Which flag? Or, what kind of flag? Or does it matter?
I don’t understand this. What speaks pro-establishment in this piece?
You could also see it as a metaphor for "blinded by beliefs", easily.
I used to dismiss Banksy too, apart from some shallow aestheticism, not least because of his omnipresent success.
But with this work, I feel pretty much unable to look down on it, because it's a simple yet effective display of a timeless trope, and timely as in "feels relevant to current events".
I didn't "feel" any of his other works very much, but it's not important to me if it's "obvious".
In my city, there's an effin statue of a car with wings, somewhere between all the other cars (so I never bothered to note it, only saw pictures of this travesty, in my home town). And people consider it "art" :D
So, seems like some kind of "obvious" message helps when putting up public artwork.
It's also referencing the recent flag controversies in the UK over the past year.
“I remember when all this was trees” [1] is maybe the best example. Detroit hasn’t been “trees” in something like two centuries. Platitudes doused in treacle.
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/10/01/ba...
(Statue (of a man (blinded by a flag (put up by Banksy)))) in central London
It is intended to be
((Statue (of a man (blinded by a flag))) (put up by Banksy)) in central London
There's a (mostly terrible) documentary about a previous bansky "statue" deposited in London that, in one of its better moments, tracks down the people who actually make statues for artists like banksy.
I suspect that Banksy and his fans are sure that it's "the other" Britons that are blinded, it's not a self-reflection prompt for them. Maybe I am wrong.
Maybe a more powerful piece of art would have that self reflection effect across the board. As is it feels about as nuanced as "fuck trump" and similar. If you already agree you already agree, if not then you just think it's stupid. So ultimately feels like impotent art unless I am totally misunderstanding.
It is vague enough to appear deep to those trying to find something deep but not concrete enough to appear as anything that will stick in people's minds for more than a week. Unfortunately a lot of modern art is like this.
You are wrong.
There are fights worth fighting: for example there are 300 million women alive who have undergone forced genital mutilation. 300 million ain't cheap change. There are also hundreds of millions of people who applauded the killing of 1200 young civilians who were enjoying life at a music festival "because it's resistance".
Applauding the killing of young unarmed civilians, genitally mutilating women and turning a blind-eye to a regime slaughtering 30 000+ of its own unarmed civilians is where I personally draw the line and consider there are maybe more important things to complain about than, say, "the patriarchal western society built by heterosexual white men" or some other woke non-sense like that.
Now to be honest Banksy did art criticizing war overall, not just war started by the west. So a generous reading could consider that he also criticizes things like the 800 000 deaths during the Hutu vs Tutsi war.
But still overall: lots of balls from western artists when it's about criticizing the west, but tiny tiny nuts when it's about, say, attacking the ideology that is responsible for 300 people enjoying music at the Bataclan and then getting slaughtered.
But these people can live with their own conscience: I speak up and I've got mine.
Unfortunately, they often don't meet that bar, so the message has to be in a form they can understand.
There's no point to complexity or subtlety in art anymore, everyone is twelve now.