I think putting him/her/them on a pedestal is foolish because there are many street artists out there doing stuff which is on par if not better than his/her/their work artistically. But then his/her/their work isn't purely graded on an artistic merit. There's the message he/she/they apply to it also. But, yet again, there are others out there schooling that side of things too.
People like Mr. Matthew Collings (blokey who did
The Times article) who like to be a cunt about whether his work is "art or not" are utterly pathetic also though.
Some of the stuff he says in the article makes sense, but then a great deal is just a side effect of his jaded bitterness.
Art critics are arseholes by trade it seems, probably because they've nothing important to contribute to art in the first place and then become bitter because of that.
I don't think Banksy's a genius.
I don't think Banksy's got no purpose what so ever.
I don't think whether it's art or not has any purpose.
I don't think much really do I?
Does it please you aesthetically? Then that's all that really matters
