Banksy May Be Skilled, But He's No Boxer

After reading a certain interesting blog post on Banksy and the graffiti culture as a whole, I have reflected on what the blogger said about the inclusion of graffiti as a form of art and the differences he finds between the two. He brings up an interesting point of discussion on art as a means of expression and uses an odd, but beneficial nonetheless, example of intention versus interpretation. Overall, I have to say I agree with pretty much most of what he says and believe that Banksy’s graffiti is in fact art. This is because I find myself feeling the same sentiments that he does towards the roundabout characteristics of art that graffiti undoubtedly encompasses.

Marksaid, a well-known “wordpress” site done by Mark Mapstone and the blog which I happen to be writing about, immediately starts by asking the reader this question: “Is graffiti art?” To which Mark replies back with the question, “What’s the difference between graffiti and art?” The only way to answer this, he finds, is by determining just what art is. He finds it to be based on three things: the intention of the creator, the interpretation of the views, and the expression involved with the process.

I, on the other hand, think art is also defined by having to be in some manner physical. I see art as having to be somewhat of a physical nature because I feel like art is something that needs to be seen, whereas poetry and prose are things that need to be read, and music is something that needs to be heard. Other than that, I do agree that art is defined once the intention and expression have been identified. The interpretation, however, I think is not necessary in defining something as art as much as it is to define something as a certain type of art. For instance, when Banksy put a blowup doll dressed in Guantanamo Bay clothing in Disneyland, it was art as soon as he started doing it and had the intention. It was not until a few minutes later, when everyone witnessed it and was shocked, that it became a piece of guerilla art.

When he states, “Graffiti is a form of expression with intention open to interpretation which equals: art.” I agree with him but I find that we have come to the same conclusion from different trails of explanation. I find that graffiti is a form of expression with intention that can be interpreted as art, but it does not have to be. For instance, say that I walk up to a random person on the street and push them to the ground as hard as I can because I happen to be mad. It is open to interpretation, because you cannot stop interpretation from happening, so does that make it art? I find that the answer to that is simply no. No it is not art. This is because I think Mark is missing a piece of the puzzle called action. I believe that action is what separates Banksy from Joe Frazier. One expresses himself through political graffiti on walls and government property and one expresses himself through action. Nice, bloody, cable-ready action.