Banksy bile

The past week has been a furious cycle of posts and outbursts all because of Banksy.

The Banksy exhibit hasn’t even landed here, but already, an online hubbub has enveloped the whole affair. I can’t make heads or tails of what the trigger really is. It seems like there are many issues conflated into one mess and unraveling this isn’t going to be straightforward, even with the presumably reputable press present.

The fact: the Metropolitan Museum of Manila has announced a Banksy Universe exhibit, coming soon to its sleek new space. The result: derision, contempt, disdain, and yes, anger. But what was it all about?

There was the dig at Bonifacio Global City (BGC). Some disgruntled artists were challenging BGC as to why it was promoting Banksy, when they themselves couldn’t even do murals or graffiti without having to either ask permission or get permits, or pay a rumored gargantuan fee. Even if they volunteered to do the mural for free!

The contention is that Banksy is a street artist known for his guerilla tactics, unleashing his spray paint on public property under the cover of darkness. While Banksy is feted by the rich, Filipino artists who want to do the same gimmick were being screened, or worse, rejected (insert the anti-elitist arguments favored by the disenfranchised and marginalized).

This one’s an easy fix. The Met Museum and BGC are different entities. So whatever beef one has with BGC, it’s inappropriate to slap BGC with Banksy arguments. While the Met Museum is indeed located in BGC, it doesn’t make sense to blame BGC for being inconsistent --because it’s not. It’s the wrong tree, barkers.

The real meat of the argument is that these artists raised the flag of artistic freedom. I agree artists have to have the freedom to express. But on someone else’s walls?

This is where respect for the rights of others comes in. Those walls are owned by somebody, and that ownership has to be respected --even if it’s a profit-driven disembodied corporate entity. If it wants to decline, that’s its right. Even if the artistic services offered are free. Even if the artist is famous or a national artist. Even if the wall is ugly, and will become prettier with an application of paint.

As property owner, it can also grant consent and impose conditions around that consent. If it wants to vet what the mural will look like, if it wants sketches submitted prior to painting. If it wants to donate the wall to an unknown artist, that’s great! But if it wants to charge a fee, that’s within its right. A staggering amount, charged to not a corporation, but to an artist collective? Still within its rights. Pretty basic notions of ownership --and so perhaps, the moans and groans, and the social media whining are uncalled for.

A different issue is the apparent knot raised by some critics, and surprisingly, carried by a lazy press --that the Banksy exhibit is not authorized by Banksy himself. Surprisingly for some news organizations (including Rappler), the fact that Pest Control, the official Banksy rep, has disclaimed affiliation with the Met exhibit has been made much of. It’s even a headline! From the coverage, it’s as if this lack of affiliation with the Banksy organization is something newsworthy.

We have lazy journalists. They should just become lazy opinion columnists like moi, and life would be less complicated. A review of traveling exhibitions (there should be more than just one, but I’m lazy) around the world will reveal none of these were sanctioned by Pest Control or Banksy.

In Bangkok, Ontario, or London, the Banksy exhibitions were privately-owned collections. Essentially, some rich dude stockpiled Banksys, and then allowed the public, who wouldn’t normally have access, to ooh and ahh over the collection (and charged them for it).

These Banksy traveling exhibitions have been going on for quite a while, and is quite known in the art world. But our news organizations missed this facet - and the result is stories shaped by suspicion, or even contempt, for the forthcoming Manila Met-Banksy exhibit.

News organizations have to be conscious about their ability to shape public opinion, and laziness has resulted in negativity attaching to what should be an exciting opportunity to catch the artistry of a visionary without having to fly to Western shores.

Is it sad that capitalism has co-opted the street cred of Banksy, and turned it into a money-making venture? Well, Banksy himself is making money from his art, right?