The revelation that the artist Banksy is a 50-something man from Bristol, England, named Robin Gunningham, according to a Reuters report, has shaken the art world. It could be the ultimate test of what actually determines value in contemporary art.
Art insiders are speculating that the news should increase the value of Banksy’s work. That line of thinking tracks with the fact that markets hate uncertainty, and now there is more clarity. However, Banksy’s art is not like a stock option or any other commodity; greater transparency and predictability would not increase its value. Odds are, the prices of his existing work would fall. That said, it is easy to see how coming out of the shadows and embracing commercialization could create a new and more stable market for Banksy’s work — or at least more consistent revenue for art dealers who believe their role is to control price and supply. It is true that his work has fallen sharply in the past few years, but so has the broader art market. The difference is in magnitude: His prices tend to rise and fall more dramatically, often behaving like a high-beta asset.
Art has always been a peculiar market because value is so arbitrary — what determines it is not anything intrinsic to the work itself. Factors such as aesthetics, scarcity, hype and the sense that the work captures our cultural moment all shape value. Contemporary art, or art produced by a living artist, is especially hard to price for several reasons. The artist might turn out to be a modern master, or they might flame out. Their work might not stand the test of time as the cultural moments and historical events that inspire it lose their immediacy. This is why prices are so volatile, and the market is prone to manipulation by dealers who aim to make value more predictable.
In part because of this dynamic, few contemporary artists are well known outside of art circles. Those who are — such as Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst — owe as much to hype as to the work they produce, with marketing and spectacle becoming part of the art. This could explain why Banksy might be the most famous living artist. His work, which is not especially exceptional on its own, would not be nearly as valuable if it did not capture the political moment. Indeed, timing and context have allowed his art to circulate beyond traditional art audiences.
Banksy’s success points to a broader problem. Art at its best challenges and reflects the world we live in, often making us uncomfortable. Much of what we see today falls short of those standards. Like many cultural institutions, contemporary art often mirrors a left-wing ideological perspective — about as edgy as an HR training video — that can come across as preachy and hypocritical. Banksy shares the political inclinations of the rest of the art world, but his anonymity and covert methods have made an otherwise unsurprising political message feel fresh.
From the shadows, he created a much-needed distance, positioning himself outside the systems he was critiquing. Consider that the artist claims to be challenging the capitalist system, yet once he is known, his position within that system becomes impossible to ignore. He could no longer covertly create his art without risking arrest for vandalism. He would need to be commissioned to create it like other street artists. A known Banksy might produce the same work, but it would be fundamentally different and less unique than other products on the market. Remaining unknown helps sustain the hype, even long after he is gone. Years from now, art historians might have written dissertations speculating about who he really was, adding to the myth and, in turn, the value of his work.
Perhaps all is not lost. We know Banksy might be a middle-aged man from Bristol — emphasis on might. The artist still has not confirmed the news. If he stays mum about the claims, some of the mystery could still endure, which would be for the best. Without anonymity, his artistic power is likely to erode. The market for his work could become more stable, but at the cost of value and excitement.
Allison Schrager is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering economics. A senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, she is the author of An Economist Walks Into a Brothel: And Other Unexpected Places to Understand Risk. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Former Fijian prime minister Mahendra Chaudhry spoke at the Yushan Forum in Taipei on Monday, saying that while global conflicts were causing economic strife in the world, Taiwan’s New Southbound Policy (NSP) serves as a stabilizing force in the Indo-Pacific region and offers strategic opportunities for small island nations such as Fiji, as well as support in the fields of public health, education, renewable energy and agricultural technology. Taiwan does not have official diplomatic relations with Fiji, but it is one of the small island nations covered by the NSP. Chaudhry said that Fiji, as a sovereign nation, should support
RSS