Banksy, Street Art, and the Politics of Creative Stealing

Creative Stealing as Artistic Tradition

"The immature poet imitates and the mature poet plagiarizes," said T.S. Eliot. If imitation is indeed the finest form of flattery, does it follow that plagiarism is a worthwhile pursuit? Indeed it can be. Street art, encompassing both visual art and music, is simultaneously plagiarizer and plagiarized. To imitate without paying full homage to the original creator is to fail in the ultimate pursuit of aesthetic brilliance. The art of Banksy integrates itself fully with popular culture and community. By stealing space and time, Banksy and street artists like him raise poignant political questions about the ownership of public space and the social class hierarchies that determine access to and enjoyment of the public domain.

Likewise, Banksy participates in the time-honored tradition of sampling. By mixing and matching, cutting and pasting, Banksy follows a long and venerable line of artistic genius that revels in the creative potential of judicious stealing. Shakespeare stole from the Bible, transforming Biblical literature into performance art. Picasso and Braque drew liberally from still-life tradition and contemporary news cuttings to produce cubist collage. The sonic masters of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries built their musical canons on sampling techniques. What matters is not whether something was stolen, but how it was rearranged, repurposed, and reproduced.

Commercialization, Gift Communities, and the Value of Art

True stealing is something entirely different. In Exit Through the Gift Shop, Banksy and Guetta explore the difference between artistic stealing for creative flourishing versus misappropriation for commercial exploitation. The latter is a form of stealing far more insidious than the former. The title of their documentary refers explicitly to the commercialization of all art, not just street art. All commercially viable art galleries and museums bank on the visitor becoming a consumer, encouraging purchases of trinkets that are often factory-made and bear no spiritual affinity to the original art they purport to imitate. Herein lies the difference between imitation and theft that Eliot refers to in his statement. Imitation mocks the function of art and does a disservice to both art history and the community. Theft, when undertaken in the manner achieved by Banksy and other artists, upholds the fundamental tenets of the creative enterprise.

Placing art within a historical, political, and social context can help liberate it from commercial valuation. There is nothing inherently wrong with the commercialization of art; after all, supporting artists financially helps stimulate artistic productivity and may even increase net quality overall, as artists gain access to better materials, training, and time. As Morris puts it, "art costs time, trouble, and thought" (p. 11). Commercialization of art led to some of art history's greatest flowerings, including Renaissance Europe and Mughal India. Placing a value on art is a symbolic gesture, implying that art matters as much as food, oil, salt, or any other commodity.

However, not all products with value need to be privately owned. Water is valuable but is generally not privately owned. Likewise, art transcends ownership. This is especially true for public and street art, as well as art labeled as marginalized. Hyde describes the "gift community," in which a gift is collectively owned. Art serves precisely this function, which is why many museums do not charge admission and why street art reclaims public space so that all can enjoy its presence. Art has value in its existence; the commercialization of marginalized art can be construed as a net positive for society if commercialization (a) repositions street art as "legitimate," as has occurred with Banksy, or (b) increases the reach and accessibility of the art form so that those beyond the borders of a particular subculture, culture, or community can connect to the work.

Street Art's Move from the Margins to the Mainstream

Street art is moving from the margins to the center, from the rear to the forefront of culture. Reasons for this transformation include changing perceptions of urban life, shifting expectations of public space, and evolving functions of art itself. Art forms formerly considered marginal—and in some situations still marginalized—such as murals, pavement art, graffiti, and public interventions have gained mainstream acceptance. The aesthetic of street art has permeated popular culture, as can be seen in Revolt's transformation from punk street kid to designer of commercial logos. Going mainstream has not entirely diluted street art, either. There remains enough edginess in street art, both in its form and function, for it to remain a powerful form of creative self- and community-expression.

Street Art as Protest and Resistance

One of the foremost functions of street art is protest. When taggers use public spaces such as walls or train cars, they are symbolically reclaiming space that has been claimed by the dominant culture. Reclaiming that space is a form of protest against social inequality, class stratification, wealth disparity, and racial inequities. Marginal art as protest also reclaims art itself—taking it from the hands of the elite and placing it into the hands of the people. The artists do not need, seek, or even want legitimacy; they create their own rules and laws. Street art protests against elite mandates on what constitutes fine versus vulgar art. As street art moves into the mainstream, these forms may remain viable vehicles of protest. In fact, the shift of marginalized art toward the center broadens the audience for public protest, potentially creating meaningful social change.