Without question, part of Banksy's allure lies in that he is anonymous beyond his pseudonym. And perhaps to uber-celebrities like Pitt and Jolie part of the allure lies in that Banksy has acquired a particular sort of fame which they could never hope to achieve. One must ask, how should we view Banksy now that his invaluable anonymity has been snatched away?
Pairing an identity with Banksy's body of work does not strip the works themselves of their resonance. And while the Daily Mail may try to make a story of such a world class dissident having a middle class background, that is neither shocking in a historical sense nor once you closely consider the content of Banksy's work. Banksy has long explored themes of authority and the vulnerability of middle class contentment, often delightfully juxtaposing the two.
It seems like anonymity is something less than a conceptual necessity here but I do not want to be too quick to say Banksy as Robin Gunningham does not matter because Robin Gunningham is simply a new monicker for what we knew as Banksy. While it would be much worse for Banksy to be revealed as another artist with an acknowledged body of work that muddies the intrigue of the Banksy persona, as some have suggested before; Robin Gunningham is not simply Banksy by some other name.
There are two basic ways having a name is worse for Banksy than being incognito. The first is that the more his fame grew the more remaining elusive was an impressive feat similar to any of his "quality vandalism" exploits. The other is that it puts some definite end points on a previously boundless mythology. We as fans can no longer sit and wonder. There is a man and an autobiography. While his work always provided hints at his humanity, he could only be truly humanized by being joined with an identity.
No comments:
Post a Comment