The point is not just that he's blinded by the flag: He's boldly marching into the void, confident. "wrapped in the flag" is a great saying.
ninjagoo 10 hours ago [-]
> He's boldly marching into the void
into the void, or off the edge?
"off the edge" is a clear interpretation of the statue. "into the void" is a bit more of a stretch. IMHO.
But that's art for you. Everyone has their own take on it.
rob74 33 minutes ago [-]
I you fall off the edge, you might soon be confronted with the void (of death).
esjeon 9 hours ago [-]
I guess “void” here is a bit more like a place you can’t even see (because of the flag).
ua709 12 hours ago [-]
Worse than a void because a void is not necessarily bad. Walking “off a cliff” rarely ends well.
freedomben 11 hours ago [-]
Agree, but that's what we know. The man in the statue is walking into a void from his perspective because he lacks knowledge of his true predicament and is blindly marching forward.
5 hours ago [-]
11 hours ago [-]
11 hours ago [-]
EnPissant 11 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
bogdan 11 hours ago [-]
I have no idea what you're on about
10 hours ago [-]
11 hours ago [-]
analog8374 11 hours ago [-]
He's suggesting that there are several flavors of blindness going around so if we're going to point fingers then we might start with ourselves.
danparsonson 11 hours ago [-]
...which is a blatant false equivalence, to be clear.
lynx97 4 hours ago [-]
Matthew 7:3–5
I am not religious, but this quote keeps coming up... And people keep forgetting about it.
analog8374 9 hours ago [-]
I think it's a pretty good equivalence, actually. And pretty good advice. Passionate certainty should raise a red flag.
dijksterhuis 8 hours ago [-]
i find that passionate certainty can be a good thing in some cases, especially when someone really does know what they are talking about.
but fanaticism is more often a problem than not. fanatics tend to not really understand what they're talking about, or twist it to fit what they want it to be about.
> Fanaticism: Excessive enthusiasm, unreasoning zeal, or wild and extravagant notions, on any subject, especially religion, politics or ideology; religious frenzy.
note -- not talking about any particular "thing" here. just commenting about passion vs. fanaticism in general.
kulahan 6 hours ago [-]
I see a similar idea that often gets people talking past each other re: patriotism vs. nationalism
danparsonson 9 hours ago [-]
The equivalence between supporting the rights of oppressed minorities, and inciting violence towards foreigners, is a good one?
forgotusername6 13 hours ago [-]
I think it's a reasonable statue. But does anyone else think it's a bit obvious, more so than his other work? Like there is no doubt on the meaning at all, it's all right there on the surface level.
hn_throwaway_99 10 hours ago [-]
Strong disagree. First, like many of the other comments mention, Banksy is known for being clever and witty, but not particularly subtle.
But more to the point, while you may think the meaning is a bit obvious, the fact that the flag is unadorned (which/whose flag is it?), and the man is unknown, makes me think this statue could be the ultimate Rorschach test. I'm sure there are tons of people thinking "Ha ha, this is the perfect commentary on all those idiot <people on the other side who I disagree with> wrapping themselves up in their ideology of <patriotism/social justice/cause du jour> as they march <some particular country/society/the world at large off a cliff>".
In other words, I'm guessing you probably felt the meaning was "obvious" because you filled in the blanks in the above madlibs-style statement in a way that feels obvious to you, and I think folks on "the other side" would probably fill in the blanks with the exact opposite notions in a way that feels "obvious" to them.
gerdesj 9 hours ago [-]
The flag is unadorned and I think you can extend your interpretation to include the proliferation of flags which have a minimal "history".
Banksy is from Bris'l which is sort of north Somerset (Somerset keeps on morphing faster than a sci-fi shapeshifter).
Cornwall has had a white cross on a black flag since 18something. Devon decided to adopt a black edged white cross on a green flag. I remember seeing Devon flag car stickers in the '80s - its a little older than that. Somerset now has ... a flag. Yellow and red I think.
No idea why because people can't decide what it is! The land itself knows exactly what and where it is but the political boundaries ebb and flow with the phases of the moon. Is Avon included ... what is Avon? Ooh, BANES - Somerset? Not today thank you. It goes on. Anyway, do Devon and Somerset and co really need a flag? No of course not.
What we really need is a Wessex flag, which will take over Mercia ... and a few other regional efforts ... and end up as a red cross on a white background. Then we could munge that with a couple of other flags and confuse the entire world with something called the Union Flag.
Then we can really get complicated ... hi Hawaii!
mootothemax 8 hours ago [-]
> what is Avon?
Welsh for river.
squigz 9 hours ago [-]
The ambiguity - that this could apply to anyone, that people are so caught up in their belief of choice - is part of the obviousness, at least to me. I would expect more people to be aware of this, than to actually believe that it's talking about, say, Americans in particular.
usefulcat 4 hours ago [-]
I do agree that it’s obvious in the way that you describe. But I still think it’s a point worth making—that it could apply to anyone. Because I don’t think that thought is likely to occur to a lot of people, regardless of their particular belief of choice. And that is a problem.
anon373839 3 hours ago [-]
One can’t say that proposition is obvious to the population at large. Else, “we” (as in Earth in 2026) would have very political dynamics. So maybe Banksy felt inclined to do a public service announcement.
Pay08 3 hours ago [-]
> I would expect more people to be aware of this
You'd be very surprised.
arduanika 8 hours ago [-]
> the fact that the flag is unadorned (which/whose flag is it?), and the man is unknown, makes me think this statue could be the ultimate Rorschach test
This is part of what's obvious. The whole thing, including this oooh aahh Rorschach part, is obvious. It's thoughts that we all had in high school, and it is hack.
hn_throwaway_99 4 hours ago [-]
Lol, right now this comment declaring "the oooh aahh Rorschach part is obvious" is literally just below another comment declaring that the sculpture could only reasonably be interpreted as being anti-nationalist. So thanks for proving my point.
card_zero 58 minutes ago [-]
That just means you're both wrong. "Its location - Waterloo Place, St James's - is an area designed to celebrate imperialism and military dominance in the 1800s", says the BBC. Banksy is from Bristol, where they threw a statue of a slave-trading philanthropist in the river. The statue is wearing a suit. It's not very interpretable. We can wonder whether it's about the Conservative party or the Reform party, but nobody's suggesting it represents Hamas or the CCP.
※ I admit that Xi Jinping wears a suit, but I'm still classifying that theory under "plausible deniability".
leourbina 7 hours ago [-]
And yet here here we all are taking about it. Art is about inciting a response, and he’s done it. Whether we think he’s a hack or not is irrelevant - he has the world’s attention.
card_zero 13 minutes ago [-]
Where does the "art is about inciting a response" theory originate from?
I went and looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_art but couldn't find it there. The "anti-essentialist" section is good, though, I think. It has Berys Gaut listing ten properties of art, all of which are nice-to-have but none of which are essential. Then if a piece ticks lots of boxes it's a shoo-in, but if it doesn't tick many of them you can argue about it.
Some of those involve eliciting some sort of response, but you could also have a decorative piece with this combo:
Which would be 8 out of 10, to which we could add "completely ignorable" and it could still be art. I don't see why attention-grabbing and provocation is important, and it certainly isn't sufficient on its own, plus it's irritating.
Petersipoi 5 hours ago [-]
Gp said, "it's a hack"
You said, "Whether we think he's a hack", which fundamentally changes what is being discussed.
The only reason we're talking about this is because of Banksy. Not because it is a clever or "deep" piece. It's disappointingly surface level, and the fact that we're talking about that doesn't suggest otherwise.
hn_throwaway_99 4 hours ago [-]
> The only reason we're talking about this is because of Banksy.
Baloney. It's a guerilla sculpture put up in the center of London. My guess is we might be talking about it more if it were unsigned as a case of whodunnit.
But for me personally, I roll my eyes at all the ex-art students who always complain "it's a hack" for any piece of art that appeals to a wide audience and isn't some obnoxious 8-layers deep meaning. You literally see it all the time, and half the time it just strikes me as thinly-veiled jealousy, if not from the art student perspective than from the "I'm so much more sophisticated than the unwashed masses" perspective.
It happened on HN a few months ago in a post about Simon Berger, an artist who makes portraits with cracked glass. The artist has achieved relatively wide appeal, and many of the comments here were along the lines of "Meh, he's a talentless hack, he just stumbled along a 'cool' technique but the subjects are boring."
I'd have a lot more respect for folks that could just say "it's not my bag" and move on, rather than pretend they're so much more sophisticated than people who enjoy this art.
7 hours ago [-]
throwaway894345 9 hours ago [-]
I'm guessing most would assume this is about nationalists, and I don't think even the nationalists would imagine Banksy is on their side?
gkoberger 8 hours ago [-]
I think you'd be surprised. People interpret art how they want.
Not sure we think of Banksy as being particularly subtle. Innovative and impactful, sure - but the message is usually quite clear, no?
morkalork 12 hours ago [-]
It's always been about as subtle as a sledge hammer
EGreg 11 hours ago [-]
He started with literally graffiti. So sure - not subtle!!
filoleg 9 hours ago [-]
Not gonna lie, I am not sure how the choice of medium here (graffiti) has anything to do with how subtle (or not) the message of an art piece is.
morkalork 9 hours ago [-]
There's a well known theory on this exact concept! The Medium is the Message. Or, the very act of defacing a public building is meant to sledge-hammer the artist's work into the viewer's consciousness. Compared to say, some quiet exhibit most people would never encounter.
econ 1 hours ago [-]
You are not supposed to get any attention and you are not supposed to have any say in how the city and the world looks. If you buy the building you still don't get to paint.
To deface it would first have to have a face.
ares623 11 hours ago [-]
Our first exposure to Banksy was when we were hitting puberty. We probably thought they were subtle back then.
brewdad 4 hours ago [-]
Not everyone on HN is still in their 20s.
usrnm 2 hours ago [-]
Banksy has been active since the 90s, definitely already famous in the 00s
I don't think most of his work is trying for subtle? First thing that came to mind: "Slave Labour" is pretty obvious, it's a kid operating a sewing machine to make Union flags and it was painted on an actual pound shop. Were you unsure of the message? Even something like "Silent Majority" isn't difficult, the comic book "V for Vendetta" makes the exact same point just Banksy painted it as a mural.
ChoGGi 9 hours ago [-]
Pound shop == dollar store
I suppose I should've figured that one out.
EMM_386 11 hours ago [-]
> "in September 2025, Banksy painted a mural on the Royal Courts of Justice depicting a judge bludgeoning a protester with a gavel"
His other works aren't subtle.
kimixa 6 hours ago [-]
I think the sheer number of people below arguing it might not be about nationalism shows this sort of "Obvious" direct work may still be needed.
thinkingemote 12 hours ago [-]
it gets people talking which many of those who like it consider to be the primary point. In other words, it's not great public art, it's basically government approved engagement bait or engineered pro-establishment viral messaging and it's very successful at that! (but it doesn't inspire and elevate that art should aspire to)
nickthegreek 12 hours ago [-]
> engineered pro-establishment viral messaging
I don’t understand this. What speaks pro-establishment in this piece?
chroma 11 hours ago [-]
It was installed in the middle of a street owned by the government. Police are guarding it to prevent vandalism or removal. Both the Westminster City Council and the Mayor of London have praised the statue and called for it to be preserved.[1][2]
If the man holding the flag had been wearing a thawb instead of a suit, or if the statue had been of a woman, I think the establishment's response would be quite different.
1. From https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y9wlnwl85o "We're excited to see Banksy's latest sculpture in Westminster, making a striking addition to the city's vibrant public art scene. While we have taken initial steps to protect the statue, at this time it will remain accessible for the public to view and enjoy."
2. From https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/30/world/europe/banksy-londo... "Banksy has a great ability to inspire people from a range of backgrounds to enjoy modern art. His work always draws great interest and debate, and the mayor is hopeful that his latest piece can be preserved for Londoners and visitors to enjoy."
jjmarr 10 hours ago [-]
The area it's installed in is famous for sculptures of figures that served the British Empire, generally in combat.
It's not exactly subtle. A man goose stepping while blinded by a flag is a contrast to the other military figures portrayed in victorious poses.
druskacik 1 hours ago [-]
> If the man holding the flag had been wearing a thawb instead of a suit, or if the statue had been of a woman, I think the establishment's response would be quite different.
That's argumentum ad speculum[0]. You can speculate what the response would be if the statue was different in a way you imagine, but the thing is, it's not.
Regional chauvinism is never good for a healthy union. Even if it were the Union Jack, flag-shaggers are almost always blood and soil zealots.
chroma 8 hours ago [-]
I think a small level of it is fine. It’s like sports teams. You can be a Giants fan and I can be a Yankees fan, and we’ll bicker & make fun of each other for supporting a different team. But we can still work together & be civil when it comes to lots of other stuff.
Jtarii 12 hours ago [-]
I think a good old fashined "we are all fucked" is warranted now and again.
It's also referencing the recent flag controversies in the UK over the past year.
prawn 2 hours ago [-]
Maybe more that it's an obvious idea than an obvious message?
tbrownaw 12 hours ago [-]
> there is no doubt on the meaning at all
Which flag? Or, what kind of flag? Or does it matter?
kergonath 11 hours ago [-]
It does not matter. Any ideology can be followed blindly to one’s ruin. Nationalism is common, but there are others.
indy 11 hours ago [-]
"The LGBTQIA flag obviously"
"It's clearly the national flag"
actionfromafar 10 hours ago [-]
Yes?
ChoGGi 9 hours ago [-]
Whatever flag binds/blinds you.
kelnos 15 minutes ago [-]
Or, on the other side of it, you can imagine it's the flag of some group you dislike, one you think is full of ideologues.
blitzar 11 hours ago [-]
the kind that flag shaggers shag
10 hours ago [-]
Ancapistani 11 hours ago [-]
I’d say what matters is whether it matters to you. What difference does it make in the outcome?
MattGaiser 12 hours ago [-]
Flags overwhelmingly represent nations, groups considering themselves nations, that were nations or have some kind of individual governmental status.
If you asked 100 people to imagine a particular flag to attach to that statue, 95% of them are going to be current, unrecognized, or former states.
Findecanor 10 hours ago [-]
Why could it not mean multiple flags at once?
wartywhoa23 12 hours ago [-]
It is universal. The flag, the state, the man. Details don't matter.
Have you seen the state of the world? Why would you go through the trouble of being subtle nowadays?
pibaker 6 hours ago [-]
Have you seen his other works in recent years? It's hard to get any more obvious than a judge beating up someone with his gavel or a boy judo throwing Putin.
It's not like Banksy is known for being a sophisticated highfalutin MFA student anyway. Like it or not, appealing to the masses with simple and clear moral messages has always been his deal.
wand3r 12 hours ago [-]
Certainly in America but all over the west, people are significantly less capable of media literacy. Sometimes the obvious needs to be said.
kergonath 11 hours ago [-]
> Certainly in America but all over the west, people are significantly less capable of media literacy.
Not sure if you are serious, but my experience is the exact opposite…
hristov 8 hours ago [-]
If you want to make a political message it often helps to be obvious. This way the meaning of your message will not be misinterpreted either intentionally or un-intentionally.
at-fates-hands 7 hours ago [-]
His messages were always the same politically. He was always snubbing his nose at the crown, at the art world and other rich folks who would pay millions of pounds for his art. Back in the day when I discovered him, he came off as a rebel, as most graffiti writers do.
Now? He makes millions off his work while still thumbing his nose at capitalism? Doesn't ring the same any more. You can't claim to be fighting against the same system that you use to make millions.
kelnos 11 minutes ago [-]
> You can't claim to be fighting against the same system that you use to make millions.
It depends on what you do with that money, no?
I'll be one of the first to agree that most rich people have likely gotten where the are by doing at least some immoral or unethical things, and that many of those people try to whitewash their image with philanthropy. But there certainly exist rich people who got there as ethically as one can in this world, and use that money to try to change things.
Sure, there are many fewer of the latter people than the former, but I think it's unfair to automatically assume that "made some money" = "part of the system".
NekkoDroid 3 hours ago [-]
> You can't claim to be fighting against the same system that you use to make millions.
There really is no winning when you become famous. When people liked you before and you are effectively still the same but just richer they call you part of the problem, if you aren't richer people just don't know you and you most likely arent actually famous. Usually money follows the fame and vice versa (unless you specifically use your money to remain anonymous).
solenoid0937 7 hours ago [-]
> You can't claim to be fighting against the same system that you use to make millions.
You absolutely can though. This is a false dichotomy.
moogly 4 hours ago [-]
If you're rich, you can't slag off your ilk because that makes you a hypocrite, and if you're poor, you're just envious. And if you're threading the narrow path inbetween, well that just makes you bourgie so in summary: get fucked. Convenient. Of course, this only works in one direction...
The best art makes you think and/or feel, and engage with it in a personal way.
There's nothing about subtly in that claim, and all forms of art are equally valid, if not the same quality.
Bansky's art has always been blunt and whimsical, probably because he makes popular street art. It's meant to be "accessible" for your average passerby who might only engage with it for a fraction of a second, but maybe get a little surprise when they do.
LightBug1 11 hours ago [-]
He's always been one to land a one-liner, or just a punch line.
Sadly, in this day and age, that simple one-punch obvious meaning is just what's needed.
mindslight 12 hours ago [-]
Well the problems it's referencing are glaringly obvious as well, and yet so many people still refuse to acknowledge them.
dahdum 12 hours ago [-]
[dead]
kibwen 12 hours ago [-]
[dead]
lukebechtel 11 hours ago [-]
[dead]
aaron695 8 hours ago [-]
[dead]
kiney 9 hours ago [-]
all his work is slop. No difference here...
twoodfin 12 hours ago [-]
I have the same reaction to Banksy, and figure he and his audience just have to be in on the joke? I can’t discount there’s some layered irony going on in conversation between the artist and the intellectual / capitalist / trend-setting elite that are his effective patrons.
“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.
A better example of a knowing joke between artist and establishment would be the auction of a Banksy work on paper poised above and within the jaws of a paper shredder .. that was then half shredded on the fall of the hammer and sale.
For clarity, the shredder was part of the work and the sale was of the half destroyed piece along with shredder and chaff.
ungreased0675 11 hours ago [-]
This one definitely lacks ambition compared to other works. Probably because his other work had a subversive undertone, this one seems sponsored by the powers that be. I also suspect it was installed with cooperation from the local authorities.
fooqux 11 hours ago [-]
I think you took a wildly different interpretation of this art than I did.
ungreased0675 2 minutes ago [-]
It’s not the art itself in a vacuum. If you’re familiar with British politics right now, especially around flags, it provides important context.
BoggleOhYeah 11 hours ago [-]
The “powers that be” hate ideology?
12 hours ago [-]
schoen 13 hours ago [-]
I misparsed this headline as
(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
tolerance 12 hours ago [-]
The actual headline is more coherent but I'm not too fond of it either.
You really don't see any good ol' fashioned short and sweet headlines that read best to the ear in a Mid-Atlantic accent anymore.
pnt12 1 hours ago [-]
New statue in London. Banksy, maybe.
vscode-rest 12 hours ago [-]
Banksy erects central London statue of man blinded by flag, maybe?
petesergeant 3 hours ago [-]
> Banksy erects central London statue of man
It's an offence against public decency however you slice it!
tolerance 9 hours ago [-]
"BANKSY'S NO PATRIOT—SO SAYS NEW STATUE"
saltyoldman 12 hours ago [-]
I was like, that's horrible how did this flag cause someone to go blind... Did it like fall on the guy when Banksy was putting it up? oh. duh...
declan_roberts 12 hours ago [-]
Things were more fun when they were actually transgressive and not just the established doctrine of those in power.
_hark 11 hours ago [-]
Yeah. The safety of the message is underwritten by its state sanction.
hristov 6 hours ago [-]
If this was the established doctrine of those in power, then why is the Iran war still going on, and why is the UK providing air bases for the Iran war? This is obviously a comment on the Iran war.
CapitalistCartr 10 hours ago [-]
I have a hardhat, high viz vest, lanyard, and $600 toolbelt because I'm an industrial electrician, but they get me into a lot. My face becomes invisible; I become "The Electrician".
nullc 8 hours ago [-]
The free coffee is a nice bonus.
nickthegreek 12 hours ago [-]
The piece states that it appears to be molded fiberglass. But is anyone aware of any more in depth analysis of its materials/possible production technique? Was the pillar barren on top before?
ZeroGravitas 12 hours ago [-]
The pillar is fiberglass too, I believe.
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.
edit: I feel I should clarify that this is not an official Banksy documentary. He made "Exit Through the Gift Shop" which is an amazing film which I highly recommend to anyone.
Animats 10 hours ago [-]
Aw, it's Fiberglas? Not bronze and stone?
The Wall Street Bull was a guerilla art piece too. It's a real bronze. Weighs about three metric tons. It's hugely popular, although it's been moved a few times.
Banksy's work should be replicated in bronze and stone and placed permanently.
9 hours ago [-]
periodjet 12 hours ago [-]
Banksy is the patron saint of the “I’m 13 and this is deep” mentality.
TehCorwiz 12 hours ago [-]
"Blinded by nationalism" I don't know, seems like a clear concise message that has relevance in today's world.
miketery 12 hours ago [-]
Why nationalism? A flag can represent more than a nation. Can be blinded by any "flag" / ideology.
wrxd 12 hours ago [-]
Since last summer a lot of flags appeared all over the UK.
I went back to England last year and couldn't believe how many flags there were, I was shocked and not in a good way
nephihaha 10 hours ago [-]
Every criticism levelled at the St. George's Cross can be levelled at the Union Jack. It is time people in England had a healthier relationship with their flag, more like Scotland and Wales, and less like Northern Ireland.
petesergeant 2 hours ago [-]
Yes, that's true, if you completely ignore the reality of how they're used in practice today
actionfromafar 10 hours ago [-]
St. George's Cross is football brawls and "England uber alles". Union Jack is stiff upper lip and kicking nazis out of Europe.
nephihaha 9 hours ago [-]
It was the flag of the British Empire with all that entails. It is to be found all over the loyalist areas of Northern Ireland and on Orange Marches. It has appeared in umpteen far right demos, and in fact if you look at 1970s far right footage you can see it is the flag they most commonly carry in the UK not the St. George's Cross.
Oh, and you'll find it at plenty of football matches, notably Glasgow Rangers, who fly it while singing songs about wanting to be "up to our knees in Fenian blood".
appreciatorBus 6 hours ago [-]
Exactly.
Communists are blinded by the flag with the hammer and sickle.
Teachers and doctors are blinded by trans ideology and its flag.
Examples abound, but wanna transgressor blanksy knows who butters his bread.
pjc50 20 minutes ago [-]
> Teachers and doctors are blinded by trans ideology and its flag
You're going to get a bunch of downvotes, but I'm also going to take the time to personally tell you how stupid this is as well.
adolph 12 hours ago [-]
The ambiguity is part of the charm. Something that reveals more about the beholders than the artist makes for stimulating conversation and discovery.
Even the new positioning of the art on a plinth in some open space is enigmatic. If it were a critique of the powers that be, why would officialdom collaborate in propping it up?
appreciatorBus 6 hours ago [-]
Because officialdom is largely populated by wokists who fancy themselves as rebels.
jerkstate 11 hours ago [-]
why indeed
delusional 12 hours ago [-]
Interpretations, in my art?
Seriously, this is part of the fun of art. Neither of you are wrong for reading different messages into it.
MattGaiser 12 hours ago [-]
Flags overwhelmingly represent nations, groups considering themselves nations, that were nations or have some kind of individual governmental status.
lucketone 11 hours ago [-]
Nations != governments.
“Nations” as synonym for country started appearing only recently, in last two/three hundred years.
Flags have thousands of years of history.
kergonath 11 hours ago [-]
Flags also represent causes, or groups that don’t aspire to becoming a nation.
nephihaha 11 hours ago [-]
They don't at all. Consider for example that every single city, county and local council in the UK has a flag. There are flags for the United Nations, the European Union, Esperanto, every major football team and most political movements including the CND and anarchism.
socalgal2 8 hours ago [-]
How do you know it's "blinded by nationalism"? There are plenty of non-national flags which are just as blinding
weavejester 7 hours ago [-]
In the UK there's been a recent spate of nationalist flag flying. Given the artist and location, "blinded by nationalism" is the most likely intended meaning.
gib444 3 hours ago [-]
> there's been a recent spate of nationalist flag flying
Which spate and which nation? The one the local flags were in response to, or the local flags?
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 12 hours ago [-]
Is it though? This can mean anything. Is waving a Palestinian flag the same as waving an Israeli flag? Where do we draw the line between harmful and productive nationalism? Who exactly is blinded by nationalism?
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.
kergonath 11 hours ago [-]
> Is waving a Palestinian flag the same as waving an Israeli flag?
Waving a flag is not a problem in itself. You can be proud of being part of whatever group you like and not hurt anyone. The problem is when the flag becomes the prism through which you see the world. Or, as the statue puts it, when you’re blinded by it.
JuniperMesos 10 hours ago [-]
> Is it though? This can mean anything. Is waving a Palestinian flag the same as waving an Israeli flag? Where do we draw the line between harmful and productive nationalism? Who exactly is blinded by nationalism?
Clearly it depends on your actual object-level position on the Israel/Palestine conflict. Or in general, what specific nationalisms you mean when you talk about being "blinded by nationalism".
And that's the main reason why I think this is a mediocre piece of art. Very few people actually are genuinely anti-nationalist for all possible human groups that have some sense of themselves as a nation. All anti-nationalist rhetoric is implicitly aimed at a specific nationalism that someone has a problem with - and also everyone knows this. So everyone wants to use the blank slate of bansky's featureless flag as a canvas upon which to paint a nationalism they don't like in order to discredit it. And I personally think that's boring. Maybe engendering that reaction was itself part of Bansky's artistic vision, but I still don't think that makes for good art.
pjc50 39 seconds ago [-]
It was an extremely funny aspect of the Scottish Independence referendum to see people denouncing "nationalism" from in front of a Union Jack background.
cm2012 12 hours ago [-]
Both Israel and Palestine are blinded by ideology. It is a very common failure mode for people.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 12 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
lukan 12 hours ago [-]
So ... Hamas does not want to do ethnic cleansing and attempted that a couple of times, but simply were not as powerful to have a bigger impact?
t-3 11 hours ago [-]
Resistance to illegal occupation and colonization isn't ethnic cleansing, it's a legal right as ruled by every international body since Israel was formed. Totally false equivalence.
lukan 11 hours ago [-]
If you want to remove a certain set of people from land (people who were born there btw.) you are engaging in ethnic cleansing. The definition is clear here.
runarberg 11 hours ago [-]
When one is a colony of the other the flag of the colonized has added symbol of decolonization. The flag of the colonizers has no such symbol, quite the contrary in fact. These two flags are clearly distinct.
nkmnz 38 minutes ago [-]
When one is an organization terrorizing the other the flag of the terrorized has added symbol of anti-terror. The flag of the terrorists has no such symbol, quite the contrary in fact. These two flags are clearly distinct.
Krunklefrit 4 hours ago [-]
[dead]
garyfirestorm 12 hours ago [-]
waving any flag and thinking its us or them is equally blinding. the world is not vacuum and to coexist we need to put flags behind and work together.
have_faith 12 hours ago [-]
Are you from the UK and know what the piece is a reference to? It’s topical and unpretentious and comes at a time where the country is splintering. Feels a like a bit of a distant midwit take to take shots at the appeal it has.
Splintering? You have two zombie parties that are really the same in different colours. Of course people are going to vote for other parties that seem more left/right wing. Predictable consequence.
danparsonson 11 hours ago [-]
Splintering because some are going one way and others are going the opposite direction. Heading to opposite extremes.
Fezzik 12 hours ago [-]
Most galvanizing statements have been pithy and comprehensible to 13 year olds. The general population is not doing a deep dive in to something like Thoreau’s “Resistance to Civil Government,” contemplating the proper role of government, and then getting fired up to act. We need CliffsNotes, slogans, and visible art like this.
pippy 11 hours ago [-]
The irony is that the statue is being guarded by the London police.
ungreased0675 11 hours ago [-]
That’s not irony. It’s a pro-establishment piece. If it was a piece about migrants raping British women Banksy would be in jail right now.
rexpop 8 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ryandrake 12 hours ago [-]
Heaven forbid someone tries to communicate a point with art.
12 hours ago [-]
druskacik 1 hours ago [-]
What truly deep art would you recommend for us laymans who enjoy Banksy's works?
infinitewars 12 hours ago [-]
I think it deserves credit for being both simple and original.
11 hours ago [-]
touwer 12 hours ago [-]
So, you are 14 and you understand the world? Doesn't seem like it
uncircle 2 hours ago [-]
They are 14 and in the ‘it’s cool to hate’ phase.
spiderfarmer 14 minutes ago [-]
Either that or Trump supporters are easily triggered.
yakkomajuri 11 hours ago [-]
It doesn't need to be super layered to be impactful?
Plus the execution is also part of the art.
CPLX 11 hours ago [-]
Actually it’s a great example of something different, where the person who was original and eventually becomes ubiquitous and groundbreaking and widely imitated to the point where it's hard to understand just how original they actually are.
There are many examples of the same thing: Andy Warhol and the soup cans and screen-printed portraits with different color backgrounds or Led Zeppelin and English folk hard rock songs that have hobbits in them are two of them.
Eventually, it's hard to even process their work in the context of how predictable and trite it seems to be a few decades later.
6 hours ago [-]
rvba 12 hours ago [-]
Really riles up PE types and "patriots" though.
booleandilemma 11 hours ago [-]
Account created last year, is Banksy your patron saint?
stavros 11 hours ago [-]
This works really well these days, when the average person is 13.
TacticalCoder 12 hours ago [-]
He's also king of the "I'll criticize the west but I'll turn a blind-eye to non-democratic countries' wrongdoings". A trait shared with virtually all intellectuals and artists in the west.
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.
constantius 12 hours ago [-]
That's a lot of imaginary flaws in imaginary people, with imaginary numbers as scaffolding.
The moral posture you're criticising is not actually a thing, I personally don't know of any Western intellectual who criticises the West but is fine with FGM for example. But it seems that the fault you find in them is that when they criticise the West, for example, they don't also add a list of grievances against all the other countries (but surely they'd have to speak for 10 hours every time they open their mouths?).
It's also funny how you take the 30,000 Iranian civilians killed at face value, but don't talk about the wrongs of the British empire. And you didn't even mention North Korea once. You see the issue with your reqs?
bravoetch 11 hours ago [-]
Are you making art to fill that perceived gap, or just lodging your objection to people doing their own thing? No artist owes you a curriculum of your design.
zuminator 12 hours ago [-]
There's a lot wrong with the world, but it seems not unreasonable for people to more strongly critique things 1) they feel they have some responsibility for or 2) that directly impact them or 3) where their criticisms are more likely to result in positive change.
delusional 12 hours ago [-]
What do you want the artists to do about it? Part of art's power is shining a light on something we don't notice day to day. Most westeners are against mutilation, what would the art say?
Art will always be about speaking truth to power, and that power will usually be the one closest felt. There's not much value in a swede speaking truth to Nigerian warlords.
12 hours ago [-]
mihaaly 12 hours ago [-]
[dead]
vkou 12 hours ago [-]
This criticism would carry more weight if the people this statue criticises had the intellectual and emotional maturity beyond that of a teenager.
Unfortunately, they often don't meet that bar, so the message has to be in a form they can understand.
krapp 12 hours ago [-]
You're being downvoted but honestly the "everyone is twelve now" meme explains our collective societal dysfunction perfectly.
There's no point to complexity or subtlety in art anymore, or even any kind of symbolism at all. Anything that needs to be interpreted, that doesn't have a single objective meaning which gets spelled out for you. Flag man is silly. Everyone is twelve now.
Lerc 12 hours ago [-]
Lana Wachowski has said that the Red Pill movement taught her that no matter how unsubtle you are, it's still too subtle for some people.
tialaramex 11 hours ago [-]
Huh. I hadn't thought about how the "Red Pill movement" would feel for the Wachowskis, yeah, there's truly no limit to how oblivious people can be and this thread is illustrative.
toomanyrichies 10 hours ago [-]
100%. One can't advocate for the dismantling of the Dept. of Education, the tearing down of "educational elites", and the wholesale banning of books, while at the same time crying foul when people say they have the intellectual capacity of a 12-year-old.
9dev 12 hours ago [-]
"They'd be pretty angry if they could read"
jiriro 12 hours ago [-]
> Banksy is the patron saint of the “I’m 13 and this is deep” mentality.
You are wrong.
odyssey7 12 hours ago [-]
Maybe, but in 100 years, people looking back on the current era will easily understand the work. It symbolically communicates something about the spirit of the age.
wartywhoa23 12 hours ago [-]
Banksy's "anonymity" is a total farce at this point, thoroughly supported by those in power.
qingcharles 9 hours ago [-]
Good. I'm glad most of the media have come to a gentlemen's agreement to not blast his name everywhere. Adds a little more fun to the world. Even this statute is staying for now, the local council, bless them, have decided to leave it in place for the near future.
ytoawwhra92 8 hours ago [-]
Reuters published a lengthy "unmasking" in March of this year and nobody really cared.
I think his name not being blasted everywhere has more to do with it being thoroughly uninteresting than any gentlemen's agreement.
Lerc 12 hours ago [-]
I'm not sure what you mean by "Those in power" there are lot's of people who know, but recognise that he has chosen anonymity and see no value in putting a name to the person.
It's not so much a secret as it is simply not public.
toyg 12 hours ago [-]
Who cares? Are you similarly triggered by The Rock or Alemao? Banksy is Banksy.
axus 11 hours ago [-]
Tracking Bansky is a favorite spy software sales demo given to authoritarian governments.
badgersnake 11 hours ago [-]
The point appears to have whizzed a couple of feet over your head.
seydor 13 hours ago [-]
Anyone else leaving up a huge statue in the middle of the park would be arrested
arrrg 3 hours ago [-]
Yeah, and that is precisely the point.
This contradiction at the heart of it does a lot of work and is a very valuable part of the art. This contradiction has led me to think a lot about rules and their role in society and to what extent pure strict rules based societies are a worthwhile goal and on the other hand what it means of we make exceptions.
SamBam 8 hours ago [-]
Presumably Banksy and associates would have been arrested too if they had been caught. This whole thing relies on doing it in a way that people don't question it while it's happening.
ivankirigin 4 hours ago [-]
What is the emblem on the flag? Don't know. What is he fighting for? Don't know. How is he blind? What doesn't he see? What is behind or ahead? Don't know.
Being cynical that all effort is wasted is played out at this point. Fight for something real. Name what you're against. It should be easy in the UK.
4 hours ago [-]
tommica 12 hours ago [-]
Yeah, definetly had the city agree to it, no way in hell to sneak a statue like that without the cops getting involved.
robocat 11 hours ago [-]
Apparently not:
Westminster City Council has told the BBC it did not grant permission, as it was not given advance warning that Banksy's team was planning this installation.
Council permits are usually quite public (in my country). Sneaking it in becomes part of the artwork.
vscode-rest 12 hours ago [-]
The trick is not to sneak it. Hi Viz and some yellow flashing lights. Couple smooth talkers.
consp 11 hours ago [-]
Pretty much what we learned as student when we were doing something which we technically had no permit for (like digging out some stuff, using it for a theme party and putting it backs few days later). Put on some hiviz and nobody is the wiser.
qazxcvbnmlp 7 hours ago [-]
One can imagine a future where high vis gear becomes a regulated item.
(Though it's not in /the/ City of London. That wouldn't happen in a million years! City of Westminster is way more culturally flexible)
tialaramex 12 hours ago [-]
It doesn't make sense in the City. Waterloo Place, where he put this, has a bunch of statues already for tourists to gawp at, just now as well as "Bloke on a Horse who was an important military leader" there's this guy stepping off his plinth because the flag blocks him from seeing what's in front of him.
The City is dead at night. If an artist wants to put art there, they'd just as somebody else said, dress up like they are workmen and be fine.
peteri 11 hours ago [-]
I dunno they were flexible with the Piranha art work displaying it in the guildhall temporarily.
The 2nd level of Banksy’s pranks is how angry they make self-appointed arbiters of what is counter-culture or cringe.
hristov 7 hours ago [-]
Reminds me of this great Steward Lee quote (paraphrasing from memory): "When I was young a lot of people accused me of being a champagne socialist. If they only knew how wrong they were. I was a cocaine communist!"
Criticizing someone of being popular is just a way to silence them. If they are popular then they are "cringe", and if they are unpopular, they can be safely ignored and that statue would have been removed by the police and forgotten without any news coverage.
Banksy may be popular, but he is not completely establishment, because well look at the statue. Its an obvious critique of the Iran war, and yet the Iran war still grinds on and UK bases continue to be used for Iran war operations. So apparently there is someone in the establishment that does not agree with Banksy. Someone boldly stepping into the void.
BoingBoomTschak 10 hours ago [-]
"The Underground is a Lie", successful version.
Ancapistani 11 hours ago [-]
Perhaps, but he’s also a talented artist.
One of my favorite contemporary musicians is a Socialist Filipino rapper who lives in LA. I can enjoy the music while finding the ideology abhorrent because they are two separate things.
lucketone 11 hours ago [-]
Somebody has to enlighten mimosa-party participants about socialism.
phba 9 hours ago [-]
Not just him, but all the people in his cultural sphere. I've been to a Banksy exhibition, and it also had videos of "critics" commenting on his work. The overtone was how inspiring and brave it is to protest things like war and injustice nowadays in a western country. It's repulsive how ignorant these people are towards their own privilege, while taking the moral high ground and lecturing others.
And of course there was a fucking gift shop at the end.
dyauspitr 6 hours ago [-]
There’s nothing repulsive about people being opposed to war.
namenotrequired 2 hours ago [-]
“Attributed to Banksy”? It has his signature and he posted about it on his instagram. What else is needed to confirm the creator?
0123456789ABCDE 2 hours ago [-]
don't you mean _allegedly_ "has his signature and…"
How so? The concept of the 'blindness' of justice is antithetical to blind patriotism.
sb057 10 hours ago [-]
Had this statue been erected in 2006, it would’ve been an immortal masterpiece. Had it been sculpted in 2016, it would still have been a great statue but flawed. But it was made in 2026. Alas, what can one say?
tristanj 10 hours ago [-]
I wish Banksy put the statue a block away at the roundabout at the end of Pall Mall instead. The current spot he picked already has several other statues there. The roundabout at the end of Pall Mall is empty, presently rather dull, and would look much nicer with a statue.
I can assure you that they would not have gone through all this enormous effort to quickly install a statue without very careful consideration of the most effective place to do so.
BLKNSLVR 5 hours ago [-]
Isn't that part of the point? To compare and contrast the current world 'leadership' with historical figures (which could go both ways).
ninjagoo 10 hours ago [-]
It's an interesting piece. Makes one think about all those folks that have a lot of pride and vanity for a place that they had no control over being born in. The luck of the draw.
And very likely had very little to do with the current state of the place. Pride at age 21? Meaningless vanity, like being proud of being born with a silver spoon. Pride at age 80? Sure, if it was a life well-lived.
arduanika 7 hours ago [-]
> It's an interesting piece.
If you're twelve years old, maybe.
> The luck of the draw.
This is a core tenet of the Rawlsian religion, of which you are a (probably unwitting) fanatic. If you like questioning things so much, you should question why this thing you take for an eternal fact had to be invented in 1971, and what exactly it is propping up.
ninjagoo 7 hours ago [-]
> This is a core tenet of the Rawlsian religion, of which you are a (probably unwitting) fanatic.
Ouch. How warped does one's thinking have to be to call "A theory of justice" (1971) for pluralistic, democratic societies, a "religion"?
It seems to me that right-wingers love hyperbole and rhetoric, without addressing the meat of the matter.
Your post is no different, being entirely free of reason. A good day to you, Sir.
arduanika 6 hours ago [-]
Fair enough. How dare I question your thing that's not a religion. I must be warped.
Still, aren't you at least a little bit curious? Why did it have to be invented in 1971? What is it replacing?
5 hours ago [-]
5 hours ago [-]
5 hours ago [-]
gopperl 9 hours ago [-]
There's no luck involved in the fact that you were born to your parents, as they were to theirs. It is right to be proud of the achievements of your ancestors who have, over countless generations, toiled and strived to deliver the place that we were so fortunate to inherit from them. It reminds us of our responsibility to defend and improve that place for the coming generations of our people.
ninjagoo 9 hours ago [-]
> There's no luck involved in the fact that you were born to your parents, as they were to theirs.
Are you claiming to have controlled where and to whom you were born?
You did not choose your parents, country, ancestry, class, era, genes, language, or inherited institutions. You may be inseparable from those facts, but you did not earn them.
> There's no luck involved in the fact that you were born to your parents
> we were so fortunate to inherit from them.
These two statements appear to be contradictory.
> It is right to be proud of the achievements of your ancestors
And what was your contribution to those achievements to justify this pride?
You have to be careful to not fall into the trap of borrowed glory: treating an ancestor’s achievement as your own personal merit, or using ancestry to rank yourself above others.
> toiled and strived to deliver the place that we were so fortunate to inherit
> our responsibility to defend and improve that place for the coming generations of our people.
Are you implying that the place belongs more fully to descendants of earlier inhabitants than to newer members of the community?
So then Native Americans have a stronger claim than European descendants? Or is that a standard to only be applied moving forward?
That's also like the caste system in India: only children of brahmins can be brahmins, children of shudras can only be shudras. One is superior to another by inheritance, not merit.
That's ugly and abhorrent.
> It is right to be proud of the achievements of your ancestors
Are you then also ashamed of their crimes?
gopperl 8 hours ago [-]
>Are you claiming to have controlled where and to whom you were born?
My parents did. Their parents did. My children will.
>you did not earn them
My parents did. Their parents did. My children will.
Everything I have today has been hard-earned by my ancestors. Everything my children have will be hard-earned by my ancestors and I. We earned them.
>These two statements appear to be contradictory
Only if you believe such things to be due to purely random chance. I can feel 'fortunate' that my parents got me the bike I really wanted for Christmas, but there's no randomness in my parents working overtime and budgeting responsibly that made it possible.
>And what was your contribution to those achievements to justify this pride?
I am a part of the same collective, the long and continued story of my people. I am proud of those who came before me.
>You have to be careful to not fall into the trap of borrowed glory
You have to be careful not to fall into the trap of nihilistic individualism. You are part of something much bigger than yourself. Be suspicious of anyone trying to sever your connection to your people and your history.
>Are you implying that the place belongs more fully to descendants of earlier inhabitants than to newer members of the community?
That makes sense, yes. To your example, I would say that Native Americans have very little claim to the modern USA as practically everything was built by Europeans. They failed to defend their lands and were successfully conquered. In the same way, it would be absurd in my view for the majority non-White population of London (almost all of whom are very recent colonisers) to gaze around at the infrastructure and architecture and think "We made this."
>Are you then also ashamed of their crimes?
Sure, but not nearly as ashamed as our enemies would like us to be. Isn't it funny how we are supposed to recoil in shame and horror with the constant reminders of the worst parts of our people's history, yet we are condemned for also proudly owning our best?
ninjagoo 8 hours ago [-]
>> Are you claiming to have controlled where and to whom you were born?
> My parents did. Their parents did. My children will.
But not you
>> you did not earn them
> My parents did. Their parents did. My children will.
But not you
> Everything I have today has been hard-earned by my ancestors.
But not by you
> Everything my children have will be hard-earned by my ancestors and I. *We* earned them.
LoL
seydor 3 hours ago [-]
Let's just accept that UK art follows the general trajectory of the kingdom
bigyabai 3 hours ago [-]
The rise of blind nationalism is a global trend, if I'm not mistaken.
dreambuffer 11 hours ago [-]
England has a long history producing artwork against some institution, only for that institution to get worse over time. George Orwell wrote about the dangers of authoritarianism and surveillance, and since then the UK government has only ratcheted up their surveillance and authority. They also made a movie called This is England which straightforwardly depicts young English nationalists ruining their lives with nationalism, and 20 years later there are more nationalists in England than at any point after WW2.
Will Banksy's legacy be more or less the same?
ericmay 8 hours ago [-]
England has gotten more liberal over time, not less. I'm not following your logic here. It seems you're wanting to criticize the government of the UK for being authoritarian and ratcheting up the surveillance state, but simultaneously criticize nationalists and link them to this government, but nationalists and right-leaning groups haven't really been in charge of the UK.
gerdesj 10 hours ago [-]
"They also made a movie called This is England which straightforwardly depicts young English nationalists"
Not sure who you think "they" are but "This is England" is superb. It deals with a lot of issues, way beyond just nationalism and the like.
Perhaps you would like to fix your gimlet gaze on "A Clockwork Orange" and deliver a further withering critique.
A simple explanation regarding the increase of the number of nationalists within England is the population has increased. QED.
phainopepla2 10 hours ago [-]
This is such an odd comment. People in arts and letters warning about some element of society or culture and then that element growing in strength is something that can be found in most countries, and doesn't seem more prevalent in England than elsewhere.
vpribish 10 hours ago [-]
almost as if "England" is more than one person!
WhereIsTheTruth 21 minutes ago [-]
For some unknown reasons, the mainstream media wants to make sure i see this
Baby, psyop me, one more time
spiderfarmer 15 minutes ago [-]
Next Banksy artwork should depict paranoid people who delude themselves to the point where they think everything is about them.
Markoff 1 hours ago [-]
So anyone can now place whatever they want in public space in UK or some people like Banksy are more equal than the other people? I find this statue offensive for double standards.
This should go quickly away unless they confirm he had official permit and he is just "anti-establishment" hipster.
dvh 5 hours ago [-]
Countries with non-rectangular flags are meddling hands right now.
yakkomajuri 11 hours ago [-]
Unfortunately the article doesn't tell us much. I'd have hoped for some footage beyond what was released by the artist.
867-5309 9 hours ago [-]
holding such a large flag with one hand so high up on the pole? could easily be corrected with a lower holding position, two hands. if it did happen, the walking would cease immediately
both the blinding and defiant fist are intentional. there is only one way to die and he controls it
xyzelement 12 hours ago [-]
It took me a minute to figure out why I think it's lame.
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.
lschueller 12 hours ago [-]
So many people connect this to political topics... For me this is the genius thing about the statue. Seems to be, that quite a lot people are so wrapped up in political debates and political positions, that it has to have political meaning. Maybe this statue is the exact opposit thing of a political message.
lucketone 11 hours ago [-]
Is it that important to decode what author thought when he was making it?
What if the design was made by generative model, does the statue become more or less valuable?
ninjagoo 10 hours ago [-]
> It took me a minute to figure out why I think it's lame.
> 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 close. Based on your own statement, it appears that you disagree with the proposed thesis by this piece of art.
> So ultimately feels like impotent art unless I am totally misunderstanding.
Maybe you should re-examine why you think it is stupid/lame. Is it because it calls you out and you don't like that feeling?
xyzelement 9 hours ago [-]
"calls me out"?
ninjagoo 8 hours ago [-]
> "calls me out"?
i.e., as a member of the group of people represented by the statue?
fylo 12 hours ago [-]
Are you trying to be ironic?
LightBug1 11 hours ago [-]
I don't think it's impotent at all.
I think you're wildly overestimating the general population's capacity for nuance.
Particularly in a world where nuance goes the same way as wood logs near a fire place.
delusional 12 hours ago [-]
Yet us talking about it just prompted me to consider how that applies to my life, so something good came of it :)
bigiain 10 hours ago [-]
"Dress up. Leave a false name. Be legendary. The best Poetic Terrorism is against the law, but don’t get caught. Art as crime; crime as art." -- T.A.Z.: The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism, 1985
It's kind of cheap. Obviously saying "Reform bad." without addressing why so many people think it's not bad. Banksy forgets that humans are humans and do human things.
nielsbot 10 hours ago [-]
My takeaway is "blind nationalism is idiotic and self defeating", but I'm not British. Is that about Reform (the party)?
varispeed 9 hours ago [-]
Yes, sort of anti-"illegal"-immigrant parties are a hot topic in the UK.
But this is kind of "water is wet" message.
uwagar 4 hours ago [-]
this is going on since columbus. nothing new
slopinthebag 10 hours ago [-]
I doubt Banksy is a single person fwiw.
phainopepla2 10 hours ago [-]
He is, but like most artists at his level the work and execution is primarily produced by others. He's a brand manager at this point.
delichon 10 hours ago [-]
He's also Satoshi.
bdangubic 10 hours ago [-]
and Elvis
sudb 10 hours ago [-]
There's most definitely many people involved in Banksy's art - but consensus seems to be forming that it's a man named Robin Gunningham [1].
Remember kids. Don't believe in anything. Don't join anything. Don't give even a small part of yourself up to anything. Don't be part of anything bigger than yourself.
wartywhoa23 12 hours ago [-]
Don't be part of anything bigger than yourself that treats you as expendable human oil.
lucketone 11 hours ago [-]
Stop and reflect for a moment. Then continue as usual (quite likely)
wartywhoa23 11 hours ago [-]
I had to check your other comments and now I get it that you still regard flags as having some sacred meaning in the great national past, but for me they always were about gathering as much human expendables underneath.
Sure, they might have had generated enough sacred reverence, those bloodbaths of past.
lucketone 10 hours ago [-]
> you still regard flags as having some sacred meaning
I would like to disagree on this point.
12 hours ago [-]
BLKNSLVR 11 hours ago [-]
You forgot to add:
... that blinds you to any alternative; that indoctrinates distrust in different perspectives; that elevates the humanity of fellow believers above others.
bdangubic 12 hours ago [-]
much more sound advice than you think…
12 hours ago [-]
ignoramous 11 hours ago [-]
Despite the denials, the answer is most likely this was all coordinated with LEAs.
Some artists have questioned if Banksy, once considered anti-establishment, now enjoys special treatment from Britain's powers that be.
In 2014, Vice Media asked: 'Why Is Banksy the Only Person Allowed to Vandalize Britain’s Walls?' The story quoted David Speed, a street artist who ran a British graffiti collective. "It's very much one rule for him and another rule for everyone else ... When street artists do it, it's vandalism. When Banksy does it, it's an art piece."
Contacted by Reuters, Speed praised Banksy as "a really important artist of modern times." Yet he still wonders why "one artist should be able to have carte blanche and everyone else would be subject to penalties."
Not sure I agree it’s “most likely” when the linked article presents no evidence of LEA awareness or complicity, just one person speculating.
I know firsthand what can be done with a hardhat, clipboard, and high-viz vest. IMO it is far more likely that Banksy is just really good at social engineering in ways that other street artists are not.
mike_hearn 25 minutes ago [-]
Yes, London is famously free of surveillance and the Met is famously tolerant of political speech. Certainly, if someone had put up a statue of a pro-Palestine protester being blinded by a flag Sadiq Khan would just stand around being puzzled and letting things be. No question about it.
nicoburns 11 hours ago [-]
I imagine this just isn't that difficult to get away with. Most areas are basically empty in the early hours of the morning (even in the middle of the city). And people doing some kind of engineering or installation work at that time would also not be that unusual.
noosphr 11 hours ago [-]
The difference is that you'd get a police visit and your artwork torn down if you're not Banksy.
arrrg 2 hours ago [-]
Just goes to show the power of his art. I don’t find that bit the least bit surprising but this inconsistency always has been at the heart of his art for me and to a large extent also what his work is about.
kerridge0 10 hours ago [-]
mainly because it's worth a lot of money...
yreg 10 hours ago [-]
That doesn't mean it was coordinated.
adzm 11 hours ago [-]
Plus this is pretty much the only street artist with worldwide name recognition; of course things are going to be different.
huflungdung 11 hours ago [-]
[dead]
nothinkjustai 11 hours ago [-]
If someone was to deface this statue would they face legal action? It’s kind of an interesting thought, side if it really was just put up without the city’s authority it would be okay, and if it wasn’t it defeats the entire point.
“Rage against the machine” by doing what the machine wants type thing.
declan_roberts 11 hours ago [-]
Yes. This is state-sanctioned think. They probably paid to put it up!
petermcneeley 10 hours ago [-]
Really makes you wonder about other things as well...
lucketone 11 hours ago [-]
That evil city council..
AlexandrB 12 hours ago [-]
Which flag?
rootlocus 12 hours ago [-]
The one he's carrying.
shocks 12 hours ago [-]
Any flag.
Simulacra 12 hours ago [-]
A black flag!
LightBug1 11 hours ago [-]
And others in this thread were worried about it being too obvious ... ffs
pvaldes 2 hours ago [-]
The only thing that we know about the flag is that it a fiberglass flag, so he must be obviously criticising the allegedly benefits of fiber in the diet.
As seen by the raised fist, the man is angry because the operation Epic Fiber has caused a blockage just in the strait of Trump, so is a metaphor about the dangers of having too much nuts in the world. Banski has planned also that the flag ends totally white by seagull activity; so this, always evolving and deceivingly simple piece of art, gives us hope for a future restoration of the blockage soon before we end nuking everybody on the process.
Denouncing the raise to nuttionalism while providing hope for the future. A powerful message.
See?, this is art, everybody can sell anything with a little practice. If they can sell a banana taped in a wall, so you can too.
BLKNSLVR 11 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
metalman 13 hours ago [-]
Statue of a man in a suit walking off a precipice while blinding himself with the flag he is carrying.
I can't get over the flag itself… It's a black flag. Not a British flag, not a white flag,… A BLACK flag.
Historically, the black flag is strongly associated with anarchism, anti-state politics, revolt, and rejection of national authority.
Had he colored it in the union jack, then I would've said it was nationalism, and the person is blinded by nationalism.
But. This is Banksy, black-and-white Banksy, so there may be no symbolism behind the black flag, but it's just very interesting. I can't accept that he would not have considered the color of the flag.
danparsonson 10 hours ago [-]
It's styled after other bronze statues that are all one colour because of the material. Given the context in which he put this up, it's a pretty clear commentary on nationalism in general, so using a specific country's flag wouldn't work.
Simulacra 10 hours ago [-]
I get the unifying color, but I still think there's a hidden meaning
Ancapistani 11 hours ago [-]
It’s Banksy. He uses color to highlight things or where the color is important. Here, I assume the flag is intentionally indistinguishable.
jamesmccann 10 hours ago [-]
It's a monochrome artwork so there is no colour assigned to the flag, rather than it being specifically black.
mindslight 11 hours ago [-]
I think it's about being slightly more subtle than a frontal attack on a specific flag.
But from an American perspective a guy wearing a suit while carrying an "anarchist" flag wouldn't be inappropriate, either.
Simulacra 10 hours ago [-]
But what is the anarchist flag?
Ancapistani 11 hours ago [-]
Why not?
We anarchists with careers do in fact exist. There are probably dozens of us outside of tech, even!
mindslight 11 hours ago [-]
How would you say your numbers compare to the amount of business leaders who are marketing themselves with messages of liberation, but actually want to usher in an era of unfettered corporate authoritarianism? I was not saying an anarchist wearing a suit cannot exist. Rather I was pointing out the current pop culture abuse of the concepts of anarchism/libertarianism.
Ancapistani 10 hours ago [-]
I’m not sure; lots of people self-identify as anarchists while holding beliefs that are diametrically opposed to my own, and lots of people who are much closer to my own beliefs call themselves other things because they’re either afraid of the word “anarchism” or understand it to mean something else.
If I had to ballpark it, I’d guess something like 1:5 people in tech are broadly aligned with me politically (meaning “less extreme, but directionally similar”) while maybe 1:100 would self-identify as an anarchist and 1:500 both self-identify and align fully with me.
Does that help?
mindslight 7 hours ago [-]
Not really, as you keep missing my larger point about authoritarianism marketing itself as anarchism/libertarianism. And that dynamic seems to be quite prevalent in Surveillance Valley.
runarberg 11 hours ago [-]
Black flags are never depicted being wielded in this way. The stance and the clothes of the person carrying the flag are two more artistic shorthands that makes it very clear that this is a national flag, not a black flag of solidarity.
gib444 2 hours ago [-]
People are waking up to the decades of
gaslighting and lies about failed immigration. It can't be stopped now. Nobody cares if they are called a "racist" because the word has been overused and is meaningless.
Much of the media relentlessly continues with its gaslighting of course because the establishment wants and needs immigration.
But people know they barely hear English in many parts of England, see high streets full of criminal fronts [0], know that many are a net tax drain, know an increased population is straining services and housing and so on.
It's about failed immigration - regardless if they're from Poland or from Pakistan.
It is ironically many on the left who are stupid and manipulated by the presence of some far right loons, which gives them a convenient excuse to listen to nobody except themselves. They are blinded by their own smugness and have been manipulated by the pro-immigration establishment sadly
Now colour the flag rainbow colored. Or maybe black, white, green, and red. Or maybe white and red.
Whose flag is blinding whom?
drcongo 11 hours ago [-]
This statue might be the best thing he's ever done. I love it.
kakacik 11 hours ago [-]
very current, elegant yet simple to appreciate - everybody can find some reference there
nephihaha 11 hours ago [-]
Is it? The flag is black, so could be a variety of things, not necessarily even a national flag. Just a flag in a march. (Anarchism uses a black flag.)
rapidaneurism 11 hours ago [-]
And how is blindly following a flag differ between a national flag and an ideology flag?
celticninja 11 hours ago [-]
The guy is walking off a cliff and he is blinded by the flag. I assume it is a commentary on Brexit. It is just short of a decade since that vote. Nationalism blinded people and they did something stupid. Not dissimilar to what is going on in the US too.
TFNA 10 hours ago [-]
> I assume it is a commentary on Brexit.
The Brexit vote was a decade ago and though many mourn the outcome, it’s a bit late to be erecting artwork about it. References to being blinded by a flag now are probably about the particular far-right organizing of the last year or so that employs the English and UK flags in a very particular way. [0]
More likely a commentary on the flying of flags. Since late 2025 and throughout 2026, the UK has seen a surge in flags (the Union Jack and St George’s Cross) being tied to lampposts, bridges, and roundabouts.
This campaign, which has been highly visible on social media and in physical neighborhoods, claims to promote patriotism. However, it has been deeply polarising, with critics and anti-racism groups arguing it is being used by far-right groups to mark territory and intimidate immigrant communities.
celticninja 10 hours ago [-]
This feels ai generated, was it?
celticninja 10 hours ago [-]
This is a weird one, some of the posts are obviously a human, some are a mix and some are AI entirely. Maybe I just don't understand the point in posting AI generated content at all in this scenario.
nephihaha 9 hours ago [-]
It probably does means that, but by having a black/blank flag, he has left it open to many other interpretations he never intended.
haunter 12 hours ago [-]
He definitely got a permit for that which makes the whole thing even more laughable
CPLX 11 hours ago [-]
There's no definitely about that at all. The city of Westminster issued a statement that seems fairly clear that they were as surprised as everybody else but are taking steps to protect it.
tialaramex 10 hours ago [-]
Yeah, one of my distant friends is a councillor in a borough where Banksy did a mural years back and it was definitely much more about ensuring the standing "Send in workers to paint over any graffiti" reaction doesn't happen than some sort of "That's nice, the committee which issued the permit for this didn't tell me when it would happen". So far as she told me she heard about it the same way most people did, it was on the local news that morning.
_m_p 7 hours ago [-]
Ok boomer.
sourcegrift 9 hours ago [-]
This seems like more bigotry against marginalized individuals and shouldn't be celebrated. The message here is that (the few) elites helping build a progressive society are doing it wrong.
AngryData 8 hours ago [-]
What elites are pushing for a progressive society? Doubling down on rule by capital holders isn't progressive, we have already seen it before.
jaynate 7 hours ago [-]
Isn’t there coverage on any other site with fewer ads and popups? I could literally barely navigate the article on my phone.
12 hours ago [-]
cboyardee 9 hours ago [-]
[dead]
jchip303 11 hours ago [-]
[dead]
Gongo_Emperor 13 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
jansan 12 hours ago [-]
Who decides that this is from Banksy? I could make a stencil graffiti in my village and claim it's from Banksy and noone could prove me wrong. Or is he using a digital signature as proof of authorship?
His agent would tell the media that your vandalism is not genuine
slopinthebag 12 hours ago [-]
Wind bad.
everfrustrated 11 hours ago [-]
The idea that Banksy's identity is unknown is a complete myth perpuated by the popular press.
The guy is well known and very much part of the establishment.
hn_throwaway_99 10 hours ago [-]
> The idea that Banksy's identity is unknown is a complete myth perpuated by the popular press.
I know saying RTFA is supposed to be against the HN guidelines, but it takes an amazing amount of confidently ignorant chutzpah to declare something "a complete myth perpetuated by the popular press" when the subtitle of this article literally states:
> less than two months after a journalism investigation into Banksy’s true identity was published
parpfish 11 hours ago [-]
so why don't you share who it is with the rest of the class?
why help perpetuate his (her?) secret identity mystique
hactually 11 hours ago [-]
> Banksy was born Robin Gunningham but later took the name David Jones
long been known as establishment friendly
neonstatic 10 hours ago [-]
It's pretty obvious once you look at the art - it has a very specific political leaning, which also happens to have been the predominant one in the UK since Blair.
throwaway27448 10 hours ago [-]
Blind?
actionfromafar 10 hours ago [-]
closet-fascist?
neonstatic 10 hours ago [-]
Europe has gone so far left-wing, that not-left-enough are called fascist :)
He also ripped his style off Blek le Rat and the political element to his work is jejune.
pavel_lishin 10 hours ago [-]
Would you say that it's shallow and pedantic?
phainopepla2 10 hours ago [-]
Shallow yes, pedantic not really
songshu 10 hours ago [-]
I’ve been on this for 20 years. The guy has coffee table books! He cashes checks! He took something that was previously done anonymously and for free, put his name on it and started charging for it. Good luck to him, but anonymous he is not.
NomDePlum 11 hours ago [-]
[dead]
celticninja 11 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
slopinthebag 11 hours ago [-]
What are you talking about?
MrBuddyCasino 12 hours ago [-]
Really makes you think. I guess Palestine and Ukraine should just give up.
dickens5 12 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
ebbi 12 hours ago [-]
Israel should give up on the apartheid, genocide, and the war crimes. No one but the worst of the worst Zionists want to see the continuation of the last 80 years.
jojobas 9 hours ago [-]
You can't seriously put Palestine and Ukraine in the same sentence like this.
arduanika 7 hours ago [-]
Sure he can. Both of them have flags, and all flags are bad. They blow in your face and make you dumb. Why can't world be less dumb? So many dumb flag people. I do art.
dickens5 12 hours ago [-]
Trite and uninspiring. Banksy trying to stay relevant and failing.
lschueller 12 hours ago [-]
Well, for a failing artist he is quite impactful, isn't he? News around the world reporting about it. People discussing it. This seems to be quite inspiring and anything else but failing.
BLKNSLVR 11 hours ago [-]
Got you to comment, job done. Engagement: tick.
11 hours ago [-]
cineticdaffodil 4 hours ago [-]
The final desperate shivers of a dying worldview, thats financially and socially so detached from the rest of the nation they couldn't even grasp when they got colonized.
henry2023 3 hours ago [-]
Colonized by who?
cineticdaffodil 54 minutes ago [-]
By you
Rendered at 08:58:53 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
into the void, or off the edge?
"off the edge" is a clear interpretation of the statue. "into the void" is a bit more of a stretch. IMHO.
But that's art for you. Everyone has their own take on it.
I am not religious, but this quote keeps coming up... And people keep forgetting about it.
but fanaticism is more often a problem than not. fanatics tend to not really understand what they're talking about, or twist it to fit what they want it to be about.
> Fanaticism: Excessive enthusiasm, unreasoning zeal, or wild and extravagant notions, on any subject, especially religion, politics or ideology; religious frenzy.
note -- not talking about any particular "thing" here. just commenting about passion vs. fanaticism in general.
But more to the point, while you may think the meaning is a bit obvious, the fact that the flag is unadorned (which/whose flag is it?), and the man is unknown, makes me think this statue could be the ultimate Rorschach test. I'm sure there are tons of people thinking "Ha ha, this is the perfect commentary on all those idiot <people on the other side who I disagree with> wrapping themselves up in their ideology of <patriotism/social justice/cause du jour> as they march <some particular country/society/the world at large off a cliff>".
In other words, I'm guessing you probably felt the meaning was "obvious" because you filled in the blanks in the above madlibs-style statement in a way that feels obvious to you, and I think folks on "the other side" would probably fill in the blanks with the exact opposite notions in a way that feels "obvious" to them.
Banksy is from Bris'l which is sort of north Somerset (Somerset keeps on morphing faster than a sci-fi shapeshifter).
Cornwall has had a white cross on a black flag since 18something. Devon decided to adopt a black edged white cross on a green flag. I remember seeing Devon flag car stickers in the '80s - its a little older than that. Somerset now has ... a flag. Yellow and red I think.
No idea why because people can't decide what it is! The land itself knows exactly what and where it is but the political boundaries ebb and flow with the phases of the moon. Is Avon included ... what is Avon? Ooh, BANES - Somerset? Not today thank you. It goes on. Anyway, do Devon and Somerset and co really need a flag? No of course not.
What we really need is a Wessex flag, which will take over Mercia ... and a few other regional efforts ... and end up as a red cross on a white background. Then we could munge that with a couple of other flags and confuse the entire world with something called the Union Flag.
Then we can really get complicated ... hi Hawaii!
Welsh for river.
You'd be very surprised.
This is part of what's obvious. The whole thing, including this oooh aahh Rorschach part, is obvious. It's thoughts that we all had in high school, and it is hack.
※ I admit that Xi Jinping wears a suit, but I'm still classifying that theory under "plausible deniability".
I went and looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_art but couldn't find it there. The "anti-essentialist" section is good, though, I think. It has Berys Gaut listing ten properties of art, all of which are nice-to-have but none of which are essential. Then if a piece ticks lots of boxes it's a shoo-in, but if it doesn't tick many of them you can argue about it.
Some of those involve eliciting some sort of response, but you could also have a decorative piece with this combo:
(i) aesthetic, (iv) complex, (v) meaningful, (vi) idiosyncratic, (vii) imaginative, (viii) skillful, (ix) art-shaped, (x) intentional
Which would be 8 out of 10, to which we could add "completely ignorable" and it could still be art. I don't see why attention-grabbing and provocation is important, and it certainly isn't sufficient on its own, plus it's irritating.
You said, "Whether we think he's a hack", which fundamentally changes what is being discussed.
The only reason we're talking about this is because of Banksy. Not because it is a clever or "deep" piece. It's disappointingly surface level, and the fact that we're talking about that doesn't suggest otherwise.
Baloney. It's a guerilla sculpture put up in the center of London. My guess is we might be talking about it more if it were unsigned as a case of whodunnit.
But for me personally, I roll my eyes at all the ex-art students who always complain "it's a hack" for any piece of art that appeals to a wide audience and isn't some obnoxious 8-layers deep meaning. You literally see it all the time, and half the time it just strikes me as thinly-veiled jealousy, if not from the art student perspective than from the "I'm so much more sophisticated than the unwashed masses" perspective.
It happened on HN a few months ago in a post about Simon Berger, an artist who makes portraits with cracked glass. The artist has achieved relatively wide appeal, and many of the comments here were along the lines of "Meh, he's a talentless hack, he just stumbled along a 'cool' technique but the subjects are boring."
I'd have a lot more respect for folks that could just say "it's not my bag" and move on, rather than pretend they're so much more sophisticated than people who enjoy this art.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musicians_who_oppose_Donald_Tr...
To deface it would first have to have a face.
I suppose I should've figured that one out.
His other works aren't subtle.
I don’t understand this. What speaks pro-establishment in this piece?
If the man holding the flag had been wearing a thawb instead of a suit, or if the statue had been of a woman, I think the establishment's response would be quite different.
1. From https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y9wlnwl85o "We're excited to see Banksy's latest sculpture in Westminster, making a striking addition to the city's vibrant public art scene. While we have taken initial steps to protect the statue, at this time it will remain accessible for the public to view and enjoy."
2. From https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/30/world/europe/banksy-londo... "Banksy has a great ability to inspire people from a range of backgrounds to enjoy modern art. His work always draws great interest and debate, and the mayor is hopeful that his latest piece can be preserved for Londoners and visitors to enjoy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_art_in_St_James...
It's not exactly subtle. A man goose stepping while blinded by a flag is a contrast to the other military figures portrayed in victorious poses.
That's argumentum ad speculum[0]. You can speculate what the response would be if the statue was different in a way you imagine, but the thing is, it's not.
[0]: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Hypothe...
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/08/29/uk/st-george-flag-england...
It's also referencing the recent flag controversies in the UK over the past year.
Which flag? Or, what kind of flag? Or does it matter?
"It's clearly the national flag"
If you asked 100 people to imagine a particular flag to attach to that statue, 95% of them are going to be current, unrecognized, or former states.
It's not like Banksy is known for being a sophisticated highfalutin MFA student anyway. Like it or not, appealing to the masses with simple and clear moral messages has always been his deal.
Not sure if you are serious, but my experience is the exact opposite…
Now? He makes millions off his work while still thumbing his nose at capitalism? Doesn't ring the same any more. You can't claim to be fighting against the same system that you use to make millions.
It depends on what you do with that money, no?
I'll be one of the first to agree that most rich people have likely gotten where the are by doing at least some immoral or unethical things, and that many of those people try to whitewash their image with philanthropy. But there certainly exist rich people who got there as ethically as one can in this world, and use that money to try to change things.
Sure, there are many fewer of the latter people than the former, but I think it's unfair to automatically assume that "made some money" = "part of the system".
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-som...
There really is no winning when you become famous. When people liked you before and you are effectively still the same but just richer they call you part of the problem, if you aren't richer people just don't know you and you most likely arent actually famous. Usually money follows the fame and vice versa (unless you specifically use your money to remain anonymous).
You absolutely can though. This is a false dichotomy.
There's nothing about subtly in that claim, and all forms of art are equally valid, if not the same quality.
Bansky's art has always been blunt and whimsical, probably because he makes popular street art. It's meant to be "accessible" for your average passerby who might only engage with it for a fraction of a second, but maybe get a little surprise when they do.
Sadly, in this day and age, that simple one-punch obvious meaning is just what's needed.
“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...
For clarity, the shredder was part of the work and the sale was of the half destroyed piece along with shredder and chaff.
(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
You really don't see any good ol' fashioned short and sweet headlines that read best to the ear in a Mid-Atlantic accent anymore.
It's an offence against public decency however you slice it!
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Banksy_Job
edit: I feel I should clarify that this is not an official Banksy documentary. He made "Exit Through the Gift Shop" which is an amazing film which I highly recommend to anyone.
The Wall Street Bull was a guerilla art piece too. It's a real bronze. Weighs about three metric tons. It's hugely popular, although it's been moved a few times. Banksy's work should be replicated in bronze and stone and placed permanently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Raise_the_Colours https://manchestermill.co.uk/the-men-who-raised-the-flags/
Oh, and you'll find it at plenty of football matches, notably Glasgow Rangers, who fly it while singing songs about wanting to be "up to our knees in Fenian blood".
Communists are blinded by the flag with the hammer and sickle.
Teachers and doctors are blinded by trans ideology and its flag.
Examples abound, but wanna transgressor blanksy knows who butters his bread.
You're going to get a bunch of downvotes, but I'm also going to take the time to personally tell you how stupid this is as well.
Even the new positioning of the art on a plinth in some open space is enigmatic. If it were a critique of the powers that be, why would officialdom collaborate in propping it up?
Seriously, this is part of the fun of art. Neither of you are wrong for reading different messages into it.
“Nations” as synonym for country started appearing only recently, in last two/three hundred years.
Flags have thousands of years of history.
Which spate and which nation? The one the local flags were in response to, or the local flags?
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.
Waving a flag is not a problem in itself. You can be proud of being part of whatever group you like and not hurt anyone. The problem is when the flag becomes the prism through which you see the world. Or, as the statue puts it, when you’re blinded by it.
Clearly it depends on your actual object-level position on the Israel/Palestine conflict. Or in general, what specific nationalisms you mean when you talk about being "blinded by nationalism".
And that's the main reason why I think this is a mediocre piece of art. Very few people actually are genuinely anti-nationalist for all possible human groups that have some sense of themselves as a nation. All anti-nationalist rhetoric is implicitly aimed at a specific nationalism that someone has a problem with - and also everyone knows this. So everyone wants to use the blank slate of bansky's featureless flag as a canvas upon which to paint a nationalism they don't like in order to discredit it. And I personally think that's boring. Maybe engendering that reaction was itself part of Bansky's artistic vision, but I still don't think that makes for good art.
Plus the execution is also part of the art.
There are many examples of the same thing: Andy Warhol and the soup cans and screen-printed portraits with different color backgrounds or Led Zeppelin and English folk hard rock songs that have hobbits in them are two of them.
Eventually, it's hard to even process their work in the context of how predictable and trite it seems to be a few decades later.
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.
The moral posture you're criticising is not actually a thing, I personally don't know of any Western intellectual who criticises the West but is fine with FGM for example. But it seems that the fault you find in them is that when they criticise the West, for example, they don't also add a list of grievances against all the other countries (but surely they'd have to speak for 10 hours every time they open their mouths?).
It's also funny how you take the 30,000 Iranian civilians killed at face value, but don't talk about the wrongs of the British empire. And you didn't even mention North Korea once. You see the issue with your reqs?
Art will always be about speaking truth to power, and that power will usually be the one closest felt. There's not much value in a swede speaking truth to Nigerian warlords.
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, or even any kind of symbolism at all. Anything that needs to be interpreted, that doesn't have a single objective meaning which gets spelled out for you. Flag man is silly. Everyone is twelve now.
You are wrong.
I think his name not being blasted everywhere has more to do with it being thoroughly uninteresting than any gentlemen's agreement.
It's not so much a secret as it is simply not public.
This contradiction at the heart of it does a lot of work and is a very valuable part of the art. This contradiction has led me to think a lot about rules and their role in society and to what extent pure strict rules based societies are a worthwhile goal and on the other hand what it means of we make exceptions.
Being cynical that all effort is wasted is played out at this point. Fight for something real. Name what you're against. It should be easy in the UK.
Council permits are usually quite public (in my country). Sneaking it in becomes part of the artwork.
(Though it's not in /the/ City of London. That wouldn't happen in a million years! City of Westminster is way more culturally flexible)
The City is dead at night. If an artist wants to put art there, they'd just as somebody else said, dress up like they are workmen and be fine.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2qz89nk11o
Criticizing someone of being popular is just a way to silence them. If they are popular then they are "cringe", and if they are unpopular, they can be safely ignored and that statue would have been removed by the police and forgotten without any news coverage.
Banksy may be popular, but he is not completely establishment, because well look at the statue. Its an obvious critique of the Iran war, and yet the Iran war still grinds on and UK bases continue to be used for Iran war operations. So apparently there is someone in the establishment that does not agree with Banksy. Someone boldly stepping into the void.
One of my favorite contemporary musicians is a Socialist Filipino rapper who lives in LA. I can enjoy the music while finding the ideology abhorrent because they are two separate things.
And of course there was a fucking gift shop at the end.
This is the better spot: https://maps.app.goo.gl/6EmX2jPiaKRNtNtr8 51°30'19.0"N 0°08'16.0"W
And very likely had very little to do with the current state of the place. Pride at age 21? Meaningless vanity, like being proud of being born with a silver spoon. Pride at age 80? Sure, if it was a life well-lived.
If you're twelve years old, maybe.
> The luck of the draw.
This is a core tenet of the Rawlsian religion, of which you are a (probably unwitting) fanatic. If you like questioning things so much, you should question why this thing you take for an eternal fact had to be invented in 1971, and what exactly it is propping up.
Ouch. How warped does one's thinking have to be to call "A theory of justice" (1971) for pluralistic, democratic societies, a "religion"?
It seems to me that right-wingers love hyperbole and rhetoric, without addressing the meat of the matter.
Your post is no different, being entirely free of reason. A good day to you, Sir.
Still, aren't you at least a little bit curious? Why did it have to be invented in 1971? What is it replacing?
You did not choose your parents, country, ancestry, class, era, genes, language, or inherited institutions. You may be inseparable from those facts, but you did not earn them.
These two statements appear to be contradictory. And what was your contribution to those achievements to justify this pride?You have to be careful to not fall into the trap of borrowed glory: treating an ancestor’s achievement as your own personal merit, or using ancestry to rank yourself above others.
Are you implying that the place belongs more fully to descendants of earlier inhabitants than to newer members of the community?So then Native Americans have a stronger claim than European descendants? Or is that a standard to only be applied moving forward?
That's also like the caste system in India: only children of brahmins can be brahmins, children of shudras can only be shudras. One is superior to another by inheritance, not merit.
That's ugly and abhorrent.
Are you then also ashamed of their crimes?My parents did. Their parents did. My children will.
>you did not earn them
My parents did. Their parents did. My children will.
Everything I have today has been hard-earned by my ancestors. Everything my children have will be hard-earned by my ancestors and I. We earned them.
>These two statements appear to be contradictory
Only if you believe such things to be due to purely random chance. I can feel 'fortunate' that my parents got me the bike I really wanted for Christmas, but there's no randomness in my parents working overtime and budgeting responsibly that made it possible.
>And what was your contribution to those achievements to justify this pride?
I am a part of the same collective, the long and continued story of my people. I am proud of those who came before me.
>You have to be careful to not fall into the trap of borrowed glory
You have to be careful not to fall into the trap of nihilistic individualism. You are part of something much bigger than yourself. Be suspicious of anyone trying to sever your connection to your people and your history.
>Are you implying that the place belongs more fully to descendants of earlier inhabitants than to newer members of the community?
That makes sense, yes. To your example, I would say that Native Americans have very little claim to the modern USA as practically everything was built by Europeans. They failed to defend their lands and were successfully conquered. In the same way, it would be absurd in my view for the majority non-White population of London (almost all of whom are very recent colonisers) to gaze around at the infrastructure and architecture and think "We made this."
>Are you then also ashamed of their crimes?
Sure, but not nearly as ashamed as our enemies would like us to be. Isn't it funny how we are supposed to recoil in shame and horror with the constant reminders of the worst parts of our people's history, yet we are condemned for also proudly owning our best?
Will Banksy's legacy be more or less the same?
Not sure who you think "they" are but "This is England" is superb. It deals with a lot of issues, way beyond just nationalism and the like.
Perhaps you would like to fix your gimlet gaze on "A Clockwork Orange" and deliver a further withering critique.
A simple explanation regarding the increase of the number of nationalists within England is the population has increased. QED.
Baby, psyop me, one more time
This should go quickly away unless they confirm he had official permit and he is just "anti-establishment" hipster.
both the blinding and defiant fist are intentional. there is only one way to die and he controls it
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.
What if the design was made by generative model, does the statue become more or less valuable?
> 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 close. Based on your own statement, it appears that you disagree with the proposed thesis by this piece of art.
> So ultimately feels like impotent art unless I am totally misunderstanding.
Maybe you should re-examine why you think it is stupid/lame. Is it because it calls you out and you don't like that feeling?
i.e., as a member of the group of people represented by the statue?
I think you're wildly overestimating the general population's capacity for nuance.
Particularly in a world where nuance goes the same way as wood logs near a fire place.
The whole piece is great - https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/hakim-bey-t-a-z-the-...
Or if you have 5 mins to spare, the album version with Bill Laswell is even better - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt9vMF01Pd8
But this is kind of "water is wet" message.
1. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/global-a...
Sure, they might have had generated enough sacred reverence, those bloodbaths of past.
I would like to disagree on this point.
... that blinds you to any alternative; that indoctrinates distrust in different perspectives; that elevates the humanity of fellow believers above others.
I know firsthand what can be done with a hardhat, clipboard, and high-viz vest. IMO it is far more likely that Banksy is just really good at social engineering in ways that other street artists are not.
“Rage against the machine” by doing what the machine wants type thing.
As seen by the raised fist, the man is angry because the operation Epic Fiber has caused a blockage just in the strait of Trump, so is a metaphor about the dangers of having too much nuts in the world. Banski has planned also that the flag ends totally white by seagull activity; so this, always evolving and deceivingly simple piece of art, gives us hope for a future restoration of the blockage soon before we end nuking everybody on the process.
Denouncing the raise to nuttionalism while providing hope for the future. A powerful message.
See?, this is art, everybody can sell anything with a little practice. If they can sell a banana taped in a wall, so you can too.
https://banksy.co.uk/index.html
Historically, the black flag is strongly associated with anarchism, anti-state politics, revolt, and rejection of national authority.
Had he colored it in the union jack, then I would've said it was nationalism, and the person is blinded by nationalism.
But. This is Banksy, black-and-white Banksy, so there may be no symbolism behind the black flag, but it's just very interesting. I can't accept that he would not have considered the color of the flag.
But from an American perspective a guy wearing a suit while carrying an "anarchist" flag wouldn't be inappropriate, either.
We anarchists with careers do in fact exist. There are probably dozens of us outside of tech, even!
If I had to ballpark it, I’d guess something like 1:5 people in tech are broadly aligned with me politically (meaning “less extreme, but directionally similar”) while maybe 1:100 would self-identify as an anarchist and 1:500 both self-identify and align fully with me.
Does that help?
Much of the media relentlessly continues with its gaslighting of course because the establishment wants and needs immigration.
But people know they barely hear English in many parts of England, see high streets full of criminal fronts [0], know that many are a net tax drain, know an increased population is straining services and housing and so on.
It's about failed immigration - regardless if they're from Poland or from Pakistan.
It is ironically many on the left who are stupid and manipulated by the presence of some far right loons, which gives them a convenient excuse to listen to nobody except themselves. They are blinded by their own smugness and have been manipulated by the pro-immigration establishment sadly
[0] https://www.tradingstandards.uk/media/3183107/hidden-in-plai...
Nationalismus ist eine Kinderkrankheit. Er ist die Masern der Menschheit.
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."
... quote via https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup
Whose flag is blinding whom?
The Brexit vote was a decade ago and though many mourn the outcome, it’s a bit late to be erecting artwork about it. References to being blinded by a flag now are probably about the particular far-right organizing of the last year or so that employs the English and UK flags in a very particular way. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Raise_the_Colours
This campaign, which has been highly visible on social media and in physical neighborhoods, claims to promote patriotism. However, it has been deeply polarising, with critics and anti-racism groups arguing it is being used by far-right groups to mark territory and intimidate immigrant communities.
The guy is well known and very much part of the establishment.
I know saying RTFA is supposed to be against the HN guidelines, but it takes an amazing amount of confidently ignorant chutzpah to declare something "a complete myth perpetuated by the popular press" when the subtitle of this article literally states:
> less than two months after a journalism investigation into Banksy’s true identity was published
long been known as establishment friendly