ve done OK out of it. I live in New York these days but when I lived in London I used to see your work all the time. I didn’t ask to see it – in much the same way as you don’t ask to see advertising – and I never much cared for it either. A lot of my friends did though, and several of them now own your prints, books and in a couple of cases, original works.
I should probably mention that, without exception, all of those people work in advertising.
Now, as far as I see it, the very act of putting your work in the public eye – say on walls, street corners, in alleyways and underpasses etc – is, effectively advertising it by virtue of people being able to see it at all. Exposure is advertising. And unless I’m much mistaken, the only product you’re selling is yourself.
The last time I checked, The Advertisers at least had to pay a lot of money to use the public spaces that their wares occupy – unlike yourself who has decided to remove yourself from that model in the name of art and anti capitalism.
Another criticism often leveled at advertising is that it steals from artists and plagiarises ideas, where as your work is merely ‘inspired’ by one artist; Blek Le Rat. Which I guess is OK. And the fact that you’ve made a comfortable living from it is also fine. I feel like it’s a convenient irony though that the only people who can now afford to own your work are the ad-land Creative Directors and City boys that you so eagerly rail against, while at the same time selling your own brand of rebellious, anti-establishment cool.
If the Advertisers are laughing at us, then you are surely laughing with them.
It’s all just so easy isn’t it? Big companies are evil; advertising sells stuff for big companies; ergo, the people who work in advertising are also evil. I think Bill Hicks had a similar thing going a few years ago. No, wait I’m sorry, exactly the same thing going.
As a child of the 80’s I grew up surrounded by cigarette advertising, yet I’ve never bought a pack in my life. I’ve seen car ads every day for 30 years and I’ve never bought one of those either. That’s as much as I can say about myself, but its clear to me that you’re ignoring the fact that people have a choice in what they buy – if they buy anything at all – and that they actually like buying things. They work hard for a living and purchasing something other than basic food, utilities or clothing gives them a sense of achievement; that their hard work has paid off in some capacity.
When I first read your letter I thought you were going to mount some stenciled horse and storm the castles of advertising with a well formed argument, but instead it seems like you were just inciting people to steal and vandalise ads that they saw on the street. Personally, I don’t have the time or inclination.
Regarding ‘the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen’ that you mention, you must be referring to the office fax machine? Having seen agency life, I can attest that there’s nothing Machiavellian going on; no illuminated map of the globe and no sinister plot to take over the world; just a bunch of people trying to make a living.
As it stands, there are are only 1.2 billion formal jobs in the world for the 7 billion people that live on it. If advertising keeps a few thousand off the streets then let it be, eh? People who work in advertising are good enough to buy your work, so why not buy some of what they’re selling from time to time?
Kind regards and good luck in your future ventures.
Craig Ward /
Words are Pictures
Pingback: An open letter to Banksy | AdvertisingAdvertising
Brilliantly said🙂
EDIT: Not sure I understand this comment but I’ll approve it: “Team Robbo!”
I miss you, Craig. You’re a legend.
Carl Rogers (Evil Creative Director)
Enjoyed reading this.
I always read that Banksy quote as railing against companies and corporations using intellectual property rights as a way of protecting their image. When he says “re-arrange and re-use” I thought he was talking about things like Ron English and his McDonalds pieces, not literally tearing at adverts like Posterboy. Though you’re right, it could definitely be taken that way.
You bring up Banksy ripping Blek Le Rat’s style—I think that’s kind of what he’s talking about. Taking what you like (or don’t like) using it to making people think. You might not have liked Banksy’s quote, but it made you stay up last night. I imagine that’s his goal.
The reason this quote resonates so deeply with so many people is because we’re tired of being told we’re not good enough. There’s arguments to be made here, but I’d say that advertising operates on the simple principle that “If you don’t have this, then your life isn’t quite complete.” I understand that you might not have that sense with with cigarettes and cars, but you cannot, and do not, speak for everyone.
You’ve set up a weak argument, positioning the fax machine as an agency’s big technological weapon. You’re right—there’s no plot to take over the world going on behind the closed doors of advertising agencies. They’re just trying to figure out the best way to get you to buy something you might not otherwise buy. I think for Banksy, that’s sinister enough.
Hi David, thanks for the thoughts. I’d certainly never seek to speak for everyone and I’m not a fan of projecting my views onto others. Banksy’s original letter was confused and lacking a point, I really just wanted to address what he brought up. He seems to think that advertising is in control here; that their messaging brainwashes people into buying things they don’t need. As someone who has worked in advertising I can tell him that it is a frightened and weakened industry that is constantly on the back foot, trying to keep a paying brand relevant in a society where it is increasingly harder to do so. His writing (here) is populist, holier-than-thou pond-skimming that ignores a lot of facts to suit his point and be easily digestible. Coupled with this is the fact that he continually trades on this rebellious image – the anti-hero of art. Trading on anti-capitalism is probably worse than anything he accuses advertisers of.
You make a great point—Banksy does come to this fight as if on a pedestal. Rereading your post with that in mind gives me a better feel for what you’re saying.
I think we do disagree, though. I would argue that the industry—no matter how weakened or in flux it might be—is always fundamentally engaged in educating* people, trying to tell them what they do and do not want. I’m not saying it’s wrong, or evil, or anything of that sort. But I think to deny that central purpose weakens your other, valid arguments.
Again, really enjoyed this, and appreciated your reply.
*brainwashing?
Touché! Well said, well said.
Banksy also apparently said this: https://twitter.com/#!/benharris/status/174845231395643392/photo/1
I spend at least 50% of my time working on my own personal pieces. People’s individual motivation aside, he’s pointing out flaws in a system that he’s already completely ingrained in. Like complaining about a lumpy pillow in a 5 star hotel. If he genuinely disagrees with it he should cease showing his work and allowing it to be sold – especially to people like us. Making art for art’s sake is enough for 99% of people out there who call themselves artists.
Agree Craig, good to highlight the short sightedness of Banksy. I work in the ad industry (and share most of the same societal concerns Banksy has) and maybe i’m optimistic, but I think Banksy could be reassured by the fact there is something Darwinian about public advertising (we’ve come a long way from the 50’s/60’s/70’s…adverts, although still a long way to go yet!)
Also, I wonder why Banksy stops at adverts, what does Banksy think of the intrusive opinions and ideologies in public news? is that not a bigger concern instead of focusing just on what adverts making us think and feel. There is still such a thing as filtering and free choice, hence people also choose to buy into the Banksy brand of positive propaganda
Pingback: Banksy gives his take on advertising | Gordon's Republic | Brand Republic blogs
Hear, hear! Take my money Craig… Oh you already did. Luckily I made more selling something to someone else. Power to the people.
There was a lack of reverence for his latest work in Liverpool anyway. I think. I don’t know how it works with these guys http://www.sevenstreets.com/blog/new-liverpool-banksy-is-defaced/
First of all that quote is probably taken out of a longer text, a book I think. Most probably it doesn’t express his entire philosophy.
I guess he picks on ads because they occupy all available public space, his domain of choice. I’m sure his views extend to other areas.
Advertising is just one branch of the system that has all of us deeply ingrained. Every time you vote and think it’s meaningful, every time you watch the news and think you’re being given relevant information, etc. you are fooling yourself.
If Banksy kept completely outside of the system he criticizes nobody would ever see his work, making his endeavor totally irrelevant.
You can’t rock the boat if you’re on land.
We all agree that his work makes some people question the givens of our society so regardless of where that questioning leads people, his work is done.
Well said, Craig. Especially the bit about advertisers as folks trying to net a living—not people who want to pull a ‘They Live’ blindfold over the eyes of the public. I also think most of the people who are trying to slide a dagger in the ribs of the industry are almost certainly disenchanted/disgruntled ex-pats. As always, haters gonna hate!
great
The irony is that this whole debate is a great bit of PR and free advertising for Banksy
// Agreed! CW
Strong points Craig, and big balls to question Banksy’s letter with such a realistic view. Keep writing sir.
I don’t really see an argument against Banksy’s critique of advertising as a personal experience here. Banksy being rich and advertising admittedly being an industry in retreat (and its creative/technological mediocrity and ‘formal’ job creation) doesn’t alter or excuse the increasingly invasive ways advertisers are trying to reach us, which is what he obviously finds upsetting.
This “well, that’s life, pal” open letter is coming from a much different place.
You rule!
Fantastic points Craig, I actually read this letter after I had posted my thoughts on the Signalnoise forum and I had made some similar observations. I have posted my thoughts below. You said it better than I, but I just wanted to share as an indication of my agreement with everything you said. I honestly can’t believe hypocritical Banksy is!
______
I think Banksy is being incredibly hypocritical.
Is this advertising he makes outlandish, generic statements about, the same advertising he used to market his book? The same advertising he used to market his documentary and the same copyright he applied to his book on the inside cover?
Or let me guess, his promotion is ‘different’ and an ‘exception to the rule’. I really get the feeling he is trying to be controversial for the sake of it. It’s like Ben Iver says, his only answer to this apparent problem is to ‘Fuck that’ and ‘Do whatever you like’ Hardly strong, resounding advice for the future.
This guy sells his work for thousands of pounds – his work is displayed in only the homes of those who can afford it. Making others feel inadequate and inferior. Furthermore, the final paragraph, it’s almost as if he is talking about his own work.
‘They have rearranged the world, to put themselves in front of you. They never asked your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs’
Banksy – haven’t you, by emblazoning walls up and down the country with your unique style of grafitti (a brand in itself!) put yourself in front of others, without asking permission? And therefore, shouldn’t we feel it is our right to ‘re-arrange’ and ‘re-use’. Or would you be upset if suddenly everyone started messing around with your graffiti and turned it into something entirely different? The same principle applies to advertising. Only those companies have asked permission. They have paid to display adverts in those places and we, as free thinkers have a choice whether or not we pay attention to those advertisements. Your statement reduces the human to a mindless follower, without any of their own free thought or choice.
Bansky, you need to take a long hard look at your own practices and your own self, before you make outlandish statements like this. Otherwise, you just wind up looking like an angry, hypocritical buffoon.
Fantastic points Craig, I actually read this letter after I had posted my thoughts on the Signalnoise forum and I had made some similar observations. I have posted my thoughts below. You said it better than I, but I just wanted to share as an indication of my agreement with everything you said. I honestly can’t believe hypocritical Banksy is!
______
I think Banksy is being incredibly hypocritical.
Is this advertising he makes outlandish, generic statements about, the same advertising he used to market his book? The same advertising he used to market his documentary and the same copyright he applied to his book on the inside cover?
Or let me guess, his promotion is ‘different’ and an ‘exception to the rule’. I really get the feeling he is trying to be controversial for the sake of it. It’s like Ben Iver says, his only answer to this apparent problem is to ‘Fuck that’ and ‘Do whatever you like’ Hardly strong, resounding advice for the future.
This guy sells his work for thousands of pounds – his work is displayed in only the homes of those who can afford it. Making others feel inadequate and inferior. Furthermore, the final paragraph, it’s almost as if he is talking about his own work.
‘They have rearranged the world, to put themselves in front of you. They never asked your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs’
Banksy – haven’t you, by emblazoning walls up and down the country with your unique style of grafitti (a brand in itself!) put yourself in front of others, without asking permission? And therefore, shouldn’t we feel it is our right to ‘re-arrange’ and ‘re-use’. Or would you be upset if suddenly everyone started messing around with your graffiti and turned it into something entirely different? The same principle applies to advertising. Only those companies have asked permission.
They have paid to display adverts in those places and we, as free thinkers have a choice whether or not we pay attention to those advertisements. Your statement reduces the human to a mindless follower, without any of their own free thought or choice.
Bansky, you need to take a long hard look at your own practices and your own self, before you make outlandish statements like this. Otherwise, you just wind up looking like an angry, hypocritical buffoon.
Provocative! Let me try to make my point I hope without causing offense.
Calling Banksy a marketeer who’s only interested in selling himself …. seems to me a bit of insider groupthink … is it not possible that he actually has something to say which he thinks is important? Nice to make a living at it of course. But do you think that is his raison detre? I hope not, but maybe am very naive. Because for me part of what is really ugly in our system is the belittling of principles, the idea that wanting to make the world a better place is fundamentally naive, and that nothing matters except the $. I think Bill Hicks made the point well and is as relevant today as ever.
While I’m sure you are right that the individuals working in the business are just trying to scrape a living like the rest of us, it is a shame that our ‘system’ means that so much of what these talented people do is for big corporate brands many of which do nothing to make peoples lives better – I guess the beauty industry / body image issues is an obvious example.
http://www.healthyplace.com/eating-disorders/articles/eating-disorders-body-image-and-advertising/
Commenters are right we have a choice whether to buy these products; but unfortunately we don’t have a choice about being sold to – all the time – and having our world shaped by corporates who care only for the content of our pockets, not of our minds or our wellbeing. And Banksy is quite right that we are perfectly entitled to get angry about that.
// This is a long post. I feel like I need to respond to it here, so double-slashes are me.
As a fellow ad man, I can understand the knee-jerk reaction to Banksy’s letter in defense of advertising, but your response oversimplifies his point into something with which you can comfortingly disagree and misses his actual intent entirely.
// Ok, go on.
“Exposure is advertising. And unless I’m much mistaken, the only product [Banksy] selling is [him]self.”
You sir, are mistaken. Exposure is exposure. It is the revelation of an idea or fact, especially one that is concealed or likely to arouse disapproval. Advertising is something different. It describes or draws attention to a product, service, or event in a public medium in order to promote sales or attendance. It may seem like a trivial difference to you, but the intention of advertising to drive the public to buy or attend something is a world apart from Banksy’s intention of exposing the public to an idea.
// I think you’re splitting hairs here. The very act of placing your work in Central London – or The Natural History Museum in New York – is designed to get people to see it, to get them talking about it and to raise it’s (and your) net worth. A lot of people – critics and supporters alike – have written in the past about Banksy’s promotional abilities.
Accusing an anonymous street artist of self promotion is a bit off.
// See above. I think anonymity in this case weakens any argument. I believe both your opinion and mine are more valid because we have a face and an identity and don’t hide behind any veil.
You falsely accuse Banksy of selling his art because you have seen his art for sale or even purchased by a lot of your friends. I suggest you try to buy something from HIS store: http://www.banksy.co.uk/shop/shop.htm – where you’ll find nothing to buy.
// Banksy has sold a lot of his work directly through the Lazarides gallery in Soho, London. But I’m sure you know this.
Were his art little more the self-promotion you claim it to be, we should expect to see the hallmark of any good advertisement- a call to action. Yet we see no urls, numbers, dates or locations for the viewer to act upon. There is nothing to consume. Instead of being told you need something you don’t have, Banksy is telling you to think something you might have missed.
// You’re being very literal here Marchelo. I’m sorry if it wasn’t clear but I wasn’t inferring that they were traditional ads – and not all all ads have a tagline or call to action, that’s very American of you. If we’re to disect his work, more often than not it features a visual juxtaposition – say, John Travolta and Samuel L Jackson from Pulp Fiction holding a banana – and his logo in the bottom right. Flick through the D&AD annuals and you’ll find a lot of very similar formats.
Your reply appears hastily written though, perhaps an emotional response to an assumed affront. I say this because I see no other excuse for a typographer to leave double-spaces in a body of text. This line in particular is coming from an unnecessary position of defense:
“It’s all just so easy isn’t it? Big companies are evil; advertising sells stuff for big companies; ergo, the people who work in advertising are also evil.”
// Clearly. I was an emotional wreck while writing this hence I left a double space in my text document and I am also a terrible typographer.
Check your premises, nowhere did Banksy say that the people who work in advertising evil. At worst he said ‘The Advertisers’ are bullies who throw rocks, but evil? That’s your conclusion.
// You’ve done you’re homework, so you’ll know that this isn’t the first time Banksy has ranted about advertising and I believe the word ‘evil’ was mentioned in a couple of interviews, AdBusters for example.
Banksy is speaking to the common practice of aspirational advertising: wherein the viewer is made to feel they would be better/happier if they were more like the fantasy we create in the advertisement. This is a highly effective way to sell, but is it in the public’s best interest to be confronted with such feeling of constant inadequacy? It’s easy to say, well I PERSONALLY am not swayed by ads so what’s the big deal? But you forget, we work in advertising. We are effectively immune to the pull of a well crafted ad in the same way comedians don’t laugh at their own joke after reciting it for the 100th time.
His point is simply this- public space is for the public to do with as they please. Advertisements have crossed the line from effective product and service promotion into a psychological assault, finely tuned by teams of professionals to create an ever present desire to consume. They have done all this in the public space without the public’s permission. He has simply responded in kind.
// Finally a point. So the point is that people should be allowed to do whatever they like wherever they like. What a great idea? Why has no-one else thought of that? Much better that than having paid-for spaces to display messaging. Also I should note you butted a hyphen up to the word ‘this’. Common typographical error but I’ll put it down to emotion. I should probably say that at no point was I intending to defend advertising here, nor was I sniping at Banksy’s work, but to be lumped in with bullying, villainous companies in the way we have been in that letter is unacceptable, incorrect and over-generalising.
Thank you for the thorough reply! The inserted comments made for easy reading, no complaints of editorializing here.🙂
Here’s what you got right:
I wholly agree with you that anonymity stifles honest discussion, Marchelo is my real name. I am indeed American, excellent catch. The American ad world can be a bit formulaic at times, my apologies for the generalization.
Though I’m sure I sound like a die-hard Banksy fanatic, my knowledge of him and his works is rather limited. I only know what I have seen online and aronud the city, in addition to the film “Exit Through the Gift Shop”. I do not own any of his works.
As for the misplaced hyphen, I was indeed emotionally compromised. I had to retype my whole reply after accidentally clicking a link refreshed the page and wiped what I had written. I am shamed.😛 (The point of my snark was to draw attention to the emotional underpinnings of your response, and a typographer making a typographical error was too good to pass. No attack on your creative abilities was intended.) I also admit I do tend to ramble, so more to the point…
People (individual actors) should not be allowed to do whatever they like wherever they like. To claim that was my point is hyperbolic nonsense, again intended to reduce my argument into something that’s easier to disagree with.
What I was trying to communicate is the notion that the people (as an autonomous collective) who inhabit a common public space should have some modicum of control over what is displayed in that space. When given some control over a public space, people almost universally elect for fewer advertisements, but for most spaces there is no such democratized control available. In Los Angeles for example, advertisers continue to erect digital billboards in defiance of city council decisions because there is simply so much money to be made from them that it offsets any legal punishment they incur.
It is this kind of overstep that makes people detest advertising, not a letter from Banksy. The pervasiveness breeds a sense of helplessness over one’s own environment, and the aspirational messaging creates an incessant need to consume to validate self-worth. As I see it, Banksy is subverting this strategy of forcing one’s perspective upon the public to counteract the commodity fetishism that is abundantly represented in our public space. The money he has made in this endeavor is only proof of the public’s approval of his artistic expression, but is not indicative of his artistic intentions as you have implied.
I am indeed splitting hairs by insisting exposure and advertising are different enough to classify Banksy’s work as art, or more accurately “street art”, but it is a necessary and real division. What is it that makes a billboard an advertisement and not street art? The billboard is selling something and street art is not.
There seems to be a disconnect in what we think he means when he says “The Advertisers” in the quote under discussion. To me, he is speaking to the corporations who push marketers to invade public space with subtly derogatory aspirational advertising messages on every touch point possible. This is why he mentions trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law, things which protect OUR CLIENTS, not we the advertising creatives.
Besides, once an ad is in the public space, our work is done and paid for. What the public chooses to do with that ad is up to them, be it the classic marker mustache or a more artistic response in the form of street art. We didn’t ask the public if they minded our erecting billboards, so why should he/they ask for permission to post their art? Banksy is reminding people that they own public spaces, not advertisers.
Bravo.
Team Robbo Lives On
FULL OF SHIT
Do you really think graffiti is about selling yourself?
That’s the big difference between advertising and graffiti: advertising is business, graffiti is fun.
// Actually you’re incorrect. The main purpose for graffiti – a traditionally juvenile pastime – has long been to mark an area or territory as being yours; so that everyone walking through an area knows you have been there and you’ve marked it with your name. So in that respect graffiti is very much about promoting yourself. I’ll concede that it can be done just for fun, but that’s until you’re selling it through a Central London gallery though, right? CW
// EDIT: I feel really sad that the take away for some people here was me defending advertising – which was not the intent of the post. The point was double standard and was solely a reply to one piece of text. This reply below is pretty passionate and I wanted to take a moment to reply properly. CW
Wow I wasted minutes reading that Horrible response from someone clearly too close to the subject to have a subjective response, or really just too lazy to take some time and research anything other than bullet points made about Banksy.
// Horrible with a capital H?! This is going to be tough😦
if you seriously don’t think advertising is an issue then you are pretty delusional. Have you paid any attention to any of the recent articles about googles new privacy policies taking effect today. Well yeah but that’s not cutting edge technology is it. Only the most secretly kept algorithms clearly are common day technology, and they have no affect on any ads you see when you login or search the internet. This is only one point that you make that doesn’t hold water. The point being advertising is everywhere, you home, your tv, your phone, your environment. Banksy clearly states this but for some reason you choose to disagree because you don’t agree with his statement after this fact.
// I don’t think I’m delusional for the reasons I gave in my piece. You have a choice. You can stop using Google, ask the post office to take your name off mailing lists and make your phone ex-directory/unlisted. All of those things need only be done once and all of these things, without advertising funding, would quickly cease to exist. The TV point I don’t understand at all. Advertising pays for TV shows. If there were no ads there would be no shows. Clearly, in the case of the internet and downloaded shows, people can’t be trusted to pay for TV when they don’t have to. Advertising subsidises this. Advertising also pays for Facebook and myriad other things from your daily life. If you disagree with these facts, you have to take measures (as above) to make sure the advertising doesn’t reach you and otherwise remove yourself from the situation where you need to use them. Advertising is an often very ugly product of the West.
I don’t see Banksy calling for the end of jobs, or marketing dollars being spent he only is pointing out an obvious flaw in our society. Instead of Murals and architecture we see billboards and countless street signs. The money behind this is corporations. I dont think Banksy was directly taking aim at advertising workers. Although you seem to be sensitive to that fact yourself with your response trying to make a point defending something that he never really attacked. Most advertising employees will tell you they could care less for the product that pays them. Its a job period. I am sure as any other artists they try to make the best of it and don’t take it personal when it is written over or re appropriated. The people you seem to be defending are the people really that if asked would support Banksy’s statement. Because one works in advertising does he love to be tracked, watched and marketed in every aspect of their life. Most I think are like any of us and don’t appreciate it at all.
// ‘The Advertisers’ is too general a term for any real discussion here. He’s not calling for an end to jobs but he would clearly rather the industry didn’t exist and in that respect he is very much taking aim at the workers. Regarding your claim that any artist doesn’t ‘take it personally when someone re-appropriates or writes over their work’…? Are you kidding? I mean for real you think if you walked into a gallery and defaced or stole a Hirst – or a Banksy for that matter – to do as you saw fit, that the artist wouldn’t mind? Very, very naive statement.
So back to your attacks on Banksy. If you really think he just copied Blek then I feel sorry for your lack of understanding of the subject or art in general. Blek is still an ok artist who lives off the fact he was the first to stencil some art in public. I could say his biggest claim to fame is being that guy who everyone say hey this is the guy that banksy ripped off. This is his claim to fame and as an artist if your only claim to fame is that another artist was influenced by you yet you have nothing of relevance after in your career after that fact. Well then you connect the dots. We cannot deny that and if he now deserves to be kinged the godfather of street art then king him. I wont because although timing plays a role in history it doesnt always define it. The medium does not define the message either. I see no similarity in banksy’s career to blek other than the simple fact they started with a stencil. The scope of what Banksy has gone on to do far outweighs any early influence. Banksy can stand alone as an artist, he doesnt owe anyone anything. His work is not always great but he is smart enough to keep progressing. I cant say the same for Blek.
// I agree. Banksy has done more than Blek ever did. Can you, however, put that in part down to the zeitgeist and his timely adoption by the (then very hip) Lazarides Gallery in London? Blek didn’t get this support in paris in the 80’s, so it’s hard to say what he would’ve done had he received it. Maybe I didn’t need to bring up Blek in this context, but it’s done now and I stand by the fact that the similarities between their early work is undeniable.
I dont get how you dont understand Banksy’s statement. By commenting on this he is at the same time explaining reasoning within his art. Its plain as day what he is implying. And to say oh your a hypocrite you paint on walls is sad because you really missed the point then. Graffiti and street art in most cases is about thinking and acting like a brand. This is obvious. He doesnt hide that fact, its not a conspiracy. The difference between a brand named banksy and chevron is that one is paid for by a corporation to get you to feel a certain way or buy a product. Artists are made to make you feel a certain way and for you reflect upon the work. Advertisers do the same thing but we dont see the art in advertising because the aims are different. We are the same yet different. he clearly knows this, you though do not. You think we actually are the same but the same.
// I lost you a bit at the end but you’re essentially right; art should make you think about other things, advertising is almost always cynical and with an alterior motive. I wouldn’t ever seek to deny this. You can’t however just do as you please to it because you don’t agree with it’s placement or message. You can boycott the product, complain to trading standards, let it eat your life for all I care but when everyone thinks they can do as they please with other people’s work/property the whole thing falls apart. I don’t agree with everything Banksy has stencilled but I’m not going to paint all over it or tear it down. I’ll just write a polite blog post and see if I get a reply.
Bottom line is Banksy wrote a honest comment on advertising and his viewpoint. Much like the media does you seemed to take what you thought he said and used it as a chance to attack him for other reasons maybe you dont like his work. Hey its easier to say you know what Banksy sucks period. I would rather of read that, than your hole filled response.
// Strictly speaking, all I did was write an honest response too. Honest doesn’t always mean correct. The difference between facts and opinions are what start a lot of these arguments in the first place. Thanks for your thoughts. CW
Amen.
Appreciate the response, you bring up valid points but in the end I do still feel you are missing the point on Banksy’s end or what I interpret it to be.
As an artist myself having painted in the street for over 20 yrs I am not as sensitive to some of the points you mention regarding disrespecting art or advertising, as I have grown used to this. In our culture we are used to things being impermanent and its the nature of the art we do. Although I think some of the creative work in advertising borders on Art and is very good aesthetically I dont see the correlation to fine art. The gallery setting is a whole different animal and of course it would be different if someone were to attack that. In public same as advertisers if my art or message is taken down misconstrued or re appropriated I am ok with it. If a designer took his artwork outside the context of advertising say for an artshow or for his portfolio then I would say an attack on it might seem deemed as hostile. I dont think that was what banksy was saying or referring to. We all might need advertising to pay for entertainment or to bring us the things we need, but I feel that is only because corporations have built that system. Some of us dont own a TV but still have to walk by billboards advertising the latest TV shows. We can go in depth on that subject and it can go on for ever, it involves economics capitalism etc. etc. Again I dont feel that was the point being made. But that is up to interpretation and mine and yours has been stated.
Contrary to your opinion I do believe you can do whatever you like in the regard to advertising. Sometimes boycotting or simply opting out isnt enough. As an artist we sometimes use the best tools at our disposal, for some of us that is our creativity. If we are able to reach more people if we really believe in something, that is the power of Art sometimes. Same way great designers are able to build a common message to the masses. We work within the same boundaries, just with different aims. We are only divided by a fence, some of us prefer to get involved some are ok with the way the system works. Banksy seems not ok with it, you do seem fine. So in the end its a matter of preference.
Reblogged this on My Log and commented:
Craig Ward has a lot of good points here.
Dear whoever you are. Fuck you. Go fuck yourself. No seriously. Take your political relativism and your reasonable rational bullshit and fuck yourself. If you can’t see what Banksy is selling other than himself then wake the fuck up. Nazi. Die. Thank you.
// I’m really glad that this guy turned out to be a commercials and TV director living in Sydney. He went on to call me a failed artist over email and, while I’m not entirely sure how one could be a relativist and a nazi, I’ll go do all those things. CW
That’s really interesting and the response is definitely much more comprehensive and well thought-out. Banksy’s argument definitely comes across as a bit flippant, but I disagree with Craig Ward when he says:
“Having seen agency life, I can attest that there’s nothing Machiavellian going on; no illuminated map of the globe and no sinister plot to take over the world; just a bunch of people trying to make a living.”
From everything I have seen, read about (‘No Logo’ is still pretty eye-opening) and heard, this is bullshit. The advertising industry is constantly trying to manipulate us in any way possible, in exactly a machiavellian way, and in evermore invasive ways. I was listening to this podcast with Josie Long, and she said that she was approached by an unnamed coffee company and offered 3 grand to drop into conversation that she had gone to that coffee shop with her mates on the radio. She turned it down because she didn’t agree with lying about it, but how sinister is that? She’s not even that famous! crazy.
Banksy isn’t giving people enough credit though. People ultimately control advertising, and it only works in so much as we are complicit in it. But it’s definitely an industry that has no scruples.
// No Logo is a whole other thing I think, but I stand by it: the industry is a shit show. It’s too disorganised to be sinister! Inefficient, desperate for attention and very much on the wane. I can see I’m going to have write another post to correct some apparently sloppy writing on my part. Being approached in a coffee shop is creepy, but the idea of a celebrity endorsement has been around for a hundred years and is staunchly American, it’s nothing new. CW
Wow, Mr Craig Ward certainly has a lot of free time on his hands.
The worst thing about, nearly all, advertising is how it lies about the companies it promotes. ‘We care, we’re here for you, we will give good after service.’ All these things are lies, all they care about is profit for the shareholders. Citizens feel more and more impotent the larger and more powerful big companies get as they amalgamate. This makes us feel frustrated and angry, and to see a billboard advert defaced even in the most purile way is a joy that can brighten a day.
Power to Banksy and all street/graffiti artists everywhere!
// Again, I have to reiterate, Mark, I really don’t like advertising. I just disagreed with some points from a specific text that happened to be by Banksy. I wrote a follow up today: https://wordsarepictures.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/why-i-dislike-advertising/
Sorry Craig, but your reply, while intelligent and rational, misses the true point and problems that Bansky and many artists today are trying to share with the world: Stop making shit people don’t need. How many times have all of us “advertisers” (yes, me too — which is why I moved to the sticks) bitched about how pointless it is? If I had a nickel for every time…… Yet we continue to make the choice to live with it, sell it, and push it. Shit perfume by a musician…. another “celebrity” clothing line, another plastic designer piece of crap…. another object that we all do not need. It has its roots in honesty, arts and craft-making, community, and bartering, but we have let it get way out of hand and we all are affected by its monster appetite. I bet 8 out of 10 advertising creatives really give a shit about the products they are designing or selling… And I have met and worked with many of them! Heck, I too was one.
I have more respect for an artist that shares his own point of view, and successfully communicates (yes markets) it to people, than I do for advertisers who push product they they themselves would not buy nor do they give a flying f*ck about. That IS THE PROBLEM, we are selling things to people that we ourselves do NOT care for. If we all just stopped for a second and started making and selling things that solved problems, that helped people and this world, communicated an HONEST vision, not a manufactured one, then “advertising” these ideas and products would be beneficial to ALL OF US. There is nothing wrong with “advertising”, there is something wrong with WHAT WE ARE ADVERTISING.
// Thanks Phillip, your final sentence is exactly it. Apparently I struggled to get that out. Again though, I didn’t want this particular post to be about advertising as much as a series of comments regarding a single piece of text. If you have time, maybe read my follow up post CW
This is one of the most self-complacent posts I have read in a long time.
>>As a child of the 80′s I grew up surrounded by cigarette advertising, yet I’ve never bought a pack in my life. I’ve seen car ads every day for 30 years and I’ve never bought one of those either.
>As it stands, there are are only 1.2 billion formal jobs in the world for the 7 billion people that live on it. If advertising keeps a few thousand off the streets then let it be, eh? People who work in advertising are good enough to buy your work, so why not buy some of what they’re selling from time to time?
Good for you. How about the other 7 billion you refer to? They buy shitty fastfood and cigs. I guess this is great since it creates a lot of jobs for doctors and the pharmaceutical industry. Great program.
>Regarding ‘the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen’ that you mention, you must be referring to the office fax machine? Having seen agency life, I can attest that there’s nothing Machiavellian going on; no illuminated map of the globe and no sinister plot to take over the world; just a bunch of people trying to make a living.
Don’t be too literal. We get hammered with marketing messages on all kinds of levels. Its a very concentrated effort to make us believe.
>A lot of my friends did though, and several of them now own your prints, books and in a couple of cases, original works.
I know many of those too, they buy those books to escape their work. ~Everybody~ in the advertising industry hates advertising. The most cynical pack of people I have ever encountered.
// It was intentionally light reading Stan, but thanks for the thoughts. The bigger issues are there for sure, and while I’m happy to raise them in this context, my 2 years spent studying Economics aged 16-18 aren’t enough for me to solve the where and why of the global jobs shortage. If people want to buy fast food and cigarettes that’s their look-out. Have you tried talking to a smoker about it? They’re usually not interested. Regarding everybody who works in advertising, I can’t agree with that at all. Whilst I never really enjoyed it (and therefore removed myself from it), there are a certain amount of people who really believe in the work they’re creating and who enjoy it for all the reasons I don’t. CW
The problem with the analogy is Banksy is one person, well ok, maybe a few. He/they can’t become as pervasive or intrusive as an industry, even graffiti as a form of expression can’t. Also irrespective of the originality of Banksys’ work, there is no overarching message to it, and that certainly wouldn’t be true if you tried to compare all graffiti to advertising.
// EDIT: And one of my points was that Banksy has overgeneralised with his term ‘The Advertisers’ it’s just far too broad and lazy, hence my reply. CW
So, I’m afraid as witty and interesting retort this is, it’s confusing the messenger with the message. You don’t have to like Banksy, or his “art” in order to get the message. Hasx griffitt or Banksy “taking the piss out of you everyday”, does it “leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small” has it made “flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else” and does your girlfriend “feel inadequate: as a result of seeing it on TV?
// EDIT: Well, actually, graffiti takes the piss out of a lot of people every day. In fact some of it’s quite offensive on the lower end of the scale. And the graffiti that Banksy peddles, makes flippant comments and takes the piss out of a lot of people: the government, the police etc. I don’t find it offensive, I just wanted to note it. CW
Thank you for this rebuttal. But I have to say that in many ways I find it just as simplistic as Bansky’s original rant.
You say there are no machiavellian schemes going on at Ad agencies. I guess you are exempting some of the strategic and target demographic discussions that go on prior to forming a creative brief? During my regrettable career in advertising, I have personally sat in on strategy meetings that made me sick—e.g. where the best methods for convincing ‘black and hispanic single mothers’ that fast food was an acceptable and healthy meal to give their children on Sundays was discussed.
// Nice! That is some despicable shit! The strategy side is undeniably where the bad stuff happens when it does happen. Luckily I never worked on fast food stuff but I’ve been in some gross meetings too; alcohol brands especially get really into targeting. Another reason I left that world. I really just walked away thinking ‘Was that for real? No way anyone’s going to buy this?’ but I think I just credit people with too much intelligence to pay attention to it. CW
I do not care much either for the self righteous rants of art world elite. But to suggest that increasingly pervasive nature of advertising is harmless and does not impoverish the overall quality of our culture and democracy seems extremely complacent on your part.
// Thanks for this. Definitely one of the best replies I’ve read. CW
Great reply. He deserved to be called out on this. Cheers, Chris
Pingback: Cool Stuff In Blogsville « Low Radio FreQ