Saving Banksy

Banksy is one British artist. He does not show his face. Yet the documentary starts with one bald bespectacled white man who talks about a generic "we". Is he Banksy? Who cares! The producers have somehow missed captioning that footage. Than the audience gets some captions, but with slogans. Like "Their art is now being removed from the walls..." Oh, so this is something new. Before graffiti used to be framed and put inside the dining room. Oops! That is happening now. And the removal has been done before. Anyway, I kept watching this junk hoping to see how the producers of this piece are saving Banksy. That proved to be misleading too. What a waste! The boring parroting of "the profit is bad" Christian dogma, propriety is anything the speaker want to assume, etc.

Contact me with Questions, Comments or Suggestions ryitfork @ bitmail.ch

On the surface is an average documentary. I believe the film makers did just enough to communicate their viewpoints regarding Banksy, graffiti and its place in todays world of fine art . To this end, this really is a thesis film, but falls under the genre of documentary.

This film is supportive of graffiti art and the artists who work has stemmed from this activity. This film glorifies the criminal nature of tagging (as adventure, which it is), and utilizes graffiti artists and their supporters for perspective - there is no meaningful counterpoint, which to most viewers really won't matter - Saving Banksy does a good job of presenting content in a convincing manner. Most people will agree with the points made, especially artists.

I actually (kinda) feel the same way about Banksy's art that I do about this film - His work is good bordering on great, and has an excellent balance of form and content. Banksy's public graffiti is well thought out, and can be analyzed/critiqued based upon artistic merit alone in a very deep and extended conversation. However, these qualities are just the beginning of the Banksy phenomenon. It's like when he completes a public work - those in that environment, at all levels, go absolutely bananas. An irrational freak-out fest ensues, and people go Way out of their way to complicate something that really isn't that significant in the grand scheme of things. However, this ends up being a wonderful metaphor for so many aspects of reality at this moment (currently 2018). People losing their minds over nothing, and making the simple very, very complicated. And you know that Banksy understands all this, and absolutely must love his injections of chaos into communities and the art world as a whole. To me, this is the brilliance of Banksy - not the work itself, but the reaction his art elicits.

So worth watching? Absolutely - a savvy viewer can read between the lines, and turn what really is a pretty average film into something memorable and compelling. But (by and large) this is a function of the content, and not inherent to the film making. This isn't necessarily a harsh critique; part of a film makers role is to know when to emphasize content, and when to get out of the way and allow the content to speak for itself. That would be the optimistic outlook on this film. The other side would be that this film had a chance to be truly special had the filmmakers emphasized the explosion that occurs when Banksy unleashes his creations on the public. In doing so the film could have asked more questions about what this all might mean, and (perhaps) attempt to define Banksy's historical context. But this is an opinion, and I will admit that maybe this film is better for allowing the viewer to formulate their own conclusions.

random observation (rant): One thing that can be gleaned from the interviews with graffiti artists in this film is that they (the people asked about Banksy), by and large, felt this film was about them - or (at least) that they are peers with Banksy. Don't get it mistaken, they aren't. I do think at least one of the artists really realized their significance with regard to Banksy (by the way he answered questions), and it is ironic, because their work might be the strongest (formally) in the entire film. But, my point would be that none of these artists interviewed are anywhere near Banksy in terms of relevance - Banksy has few peers in todays world of fine art. He is not merely a graffiti artist, he is utilizing the painting sub-genre tactically, brilliantly.

average film, marked up for fascinating nature of content: 7/10

This is the second doc in the past couple of years discussing Banksy and also a worthy contributor to those who are distant from, yet interested in, his drawings. As an alternative school teacher I sometimes would take ss on graffiti wall art tours (and/or Rocky Horror showings) so I have a little appreciation. And, to be up front, not all wall tags are positive contributors to a wall. Many are just self- aggrandizement and show little respect toward the people who own that wall or passers viewing their scribblings. It's another double edged sword issue.

Should those drawings be saved; sold or erased? Well, the answer is in one's personal definition of art. Some view art like everything else in life - temporary and at some point will no longer exist - so why bother! Others say the role of art (or all human endeavours) is to see if we can improve toward some idealized state of being/mind/behaviour thus art (or anything that helps in that journey) should be saved & promoted. Does Neanderthal wall art help us when we happen upon it in a cave and ponder what it tells us about humanity tens-of- thousands of years ago?

What Banksy did with the Palestinian wall drawings may help ease Palestinian, by analogy, ever decreasingly sized Indian reservation style imprisonment. Only time …

What Brian Grief is trying to do in putting one up for public tour is no different than a thousands-of-years old Egyptian or Chinese sculpture on tour to peoples around the world that offers first-hand experience of an event well beyond anything they are likely to ever experience. Or that fossil of a dinosaur in transition to bird (Archaeopteryx) being viewed in person. As is often said - let time be that judge. There's truth in art, established over time. But, can time get it wrong?

Internationally known graffiti artist Banksy left his mark on San Francisco. This act of vandalism would spark a chain of events that includes one of his rats being removed from a wall, museums ignorantly turning down a free Banksy street work, and a New York gallery director who has made it his business model to remove Banksy street works from all over the globe doing whatever it takes to get the rat in his possession.

I suppose I would consider myself a fan of street art. I enjoy pop art in general and much of what these street artists do -- Banksy included -- is very eye-catching. There is no doubt in my mind that he is worthy of being in a museum. But some interesting points are raised here.

Mostly: Who owns the art? If the canvas used is a home or business and no permission was given, does the art become the property of the homeowner? This seems to make sense. But many other legal and moral ramifications abound -- if the art is illegal, can anyone own it at all?

This is an OK doc on a very interesting subject. It raises the question of who owns a piece of public art, using the work Banksy did in San Francisco and the quest of a man to try and save one of his pieces from being destroyed or forgotten. It is a valid and interesting topic, but for a documentary to be successful, in my opinion, it needs to be neutral and informative, and this one is not very neutral. After asking those questions it takes the point of view of many street artists and villainizes one of the art dealers whereas I don't think it's that simple. It is a good look at the art world and at the Banksy phenomenon and I do like the guy that's only trying to do what he thinks is right with his work of Banksy, but overall I think this theme deserved a bit more.