School's Started and Dr Funky's got his big hard cane out

The death of Banksy
Can Banksy die? I’ve got no doubt that the man who was writing the name Banksy on Bristol’s walls in the 1990′s can and will, at some point, die. That’s not what I’m wondering though. Keith Haring has been dead for more than 20 years, but you can still buy new products with his imagery - any person with a foothold in popular culture will see their images outlive their lifespan, this of course, is not to say there will be any new images after this point. Long winded opening that can be summarised with 'people die their images live on'. Similarly, Basquiat’s estate released prints after his death. But those artists had names and faces. Even after their deaths, products can still be made using their images, but there’s not going to be any new imagery. But Banksy (the brand, not the man) doesn’t have those same constraints. Disney didn’t die with Walt Disney. Is Banksy one man or many people?
While he is anonymous, Banksy is publicly portrayed as being one person. But what does that one person actually do these days when it comes to making art? Irrelevant point unless what you are trying to state is 'Banksy has no input in work that's in his name'.
Banksy doesn’t paint all of his own street art…yes, obviously, unless an anonymous artist could spend weeks in the middle of one of the busiest cities in the world painting massive billboards, or suddenly hone the ability to create animatronic art installations....
A Banksy billboard/artwork in NYC.
Banksy doesn’t paint all of his street art. That’s well-established. Shepard Fairey has said so (thanks to Mischa for the link to that article) and, in the latest issue of Very Nearly Almost, Eine says that he used to paint street pieces for Banksy. Oh Eine still trying hard to get a little fame eh? But still irrelevant unless we're actually discussing what denotes 'your' artwork - which I don't know we are..Of course, there were even those rats that Banksy hired sign painters to paint in NYC back in 2008. Given his high-profile status and the risks associated with painting, it probably makes legal sense for assistants to paint Banksy’s street pieces. If I were in Banksy’s position, I probably wouldn’t risk painting all of my own street pieces either. So again this point was what?
There’s no way to know if Banksy paints his own gallery art…
Collaboration between Damien Hirst and Banksy.
What about his indoor work? Maybe Banksy still paints everything himself, but I’m doubtful of that. While hiring assistants might be more difficult for Banksy than Jeff Koons, it’s clear in Exit Through The Gift Shop that Banksy has a staff. At the very least, I think it’s safe to assume that Banksy isn’t executing the creation of any his sculptures himself (no matter what this video purports to show). And there’s little reason to think Banksy doesn’t have assistants completing part or all of his paintings. Banksy has said that he paints his own pictures, but how would anyone outside of his team know if he was telling the truth or not? Assistants who work on paintings for an artist are a widely accepted practice. As an extreme example, Damien Hirst has said that his best spot paintings were the ones painted entirely by Rachel Howard, his former assistant. Even if Banksy paints all his own pictures today, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to know if that practice changes in the future. Again though, some use of assistants for painting is probably what almost any artist in Banksy’s position would do.Again what are we discussing here? The nature of ownership, or simply the fact you don't know Banksy's work routine?
There isn’t just one man who can come up with funny stencils… I can think of any number of artists that on occasion come up with a  stencil of note. Just as I can think of any number of artists who've created a nice painting. What is the point? Banksy has sole ability to do this?

But regardless who who physically executes the artwork, conceptual artists have long contended that the artist is the one who comes up with the idea of the art, not the one who makes the art. Finally, the point is made. By that standard, what makes a Banksy a Banksy is that he came up with the idea, but he isn’t the only one who could do that. Countless artists emulating Banksy, as well as generations of political cartoonists, have shown that coming up with clever 1-liners isn’t a skill possessed only by one man. Admittedly, I think most people find Banksy’s average success rate with his jokes to be higher than that of a lot the people he has inspired, but that is probably as much about being careful with what you put out there as it is about being clever. Maybe it’s true that no one person will ever be as good as Banksy at his brand of humor and commentary, but a dozen people working together probably could be. But I’ve already made an assumption here: Today, there is only one individual who comes up with all the ideas behind Banksy’s artwork. Again, we have no way of knowing how true that assumption is. Banksy’s cloak of anonymity means that the public really has no idea how many people contribute ideas to the Banksy identity. Today and in the future, the ideas behind Banksy’s art could come from one man or a team of 50 with no input from the original individual who called himself Banksy. How could we tell the difference? So to conclude your point so far is, Banksy could be a team, the skill is not special and we have no way of knowing.
Life after death…

I’m inclined to think that Banksy, the man, is a hard working guy who does involve himself in the making of the artwork that he signs. But given all the possibilities for others to be involved in the Banksy brand without the public knowing a thing, it is clear that the Banksy brand can continue to create artwork indefinitely with or without the original man behind the name. Like the many boys who took on the role Batman’s sidekick Robin (oh, haha okay I came up with this metaphor days ago and only now as I write it down do I realize the irony given Banksy’s supposed identity. I’m an idiot), an anonymous artist’s name and image can be taken up by any number of people. If the man behind Banksy ever leaves the Banksy organization, or when he dies, will the public ever know? It’s possible that my grandchildren will be able to see “original” Banksy artwork completed a century from now. Banksy seems to have reached the absurd hyperbole of conceptual art: the original artist may not even need to conceive the artwork for it to bear his name. Banksy has finally achieved what Warhol and others set out to: the artist is truly a brand without a human identity. Incredible jump in logic, a Banksy machine that grinds out pieces forever, interesting proposition if somewhat far fetched, again the central premise to this whole piece is, he's anonymous he can do anything including live forever. There's a rather simple retort to this, there are any number of people who know him . 100 years down the line Eine's grand kids will try to take credit for everything, whilst flogging their latest 4d wording lazer tag to crown king ruler of the outerverse Mong.
This isn’t to say that Banksy’s death is impossible.Surreal statement. It may happen one day.Really you think? It seems only right that Banksy the brand dies with Banksy the man and it may very well end there, but it would definitely be possible for his team to continue the brand without the man. Then, the questions become would we notice, would we care and how would Banksy the brand change itself from the original intent of Banksy the man? At this point you have to ask yourself, perhaps you should think a little about how Banksy's work has changed in as little as 15 years, prior to him even reaching 40, before trying to make grand leaps into the distant future?


What do you think? Does Banksy’s death promise a new frontier for art? Have I completely misunderstood the brand/man that is Banksy? This is a post of questions I’ve been thinking about more than it is a post of answers and opinions, so I’m looking forward to reading other people’s thoughts in the comments.

In conclusion, C- nice try at constructing a piece on the nature of an artist and his work. Sadly a missed opportunity to get an original discussion, which reading between the lines was 'How do we know one person is at the heart of this? And how do we know he will be in the future?' Possibly when boiled down to this statement, there's not actually much to talk about? Considering how all through art history the nature of ownership has been discussed? Possibly you need to go back and think about your central premise and work out what it is your trying to say? Maybe try to write a little less and say a little more.