Banksy Cashes In

It's interesting, because when I imported this picture, my intention was merely to discuss the legalities that surround street art. It is actually one of a series of free postcards that they distribute in various cafes and restaurants around Dublin (and most of Europe, I presume). The images are all photographs of street art from around the world, so they have a location listed but not an artist. Banksy, arguably the most popular name in this genre, is one of the few who leaves a tag with his art, though his style is so distinct this is hardly necessary. None of the postcards feature his work.

My curiosity lies with the artist. The cards are circulated at no cost, so it can't really be said that the work has been stolen. The artist has chosen not to reveal their identity, but this does not leave the door open for profit. Who benefits from the collected books that feature these works, and should an artist be forced to surrender his or her anonymity to prevent such theft of integrity? The reclusive Banksy has begun to hold gallery openings and museum exhibits, both garnering loads of publicity and mula. Does this shift from brick wall to gallery hall change the nature of street art, stripping it of the raw quality that contributes to the genre's very name?

In a NYTimes article, the legality of street art hits the spotlight with a much different hue. "Splashers" have been destroying works in Brooklyn and DUMBO by dumping large blobs of paint on completed murals, in addition to administering lengthy manifestos on the 'gentrification' such art promotes. The notion that street art, a movement I applaud for its rejection of the sometimes restrictive nature of galleries, is in no way the 'bourgeoisie-sponsored rebellion' the Splashers claim it to be. However, the conflict does not escape the question that will plague street art's legal woes until the last brick in the wall meets a brush. What is art? By creating work in such public domain, can Splashers really be prevented from adding their blobs?

I will admit these questions stem from a very legal based perspective on the art, and in no way do I have any personal tolerance for such Splashers. Once an artist has set up shop on a wall, there is clearly an unspoken set of rules that will prevent the space from alteration by outside parties. If the owner of the wall, or at least the inside of it, states no qualms, is it really necessary for the splashers to destroy the free nature of the very art they are attempting to reclaim from bourgeoisie clutches? The trick then becomes the application of these unwritten codes into legal proceedings though, a process that will very much resemble the blobs poor street artists (and their supporters) love to hate.