Earlier this month, Banksyland ed through Toronto, offering a glimpse of various pieces from the famed street artist, including some never-before-seen works. Despite the buzz, there’s one critical catch: Banksy isn’t d with these shows and doesn’t make a dime from them.
These “immersive” art events are blatant cash grabs, relying on artists’ name and reputation to do the heavy lifting. It’s not a new tactic—the Van Gogh Immersive Experience a few years ago followed the same strategy. The artist, whether deceased or uninvolved, becomes a vehicle for profit, while curating companies reap the rewards. Companies often claim to “make art accessible” by touring cities, but when tickets cost $20 to $40, art is far from accessible.
Perhaps the most ironic aspect is the gift shops. Selling Banksy merchandise at an event celebrating an artist whose core message is anti-capitalism borders on the absurd.
Banksy’s ethos is rooted in keeping art public. As a street artist, his work is about reclaiming spaces privatized by ments, billboards, and corporate messaging. By creating directly on walls in urban environments, he challenges the commercialization of public spaces, making art something that belongs to everyone, not just the elite. His critiques of consumerism, authority, and societal issues serve as reminders that art is for the people.
While seeing rare Banksy pieces is undoubtedly a unique opportunity, the overall experience is spoiled by contradiction. The irony of charging a fee to view street art, which is meant to be free and accessible, undermines the very essence of Banksy’s work. Profits from these shows don’t benefit the artist nor the public. Instead, they distort the purpose of street art, which is rooted in challenging authority and consumerism.
By commodifying his rebellious message, these exhibitions dull its impact, transforming it into just another product of the commercialized art world that Banksy has always critiqued.
This all ties into a larger conversation about when the art world became the art business, a shift that Andy Warhol significantly influenced during the Pop Art movement of the 1960s and 70s. Warhol pioneered the commodification of art by blurring the lines between high art and mass production. His approach was revolutionary, using silk-screening techniques to mass-produce portraits of celebrities like Marilyn Monroe and icons of consumerism, such as Campbell’s soup cans, turning the creation of art into a mechanical process.
While Warhol’s work holds a mirror to society’s obsession with fame, materialism, and mass consumption, Banksy’s art conversely pokes fun at those same cultural obsessions. Banksy’s work often exposes the absurdities and injustices of modern society, using satire to critique authority, consumerism, and corporate power.
Where Warhol found inspiration in consumer goods and the blending of art with capitalism, Banksy’s art disrupts and challenges the commercialization of public spaces and the commodification of culture.
Warhol’s legacy, which helped solidify the notion that art can be a business, has paved the way for today’s art exhibitions that capitalize on popular artists’ names. These immersive shows, with their high-ticket prices and merchandise, are in many ways an extension of Warhol’s vision of art as a profitable venture, at the cost of warping the influence of artists like Banksy.
To encapsulate Banksy’s art in a commercialized, elitist setting is comical. These overpriced travelling shows are a perfect example of how greed continues to plague the art world, all while hiding behind a facade of “accessibility.”
Ella is a fourth-year English student and The Journal’s Editorials Illustrator.
Tags
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].