Hm. This article initially spends a lot of time arguing pros and cons to revealing Banksy’s identity. I don’t think they provide a good argument to do so, beyond the journos’ ability to solve the mystery. But as Jeff Goldblum points out in “Jurassic park”, there is a difference between “could” and “should”.
For one thing, anonymity enables the artist to move around and make his public art freely. And he has made a point of preserving that anonymity to focus on the art itself. It’s honestly a relief in a culture so obsessed with celebrity and biography.
Even with the precautions the Reuters investigators do take to respect Banksy’s privacy (and no spoilers, the article shows he has done a good job of that himself), I think this “unmasking” is a disservice both to the public and to the artist. It’s not a matter of disenchantment, or “the magic of the unknown”, but simply that in some cases, the person behind the art is immaterial to the art itself.
Hm. This article initially spends a lot of time arguing pros and cons to revealing Banksy’s identity. I don’t think they provide a good argument to do so, beyond the journos’ ability to solve the mystery. But as Jeff Goldblum points out in “Jurassic park”, there is a difference between “could” and “should”.
For one thing, anonymity enables the artist to move around and make his public art freely. And he has made a point of preserving that anonymity to focus on the art itself. It’s honestly a relief in a culture so obsessed with celebrity and biography.
Even with the precautions the Reuters investigators do take to respect Banksy’s privacy (and no spoilers, the article shows he has done a good job of that himself), I think this “unmasking” is a disservice both to the public and to the artist. It’s not a matter of disenchantment, or “the magic of the unknown”, but simply that in some cases, the person behind the art is immaterial to the art itself.