![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The paragraph on Banksy's criminal status flows better after it has been spelled out what he stands for....
This article could be improved by omitting, or at least segregating, matters of opinion from matters of fact.
Banksy's stencil graffiti was directly inspired (copied? ripped off?) by the 1980's work of French street artist Blek Le Rat. It's extraordinary that this is barely acknowledged anywhere. It certainly deserves to be mentioned in this Wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.82.238 ( talk) 21:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't look great to have "citation needed" so early on in an article; does anyone have any evidence that Banksy was actually born in 1974 (I couldn't find any). If so, cite it, if not, then we should get rid of the assertion 62.25.109.196 14:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
In Trevor Jackson (alias The Boy Lucas)Interview with Banksy. In: [free Magazine]Gunfight 29. Ausgabe 3. 2000. Banksy says: "I'm twenty-six now, and I kind of think if I picked up painting a wall at my age it would be kind of sad." So at 16 March 2000 he said he's 26. So he was born in 1974. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.113.168 ( talk) 19:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that last argument counts - what if his birthday isn't in Jan/Feb/first 2 weeks of March? Additionally, the citation currently used for that date links to a BBC article where they allege to know his name. Even worse, they say (with certainty) that it is Robert, an allegation denied in this very Wiki. What I'm getting at is that this wiki is using a source to allege a date that is uncertain at best and that source claims facts that are denied later in this wiki. Sounds a bit contradictory to me...
I could have sworn reading that he didn't do the PUMA or MTV stuff in one of his books - FrancisTyers 15:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
It looks like Banksy has a plausible defence (IMO) in respect of Puma, that there was a collaboration involving a promotions company and Puma without his knowledge. [1] Note that Bansky does not assert copyright over his work. I've googled "Banksy MTV" and was unable to come up with anything other than oblique references. Propose to remove the reference to corporate collaborations for now. -- Vjam 13:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
In his book Wall and Piece theres a long-winded disclaimer where he "reluctantly" asserts his right to be recognised as the author of the work, but states that he does not assert copyright. I'm pretty sure this is correct, but I've given the book away - perhaps someone else has it to hand?-- Vjam 12:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
In the book by Steve Wright "Banksy's Bristol" inside the front cover is a statement regarding copyright. As the images are in the public domain, on public walls etc they cannot assert copyright. Will get the exact wording.--bexxypink
I'm not really sure where to post this comment as I'm new to this wikipedia malarky, but I saw Banksy on the Community Channel on Sky Digital a few weeks back doing a short feature on street dancing. I was really quite surprised when I saw him on it; he simply stated his name as 'banksy' and that he was a street dancer. He then went on to show some dances he had choreographed, one where he was with another guy dancing in a scrapyard, and another in a studio with a red backdrop with three guys in top hats and street wear doing another routine. He seemed quite a pleasant chap. The feature was part of a programme about street dancing, and filmed circa 1997ish. Then I looked his name up on here and that article about unmasking him from the Evening Standard, and lo and behold it was the same fella! On the show he had a goatee beard and kangol beret and was much younger. I don't know if this information's of any use, but maybe someone more capable could research it?
[2]. Some great pictures as well, can they be used under fairuse? -- Mrfixter 19:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't see why people are interested in revealing his identity - isn't it just fantastic that someone so talented and passionate can be left to enjoy what they do and be recognised for it without having to deal with the pressure of fame? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.40.144.75 ( talk) 13:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The parenthetical clause (although many newspapers assert that it is Robert or Robin Banks) was recently removed by User:70.179.75.87 for the reason if he doesn't want it published i think wikipedia should respect that..
In my opinion, Wikipedia need not respect such wishes. If the initial assertion were cited, then it should stay. I'm leaving it here for discussion. Dystopos 19:23, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's fine then. It's in the public domain with a verifiable source, so it can be included and referenced properly. Well done on research. Tyrenius 04:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I once tried (unsuccessfully) to do some research about Banksy for something I was writing. What I can comnfirm is that there was no-one called Robert (or Robin) Banks born in Bristol in 1974. So either the name, date or place is fake (or perhaps all three!). Bluewave 09:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It's the sort of thing people spend two months arguing over on Wiki. There's a guide somewhere to dig out (maybe). I've amended the real name bit to make it less certain. It would be good to illuminate that uncertainty in the article, but I have no time to spend on it I'm afraid, but I do agree with you about Lola. Tyrenius 14:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The Guardian says its Robert Banks, BBC says its Robin Banks. Which is it? Brentt 01:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that so long as there is mention of his actual name, the section regarding "Real Identity" should be removed. Otherwise it's just redundant and possibly confusing.
Rob Banks? Didn't he write How to Get Rich? It was a similar work to Haunted House by Hugo First, if I recall correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.6.14 ( talk) 06:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I know we can't use it in the article, but this might be interesting to some: http://gawker.com/389054/banksy-unmasked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.37.46 ( talk) 07:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I currently believe that the article is biased; obviously others disagree.
At the moment I think it's obvious that some people think that "Banksy" is considered to be talented; some of those people are here on Wikipedia. We can see them.
I don't really know if it could be said that he is "widely considered to be a talented artist" though. Certainly that isn't backed up by any references, or surveys of exactly what percentage of people consider him to be talented.
In addition, the "so-called "Criminal Damage"" can definitely be removed; it is criminal damage, not so called. The law in most countries is very much against vandalism, and that's what this is. No, illegal is not the same thing as immoral. No, vandalism is not always worhtless; indeed, I think that in this case at least it's provocative and that's what art, and especially meaningful art, needs to be. This doesn't change the fact that objectively what "Banksy" does is both against the law and vandalism.
This is also an encyclopaedia and should represent the views of all people, not just of one. While some people obviously think that "Banksy" provides a voice to the urban unheard (was this article created just for this page or...?) I'm sure we can all think of at least two people who would disagree, and claim that his work is just simple un-representative vandalism and in my day we respected authority, yada yada yada. Just because we (and yes, I do include me here) disagree with those people doesn't mean that their views do not exist.
Comments? GeorgeBills 15:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I mean I'm a big fan of Banksy's work myself but the article's quite obviously POV - phrases like "great" popularity are usually reserved for Beatles-level stuff.
As for sources, hmmm how about the Wired article that's linked to this very article? For example: "... But critics see him as nothing more than an overhyped vandal. Peter Gibson, a spokesperson for the Keep Britain Tidy campaign, says graffiti has become an epidemic: "How would he feel if someone sprayed graffiti all over his house?" There are dissenting opinions. It's wrong to revert an honest attempt at NPOV. swidly 03:58, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
You're claiming that against the law == criminal damage? And that it is clearly vandalism? Sorry, but I would class the construction of freeways in that class.
It's perfectly okay to make the article more neutral, I agree it's kinda fanboy mode right now, but if you just put "some people say" in front of every statement, it comes out sounding like crap. It's just clumsy writing. Say what you will about the views of the current article, at least it reads alright. Shermozle 07:29, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Qoute " You're claiming that against the law == criminal damage? And that it is clearly vandalism? Sorry, but I would class the construction of freeways in that class."
Construction freeways is not against the law, nor is it criminal damage. Criminally damaging property, is against the law. It is criminal damage, in the UK punishable by upto 10 years in jail. Hopefully the police will catch this child, and the courts will impose the maximum sentence. Before someone catches him damaging their property, and inflicts criminal damage to his body.
Banksy wouldn't be who he was today if the things he did were not against the law. I respect his work but the article does need to be toned down a bit.
There is a legitimate controversy surrounding Banksy's graffiti. A lot of people are of the opinion that some of his works, like spilling paint all over various stone statues in London, were not works of art, but rather, simple acts of vandalism. His defacements ended up costing thousands of pounds to repair and clean up and pissed off a lot of the people living there. The article at least needs to addresses more of the negatives of Banksy's work. Personally (and I'll admit my own bias here) I think a lot of Banksy's work is brilliant, but some of it really just missed the mark and ended up being plain old costly vandalism. -- Cyde Weys vote talk 22:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
This is not encyclopedic: "Some of Banksy's fans believe that his stencilled graffiti provides a voice for those living in urban environments that could not otherwise express themselves, and that his work is also something which improves the aesthetic quality of urban surroundings; many others disagree," " or that his (apparently left wing) beliefs are not shared by the majority of the inhabitants of the environments that he graffitis." is mildly encyclopedic, but what some people say is inherently unverifiable. We need a newspaper guessing that people believe that or someone important saying it. You know what? Lets beat ourselves up. This is written shoddily. I suggest we agressively take out what cannot be proven right away. Even my edit sucks, because somebody saying Banksy's work is vandalism isn't really controvertial, I mean, I love the guy, but look vandalism up in a dictionary. 66.41.66.213 03:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The dictionary defines "vandalise" as "to destroy or deface". Clearly you cannot "destroy" a wall or any other structure by painting on it; "deface" is defined as "to mar the surface or appearance of...". It then comes down to personal opinion - is a grubby wall or the inside of a dirty railway bridge actually "marred" (damaged or spoiled) by having a picture painted on it? Is posting up an advertising billboard onto a wall any better? Yes, I know advertising billboards are not illegal, but the end result is the same - the appearance is changed. The only difference is that advertising billboards are deemed legitimate because money is involved. In other words, yes, it may be illegal to do what Banksy does, but so what? The law is only someone (albeit an influential person's) opinion in any case, its not a universal truth. SimonUK 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
hey this is part of [ Wikipedia:WikiProject_Graffiti ] we may not 'like' or 'rate' what banksy does but this guy is picasso to some people in england from the media coverage. also we would not ask mozart to write about sex pistols - so some of comments are misplaced IMHO. Extremeweb 23:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
He recalled that while hiding beneath a train, he spent a long while staring at a stencilled part number on the mechanism of the train's underside. At this moment, says Banksy, he received the inspiration for his stencilling technique. I think it would be good to give a reference for this description of how banksy got into stenciling. i believe the story is verifiable, because i have read it somewhere myself, perhaps in one of his books? Mujinga 14:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
there are now 2 pictures of banksy from various sources. fair use to post them on the main page? Extremeweb 14:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we need some discussion about this latest photo of Banksy. First, it is currently sub-titled with 'unconfirmed', but if the Daily Mail printed it, isn't that a verifiable source (even though they may well be wrong)? Secondly, if the Daily Mail printed it, how can it be in the Commons with the statement "the copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it, allowing it to be freely reproduced, etc etc"? I very much doubt that the Daily Mail have done any such thing.-- duncan 06:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
"A Brian Sewell spoof website claims to show a photograph of Banksy." The picture in question looks very much like Simon Phillips, the registrant of briansewell.com, so I think this text should be changed/deleted. Wnjr 10:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The latest picture of Banksy (if it is indeed him) claims to be sourced from Conditionals.net with permission. However this is just the photo that was published in the Evening Standard and elsewhere, scanned in (this is obvious from the quality of the image). i.e. Conditionals.net can't give permission for its usage, it's not their image.-- duncan 19:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I just reordered the references, as previously, clicking on the 9th references at the bottom of the page (i.e. within the "References" section) moved the article back up to where the reference marker was #10. (I hope that last sentence made sense.) Now, clicking on #6 within the article links to the sixth "Reference", while clicking on the sixth reference returned the page to #6. However, the final reference made within the article (#14) is actually connected to the third reference (Random House), which is already used in the article beforehand. If somebody could change it so that the superscript reads [3] as opposed to reading [14] and linking to the third "Reference", it would make the article look a bit better. It's not really a big deal (in fact, in the time I've been typing this, I could've perhaps figured it out myself), but say (for example) that this were a featured article candidate, it would be something that someone would immediately point out as a flaw. -- Kicking222 13:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean this in a condescending way, but it would be good to have a few more facts about the subject of this article. for example when did Banksy have his epiphany on the train. When & where did he (or perhaps she) start creating these works? Have there been any themes or periods (such as Picasso's cubist phase...) that have been identified in the works? Jon Sept 5 2006.
This article says it was a collaboration with Danger Mouse, and that it was Danger Mouse who did the remix: [3]. Other articles speak of 'rumours' that it was Danger Mouse who did the remix.
My question: is this source enough? I'd rather see more sources claim this before adding it to the article, but I can't seem to find any. Key to the city 08:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Also... the Paris Hilton part is a wee bit misleading. Under the current wording, it could be interperated that Banksy stole CD's. In reality, he simply moved CD's off the rack to other parts of the store and put his own fakes in their place. Some rewording would clear this confusion up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.219.133.241 ( talk) 00:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Disneyland Doesn't have a Rocky Mountain Railroad.
It might be worth mentioning, the graffiti of a naked man hanging from a window on the wall of a building in Bristol which 96% of the public voted to keep, was actually on the wall of a sexual health clinic [6]. If anyone thinks this is relevant to the article they can include it. Personally I think it shows Banksy's sense of humour quite well! Alex 23:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
It was a pleasure to pass this article. A great deal of material is sourced, it was fun to read, well-illustrated and well-organized.
I'd improve it, if it were up to me, with a longer intro (there's enough detail in the article to do so) and some more sourcing. The Technique section in particularly could do with this, as with the Peter Gibson complaint. And I bet you could write more (and probably will). Daniel Case 03:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Is his opinion of Banksy really all that important?
User:Duncancumming removed this image, commenting
If it is not a Banksy, do you know who did stencil it? Note, that the image is significantly different, but somewhat similar to this image used by Banksy at his Barely Legal event. -- Solipsist 08:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Do magazine articles/interviews count as verifyable sources? Because I have an interview with Banksy that says the quote he put in the penguin enclosure is "We're bored of fish - we wanna go home". Same article mentions him tagging the steps of the Tate with "Mind The Crap" the night before they announced the Turner Prize, which could go under Stunts? They included one of his stencils too, for you to use yourself. They also mention how he's only been caught once, in NYC. And there's a picture of him too (face obscured), but I'm guessing that wouldn't be fair use?
I didn't want to just edit, and piss of the regular contribs, so I put it here first to see if people thought any of that was worthwhile to add.
It's the UK mag Bizarre, which does cover some..off color topics, and feature nudity and such, but they've been around for 10 years (I think), and I'd imagine that they'd keep at least some journalistic standards. What should be added, and what should not? Can we use the picture of Banksy if we credit the photographer?
Is there some sort of conspiracy within the media to keep "Banksy"'s identity secret? When you think of some of the people the press have managed to track down over the years, it's not as if they couldn't find and "expose" this guy if they really wanted to. When you consider how high-profile his work is, it's pretty absurd that he hasn't been splashed all over the papers.
Photographs turn up now and again, but they are always low quality, of dubious veracity and do not always appear to be of the same person. His real name also seems to be in doubt.
Some of his works seem to defy belief, e.g. the Big Thunder Mountain Railroad stunt. How did he manage to gain access without attracting suspicion? Were the ride operators in on it?
Has anyone explored the possibility that there's actually a collective of people doing this stuff? 217.155.20.163 14:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC) --Its an intreguing idea, and I've oft wondered if indeed Banksy is a many rather than a one, but Wikipedia is not meant for original research dude. 58.7.0.146 05:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
They probably could reveal his identity, but why would they? They would get a bit of publicity for it, but everyone would HATE them forever. 195.137.93.129 ( talk) 17:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, --- J.S ( t| c) 03:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The article states the paperback isn't out yet, but I've got a copy from a local bookshop right here in my hand!
I am taking this to peer review: any advice is appreciated in making this a good article! -- SunStar Net talk 16:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Dont know if its worth mentioning anywhere but there have been a few articles in London papers about Banksy's work at a few London stations. This is an interesting article i found about Network Rail staff now being taught to recognise Banksy's so that instead of painting over the work, they are able to remove it and auction it off, giving the money to charity. Theres also a mention of a piece of his work being painted over a few months ago. Zephyr 04:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The registrant of Banksy's website is Steve Lazarides, a photographer. Lazarides is Banksy's agent. Lazarides now has a gallery on Greek Street in London's Soho called Laz Inc, where Banksy originals can be bought. The website picturesonwalls.com has the exclusive sale rights for all of Banksy's limited edition prints.
Isn't this just advertising. Should it be removed. 212.140.167.99 21:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Removed it 212.140.167.99 23:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I know the Wikipedia test is "verifiability", not "truth". However, that does not mean we have to include something that is verifiable but untrue! Sources do tell us that he was born in the Bristol area in 1974 and that his real name is Robert Banks. (Actually you can also find sources that give Robin Banks.) However, it is quite easy to verify (by going through the four volumes of birth registers in the Family Records Centre, London and available on microfilm from lots of places) that there wasn't a Robert Banks born in the Bristol area in 1974. Shouldn't the article at least make it clear that there are doubts about his name/place/date Bluewave 16:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone added that Banksy work was recently featured on Melrose (at the end of the Art Stunts section). Can someone clarify what this is? a TV Show? LinguistAtLarge 19:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Banksy's photo is in this Evening Standard article [9] which should be fair use in the article?
banksy is one of the few hopes that this world have left. Following his footsteps or at least trying to make change for the better of our future and for the future of young folks is something that we really need to take in consideration before is to late and this world goes down the drain.
I think this article is seriously lacking in two simple ways: it does not have a section discussing his published works, of which there are several editions. and it fails to recognize Banksy's own topical categorization of his work in these books. I hate to draw the conclusion, but he has "periods" sort of like Picasso. He has rat themes, police themes, etc. etc. I'll buy the book again and do it myself if I have to, but until that content is included, I think this article frankly fails as a sober encyclopedic treatment of his art, not just his sensational stunts. VanTucky (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
This article has been nominated to become a good article. Having taken the decision to review it, I I discovered that it's already been listed as a good article. Right, confusing. Next up I had a quick look at the article and believe that, firstly, it needs to be delisted as a good article. Then some work needs to be done on it (e.g. WP:MOS, WP:CITE, the concern raised in the section above) before it should be renominated. Therefore I'll remove the current GA nominee tag and give it a couple of days before I delist it unless anyone objects. Cheers! The Rambling Man 15:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on all points. Delisting seems in order to be sure. VanTucky (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
As per my and VanTucky's concerns, I've listed this article at WP:GA/R with the intention that it's delisted. Please head there to contribute to the discussion. All the best, The Rambling Man 15:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Me and Ajux had a bit of a revert thing over the inclusion of the image template earlier. One of Ajux's earlier edits (changing the sentence "removed by graffiti clean-up crew" to "removed by vandals" appeared to be a joke edit, so I assumed that the motivation for removing the template was not good. However, on reflection I have to agree that this template seems a bit uneccessary (until/if his identity is confirmed, when an image could be considered). We wouldn't put a template on the "yeti" page awaiting the moment when the hairy beast is 'finally' photographed or a template requesting a current photo of lord lucan. 3tmx 14:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
May 2007
When renowned graffiti artist Banksy created one of his trademark pieces on the wall of the cutting-edge White Cube art gallery he might have expected it to be in safe hands.
But the gallery has been left embarrassed after the £200,000 work was destroyed.
The mural, called Sweep It Under The Carpet, showed a maid looking as if she was lifting up a part of the wall like a curtain to sweep away some dust.
It adorned the outside of the gallery in Hoxton, East London, for two months before vanishing.
Although White Cube employees insist they have no idea who painted over the mural, neighbouring businesses say they believe gallery staff were responsible.
Dave Ma, the manager of Shish restaurant, which is directly opposite the wall, saw someone he believes was a White Cube staff member painting over the work.
He said: "The gallery's policy is to paint over any graffiti the following day. When the Banksy work appeared, staff at the Cube asked their boss if they could bend the rules and leave it.
"He said they could leave it for a month but ordered them to cover over it once the month was up.
"It's a real shame. People in the area thought it was a great piece of art. They certainly didn't expect it to be destroyed."
A White Cube spokeswoman said: "Contractors were hired to paint the wall but were told not to paint over the Banksy.
"It wasn't removed by us or our contractors. It was painted over by a third party but we don't know who."
A friend of the artist said: "The fact that it was painted over is an embarrassment. It's a ridiculous thing for the gallery to do." AJUK Talk!! 14:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Could someone PLEASE remove the infobox? It shows absolutely no necessary information on Banksy. All it says is that he stencils and that he's British. Gabriel Surette 20:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that one of the notable things about Banksy is the degree of support and interest that he has generated amongst the mainstream public. The example of the naked man picture is mentioned in the article - where the public overwhelmingly voted to keep the picture, rather than having it cleaned off. As far as I am aware, Banksy is unique amongst graffiti artists (at least in the UK) in being appreciated by a significant section of the general public. I would include some words to that effect in the opening section of the article but wanted to check the consensus on this page first. Bluewave ( talk) 10:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Is banksy gay? I was wondering because it's not mentioned anywhere, and I got that impression from somewhere online. Sorry, I just can't remember where. Family Guy Guy ( talk) 07:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- In his books he talks about having a girl friend.-- Evanw ( talk) 22:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Why are three articles that say his name is Robin or Robert Banks used to source a statement that says his name is not Robin or Robert Banks? The Hero of This Nation ( talk) 18:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
To balance out the potential POV claims about this article (it does rather read as a bit of a fan page, and only covers the POV of people who happen to like him, don't you think you should discuss a lot of his critics.
I assure you, that although he is very popular with the mainstream, he is also very unpopular with just as many people. Particularly with traditional grafitti communities.
As an example, in Bristol there are actually as many "anti banksy" pieces as there are his own work. He's labelled a "fake", a "sell out" and someone who has turned undergound street art into a commercial operation. Many peoppe dislike how he has turned underground art into a commercial genre. Bearing in mind the whole point of underground art is to protest against commerciality.
The underground grafitti/street art scene generally see him as someone who actively courted publicity, fame and wealth in truth. And his work was just a means to find fame. Bearing in mind he started choosing increasinly well populated places to display his work, when he realized that he wasn't getting the adulation he wanted, using traditional grafitti "canvasses" - as in, out of the way places.
Banksy was nowhere in the Bristol Grafitti scene until 2001. Then he just appeared. And he merely found fame by painting stencils on to very public buildings.
When you take into account that the whole point of street art is to bring art, colour, and messages to people who rarely get to see it - can you not see the conflict of someone finding fame by stencilling pictures on to buildings that are generally in shopping areas?
I think it's important to discuss these criticisms are valid. And his unpopularity with certain groups should be discussed a bit.
I assure you, he's a hero to many. But to just as many people he's just a traditional artist, who wanted fame, and decided to get it by delving into "youth culture" and street art.
If you look at his work, it started in underpaths, and slowly moved closer and closer into mainstream environments to get more visibility
Many in the genre see this as an example of someone simply doing it for the wrong reasons.
Anyway, I think a criticism section of his career is totally valid.
I should also add that there aren't even any examples of his freestyle grafitti in bristol as far as I know. Which adds to the claims that his background is actually in Warhol style studio pop art, and not actually traditional street art. Cjmooney9 ( talk) 19:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)