The Mail on Sunday did a good cut and paste job, rehashing old interviews and articles, in exposing the “truth about Banksy”.

But, whether the article’s revelation about the reclusive artist is true or not, it doesn’t matter in the slightest. Does it?

He/she/they have done a pretty good job of letting the art speak for itself so far, so I don’t see any good reason for needing to know who is behind the work.

As ever regarding such a sensationalised non-story, I’ve found the response that it has generated so far is far more interesting.

The BBC’s online coverage takes a typically po-faced approach, apart from pointing out that the so-called “real Banksy’s” mother denied even having a son.

The Guardian asks and attempts to answer the “so what?” question – and draws some mixed results in the comments section. I found Graphiquillan’s conclusion that “Banksy is, quite simply, Banksy” far more to the point.

Indeed, the “who cares? question seems to feature strongly in the reaction of most. You’d possibly expect Bristol Graffiti’s blog to defend its famous son, but they rightly point out that there are plenty of people who know the truth but who just don’t see the point in telling.

So, is it safe to suggest that the MoS non-story officially marks the start of the 2008 silly season?

If so, then we can expect plenty more over the course of the summer.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s