In 2003, a wall in London became famous for its graffiti. Banksy used the wall to spray-paint one of his most famous pieces, “Pulp Fiction”. Through 2005, the picture showed John Travolta and Samuel L Jackson holding bananas as guns. This image was gone after the London bombings in July 2005 because different graffiti had been painted over “Pulp Fiction” to warn Al Qaida. Less than a year later the graffiti was gone and covered by an Obey poster, which was soon accompanied by graffiti from Faile and then the words “Banksy was here” at the top. By early July, Banksy struck the wall again with a new version of “Pulp Fiction”. In this version, John Travolta and Samuel L Jackson were dressed as bananas and were holding guns. By September the image attracted more graffiti, and had the words “Nothing Lasts Forever” (Bull). Finally, not even seven months later, the “Pulp Fiction” image was gone and covered up by London workers. Due to the popularity of this piece of work, this decision ensured a lasting controversy of whether or not it was right to cover the image up. Those who see pieces such as “Pulp Fiction” as public art believes it benefits society as a whole, while those who see such pieces as vandalism believe it promotes the destruction of society. This argument is important to understand, not just because of “Pulp Fiction”, but also because of the prominence of graffiti around the world. On trains, on walls, in public and even private areas, graffiti seems to be everywhere and covering everything from illegible symbols to intensive political messages. Banksy’s long and followed career as a graffiti connoisseur makes him an ideal person to examine for this debate. Banksy’s graffiti art and surrounding controversies prove that although graffiti art benefits an area by attracting tourism and creating a new political forum, it is ultimately works of vandalism that cannot provide long-term social or economic benefits to society.

 

When “Pulp Fiction” was covered, people were upset at the loss of opportunity the picture could have brought the surrounding area. Locals such as George Thomas said that not only did he believe the image brought tourism to the area, that the graffiti should be considered art: “There is no way it could have been mistaken for graffiti. Whoever destroyed it is an idiot” (BBC News). While many such as Thomas consider graffiti to be public art, art that is created with the intention to be displayed in a public venue, it goes beyond solely a visionary experience. In their research “Public Art and Urban Regeneration”, Tim Hall and Iain Robertson claim that public art such as graffiti helps with restoring and regenerating urban areas. As advocates, Hall and Robertson believe that “public art can help develop senses of identity, develop senses of place, contribute to civic identity, address community needs, tackle social exclusion, possess educational value and promote social change” (Hall). This argument does have some validity, as graffiti does provide a way to give voice to the people who otherwise may not have one in order to use graffiti as a pathway for conversation. By painting graffiti in frequented public areas, like subways and street walls, their beliefs are seen by the public. However, even Hall and Robertson concede, “these claims have been subject to very little serious evaluation” (Hall). There is no way to know without doubt that graffiti creates a public forum for conversation, inclusion and education as there are many factors that contribute to these phenomena. Even if graffiti is one of them, it is not the only factor because it is just one aspect of a complicated society, nor should graffiti always be associated with a depressed area. Yet Hall and Robertson’s argument is supported by Vanessa Matthews, author of “Artcetera: Narrativising Gentrification in Yorkville Toronto” who traces the relationship between art and gentrification. Using Yorkville as an example, she believes that as a “result of social and economic upgrading, Yorkville was forced to recast its identity, a process that involved reproducing the creative pulse of the 1960s art scene” (Matthews). Although Yorkville benefitted from the use of public art, Matthews does not use graffiti as a specific example and instead notes that practicing artists who went to Yorkville with the specific purpose of gentrification made the public art. Although graffiti could possibly revive a city while also benefiting the mental states of residents, one cannot know without doubt that this is solely due to the presence of graffiti. If graffiti did have such a large impact, it is not the only way to impact society as there are plenty of other healthy options such as athletics and performing arts that could further be explored.

 

The group responsible for covering up “Pulp Fiction” supports a similar view. Transport for London painted over the graffiti for multiple purposes despite facing controversy. The spokesman for the group opposed Thomas’s art views when telling BBC News that their goal was to make “the transport system safer and more pleasant for passengers” (BBC News). Further expressing their concerns, the cleaners in the staff believed they had to take a hard stance on the Pulp Fiction graffiti because “it created an atmosphere of social decay” (BBC News). The first problem with graffiti addresses the wishes of the passengers. People travelling through a place cannot directly pick and choose what they see on the way to their work. They cannot choose what buildings they pass or which streets they have to cross to get to their destination, which means they also cannot choose which graffiti works they see along their journey. Legal art is usually displayed in a plaza, gallery, museum or private collection. Whichever venues the art is shown in, people have the choice whether or not to enter the area that holds the art – which makes the art more interesting and valuable as there is added protection, information and additional curiosity surrounding the pieces. With graffiti art, it is usually displayed on a public place for all to see, not taking into consideration that not everyone wants to see the art that is being displayed, creating an uncomfortable or unpleasant atmosphere for those passing by. In regards to safety and social decay, this is also a problem. As seen through the life of the “Pulp Fiction” piece, it creates more vandalism and potentially dangerous competition. When someone first covered up the original “Pulp Fiction” with his or her own graffiti, other graffiti artists such as Faile tried to draw on the wall in response, forcing Banksy to take action by creating a second version of “Pulp Fiction”. This constant competition and disrespect for others’ work can easily create an unhealthy atmosphere of dislike between the residents and can even foster a higher presence of maliciousness between artists.

 

In the middle of Banksy’s “Pulp Fiction” era, he did not keep his artistic presence away from major venues. In the fall of 2006, he created controversy for his use of graffiti on an elephant in his “Barely Legal” exhibition in Los Angeles. The elephant, Tai, was colored with spray-paint to blend in with a living room in support of addressing the issue of world poverty. While Banksy’s intentions were good, it was not long before Ed Boks, head of the Los Angeles’s Animal Services Department (ASD) had to retract their permit in consideration for Tai. Boks states that “The paint they had been using, although non-toxic, according to government regulations was unsafe, and even illegal to use the way they had been using it” (Oliver). Although not on a wall, this spray-paint work on the elephant should be considered vandalism because the elephant did not have a choice but to partake in this exhibit, even despite safety concerns and Banksy used spray-paint in an illegal way even though it was going to be displayed in a private venue. According to the definition, vandalism is the “willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property” (Merriam-Webster). Animal activists and Bok support considering the treatment of Tai as vandalism, as Mr. Bok was also quoted as saying “I think it sends a very wrong message that abusing animals is not only OK, it’s an art form” (Oliver). In this case, Banksy’s graffiti was displayed in a private venue, but it should still be considered vandalism because of the mistreatment and inconsideration for the well-being of the elephant. Graffiti does not have to be on a wall to be considered graffiti or vandalism, as there are many different ways graffiti can be displayed.

 

Given Banksy’s knack for displays of graffiti attracting attention and Rome’s knack for graffiti, even designating certain areas for the purpose, it is surprising that Banksy has shown up just once in Rome, in the EUR neighborhood. If Banksy wanted to make a splash in Rome, he could have easily gone bigger, more political and more controversial. Historic sights around the city attract millions of visitors each year, a perfect platform for graffiti artists like Banksy who want to have their work attract attention. Based on Banksy’s recent work and the venues the historic center of Rome has available, he would put his work “Sorry! The lifestyle you ordered is currently out of stock” on the Colosseum. Tourists gather in and around the Colosseum imagining what life used to be like during the heyday of the Roman Empire, yet now the visitors can nearly buy their way to help their imagination and be transported back in time. Visitors can pay to get photographed next to a gladiator-imitator, in which the industry became so volatile that “a turf war broke out among the ‘gladiators’ fighting for the best pitches and, as a result, they must now be licensed” (Hopkins). Banksy’s saying would therefore make sense in one way because he is addressing the visitors paying money in hopes to better realize the heyday of the Colosseum. Yet it could have another interpretation too. Keith Hopkins and Mary Beard state in their book The Colosseum, that “there is still a sense of transgression in the paradox of taking pleasure in touring the sites where Romans took their pleasure in state-sponsored mass murder; and – for the more reflective at least – in wondering quite where the similarities between the Romans and ourselves start, or stop” (Hopkins). Not only could Banksy’s new piece of graffiti reference the people outside the Colosseum trying to profit from its appeal, but it can also reference the idea that the Roman Empire is far in the past, and emphasize in which ways society has or has not changed since then. In such a case, Banksy’s graffiti would probably be considered vandalism and not art, due to the destruction of significant cultural property.

 

Banksy is considered an artist as he uses many different canvases and mediums and has been featured in many different ways as a legal artist. His highest growing piece, “Bombing Middle England” was sold for £102,000 (Record Price) and is consistent with political messages Banksy displays through his graffiti by featuring retirees playing a field game with bombs. Banksy has even been featured in a museum, although it was not at first the museums idea. In 2005, Banksy entered the British Museum carrying a drawing on a rock titled “Early Man Goes to the Market” featuring a man surrounded by a shopping cart and bull. He discretely put it on display for visitors to see, and when British Museum officials found out, they decided to add the piece to their permanent collection. Distinguishing Banksy’s work as legitimate art or illegal art depends on perspective. “Bombing Middle England” and “Early Man Goes to the Market” are considered art because they have willing consumers and are featured in a protective and legal manner. Any graffiti on the Colosseum would be considered graffiti and vandalism because of the significance of the structure. However, “Pulp Fiction” and the spray-paint on Tai in “Barely Legal” were taken down due to the opinion of the officials and some of the public, yet others in the public still consider his graffiti art. While both sides make valid points about whether or not to include graffiti in public life, graffiti should be considered vandalism because of the large possibility for displeasing outcomes and long-term possibility for negative effects as well as the insufficient evidence surrounding its possibly positive effects, yet the graffiti with valued message should be considered the pariah of the art world.

 

Bibliography 

 

Bull, Martin. Banksy Locations & Tours: A Collection of Graffiti Locations and Photographs in London, England. Vol. 1. Oakland, CA: PM Press, n.d. Web. 1 May 2013.

 

Hall, Tim, and Iain Robertson. Public Art and Urban Regeneration: Advocacy, Claims and Critical Debates. N.p.: n.p., 2010. Web. 1 May 2013.

 

Matthews, Vanessa. Artcetera: Narrativising Gentrification in Yorkville, Toronto. N.p.: University of Toronto, 2008. Web. 1 May 2013.

 

Oliver, Mark. "Banksy's Painted Elephant is Illegal, Say Officials." The Guardian 18 Sept. 2006. Web. 1 May 2013.

 

"Iconic Banksy Image Painted Over." BBC News. BBC, 20 Apr. 2007. Web. 1 May 2013.

 

"Record Price for Banksy Bomb Art." BBC News. BBC, 8 Feb. 2007. Web. 1 May 2013.

 

"Vandalism." Merriam-Webster. n.d. Web. 1 May 2013. .