2 ms·
> throught-provoking, good looking It is conceptual yes but it's not exactly deep in it's thinking. Good looking yes but isn't exactly provocative or beautifu
by thinkingemote 3y ago
> throught-provoking, good looking
It is conceptual yes but it's not exactly deep in it's thinking.
Good looking yes but isn't exactly provocative or beautiful in its aesthetics.
Banksy is friendly and harmless and non threatening. Easy to digest and understand and appreciate. Its very understandable why his works are so valued - they are good products to be consumed.
Graffiti is threatening, and is less easy to digest and understand. It's also less valued by the world. Arguably graffiti doesn't aim to be consumed as art or to be approved of by cities.
Personally I would rather not see either! But as the above outlines this would be for different reasons.
- isoprophlex 3y agoI'm a simpleton, and no critic of art. So I'll take looking at easy to digest Banksy over the spray paint equivalent of a gang war cross-breed with a teenager yelling "MUH DICK".
- thinkingemote 3y agoyes, if there was only a choice between the two options. In theory, we in western democracies have a choice what happens in our places, I would have neither. In practice and it seems that bringing up the very notion of impartiality is worse than any problem being examined, I would rather have the easily digested Banksy.
- JohnFen 3y ago> they are good products to be consumed. No, they are good pieces of art to be enjoyed.