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.