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.
Worse than a void because a void is not necessarily bad. Walking “off a cliff” rarely ends well.
> He's boldly marching into the void<p>into the void, or off the edge?<p>"off the edge" is a clear interpretation of the statue. "into the void" is a bit more of a stretch. IMHO.<p>But that's art for you. Everyone has their own take on it.
[flagged]
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.
Strong disagree. First, like many of the other comments mention, Banksy is known for being clever and witty, but not particularly subtle.<p>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>".<p>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.
> 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<p>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'm guessing most would assume this is about nationalists, and I don't think even the nationalists would imagine Banksy is on their side?
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.
The flag is unadorned and I think you can extend your interpretation to include the proliferation of flags which have a minimal "history".<p>Banksy is from Bris'l which is sort of north Somerset (Somerset keeps on morphing faster than a sci-fi shapeshifter).<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Then we can really get complicated ... hi Hawaii!
Not sure we think of Banksy as being particularly subtle. Innovative and impactful, sure - but the message is usually quite clear, no?
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.
> "in September 2025, Banksy painted a mural on the Royal Courts of Justice depicting a judge bludgeoning a protester with a gavel"<p>His other works aren't subtle.
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.
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.<p>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.
> <i>there is no doubt on the meaning at all</i><p>Which flag? Or, what kind of flag? Or does it matter?
It does not matter. Any ideology can be followed blindly to one’s ruin. Nationalism is common, but there are others.
"The LGBTQIA flag obviously"<p>"It's clearly the national flag"
the kind that flag shaggers shag
I’d say what matters is whether it matters to you. What difference does it make in the outcome?
Why could it not mean multiple flags at once?
Flags overwhelmingly represent nations, groups considering themselves nations, that were nations or have some kind of individual governmental status.<p>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 is universal. The flag, the state, the man. Details don't matter.
In the context of UK politics, and given Banksy's previous socio-political work, this statue is probably a response to 'the nationalists': <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Raise_the_Colours" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Raise_the_Colours</a>
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)
I think a good old fashined "we are all fucked" is warranted now and again.<p>It's also referencing the recent flag controversies in the UK over the past year.
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.
Certainly in America but all over the west, people are significantly less capable of media literacy. Sometimes the obvious needs to be said.
it's less than mediocre art. Using the following statue from Temu for vandalism would be a stronger art statement: <a href="https://www.temu.com/1pc-3d-printed-bride-sculpture-elegant-gothic-wedding-decoration-with-flowing-white-long-dress-and-veil-durable-plastic-spooky-ornament-suitable-for-home-office-desktop-battery-free-halloween-decoration-and-year-round-display-unique-holiday-g-601103043770894.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.temu.com/1pc-3d-printed-bride-sculpture-elegant-...</a>
Have you seen the state of the world? Why would you go through the trouble of being subtle nowadays?
Yes doesn’t feel very innovative
He's always been one to land a one-liner, or just a punch line.<p>Sadly, in this day and age, that simple one-punch obvious meaning is just what's needed.
Well the problems it's referencing are glaringly obvious as well, and yet so many people still refuse to acknowledge them.
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.<p>“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.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/10/01/banksy-mural-detroit-michigan-auction/73135144/" rel="nofollow">https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/10/01/ba...</a>
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.<p>For clarity, the shredder was part of the work and the sale was of the half destroyed piece along with shredder and chaff.
all his work is slop. No difference here...
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
I misparsed this headline as<p>(Statue (of a man (blinded by a flag (put up by Banksy)))) in central London<p>It is intended to be<p>((Statue (of a man (blinded by a flag))) (put up by Banksy)) in central London
The actual headline is more coherent but I'm not too fond of it either.<p>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.
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...
Things were more fun when they were actually transgressive and not just the established doctrine of those in power.
I have a hardhat, high viz vest, lanyard, and $600 toolbelt because I'm an industrial electrician, but they get me into a <i>lot</i>. My face becomes invisible; I become "The Electrician".
Banksy's "anonymity" is a total farce at this point, thoroughly supported by those in power.
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.<p>It's not so much a secret as it is simply not public.
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.
Who cares? Are you similarly triggered by The Rock or Alemao? Banksy is Banksy.
Tracking Bansky is a favorite spy software sales demo given to authoritarian governments.
The point appears to have whizzed a couple of feet over your head.
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?
The pillar is fiberglass too, I believe.<p>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.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Banksy_Job" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Banksy_Job</a><p>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.
Aw, it's Fiberglas? Not bronze and stone?<p>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.
Banksy is the patron saint of the “I’m 13 and this is deep” mentality.
"Blinded by nationalism" I don't know, seems like a clear concise message that has relevance in today's world.
Why nationalism? A flag can represent more than a nation. Can be blinded by any "flag" / ideology.
Since last summer a lot of flags appeared all over the UK.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Raise_the_Colours" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Raise_the_Colours</a> <a href="https://manchestermill.co.uk/the-men-who-raised-the-flags/" rel="nofollow">https://manchestermill.co.uk/the-men-who-raised-the-flags/</a>
The ambiguity is part of the charm. Something that reveals more about the beholders than the artist makes for stimulating conversation and discovery.<p>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?
Interpretations, in my art?<p>Seriously, this is part of the fun of art. Neither of you are wrong for reading different messages into it.
Flags overwhelmingly represent nations, groups considering themselves nations, that were nations or have some kind of individual governmental status.
Nations != governments.<p>“Nations” as synonym for country started appearing only recently, in last two/three hundred years.<p>Flags have thousands of years of history.
Flags also represent causes, or groups that don’t aspire to becoming a nation.
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.
How do you know it's "blinded by nationalism"? There are plenty of non-national flags which are just as blinding
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?<p>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.
> 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?<p>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".<p>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 <i>specific</i> 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 <i>don't</i> 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.
> Is waving a Palestinian flag the same as waving an Israeli flag?<p>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.
Both Israel and Palestine are blinded by ideology. It is a very common failure mode for people.
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.
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.
Explain like I'm 13 and don't live in the UK.
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.
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.
Heaven forbid someone tries to communicate a point with art.
The irony is that the statue is being guarded by the London police.
I think it deserves credit for being both simple and original.
So, you are 14 and you understand the world? Doesn't seem like it
It doesn't need to be super layered to be impactful?<p>Plus the execution is also part of the art.
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.<p>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.<p>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.
This works really well these days, when the average person is 13.
Account created last year, is Banksy your patron saint?
Really riles up PE types and "patriots" though.
[dead]
He's also king of the <i>"I'll criticize the west but I'll turn a blind-eye to non-democratic countries' wrongdoings"</i>. A trait shared with virtually all intellectuals and artists in the west.<p>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".<p>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, <i>"the patriarchal western society built by heterosexual white men"</i> or some other woke non-sense like that.<p>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.<p>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.<p>But these people can live with their own conscience: I speak up and I've got mine.
That's a lot of imaginary flaws in imaginary people, with imaginary numbers as scaffolding.<p>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?).<p>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?
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.
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.
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?<p>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.
This criticism would carry more weight if the people this statue criticises had the intellectual and emotional maturity beyond that of a teenager.<p>Unfortunately, they often don't meet that bar, so the message has to be in a form they can understand.
"They'd be pretty angry if they could read"
You're being downvoted but honestly the "everyone is twelve now" meme explains our collective societal dysfunction perfectly.<p>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.
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.
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.
> Banksy is the patron saint of the “I’m 13 and this is deep” mentality.<p>You are wrong.
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.
Anyone else leaving up a huge statue in the middle of the park would be arrested
Yeah, definetly had the city agree to it, no way in hell to sneak a statue like that without the cops getting involved.
Apparently not:<p><pre><code> 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.
</code></pre>
<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4pvyw82exo" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4pvyw82exo</a><p>Council permits are usually quite public (in my country). Sneaking it in becomes part of the artwork.
The trick is not to sneak it. Hi Viz and some yellow flashing lights. Couple smooth talkers.
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.
<a href="https://www.welikela.com/richard-ankrom-guerilla-public-service/" rel="nofollow">https://www.welikela.com/richard-ankrom-guerilla-public-serv...</a>
Agreed. Also why it's totally inoffensive<p>(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)
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.<p>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.
I dunno they were flexible with the Piranha art work displaying it in the guildhall temporarily.<p><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2qz89nk11o" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2qz89nk11o</a>
Banksy (Robin Gunningham) is the most mainstream establishment artist, while thinks himself a counter-culture revolutionary. That's what makes him so cringe. He's just another champagne socialist.
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.<p>And of course there was a fucking gift shop at the end.
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!"<p>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.<p>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.
"The Underground is a Lie", successful version.
Somebody has to enlighten mimosa-party participants about socialism.
Perhaps, but he’s also a talented artist.<p>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.
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?
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.<p>This is the better spot: <a href="https://maps.app.goo.gl/6EmX2jPiaKRNtNtr8" rel="nofollow">https://maps.app.goo.gl/6EmX2jPiaKRNtNtr8</a> 51°30'19.0"N 0°08'16.0"W
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.<p>Will Banksy's legacy be more or less the same?
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.
"They also made a movie called This is England which straightforwardly depicts young English nationalists"<p>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.<p>Perhaps you would like to fix your gimlet gaze on "A Clockwork Orange" and deliver a further withering critique.<p>A simple explanation regarding the increase of the number of nationalists within England is the population has increased. QED.
almost as if "England" is more than one person!
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.
seems missed in the general commentary that there is also an inherent commentary on the western tradition of “blind justice”
<a href="https://i.etsystatic.com/13403651/r/il/40b0bf/6851322246/il_1080xN.6851322246_fof9.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://i.etsystatic.com/13403651/r/il/40b0bf/6851322246/il_...</a>
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<p>both the blinding and defiant fist are intentional. there is only one way to die and he controls it
The idea that Banksy's identity is unknown is a complete myth perpuated by the popular press.<p>The guy is well known and very much part of the establishment.
> The idea that Banksy's identity is unknown is a complete myth perpuated by the popular press.<p>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:<p>> less than two months after a journalism investigation into Banksy’s true identity was published
so why don't you share who it is with the rest of the class?
why help perpetuate his (her?) secret identity mystique
> Banksy was born Robin Gunningham but later took the name David Jones<p>long been known as establishment friendly
<a href="https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/global-art-banksy/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/global-a...</a>
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.
[dead]
[flagged]
He also ripped his style off Blek le Rat and the political element to his work is jejune.
Unfortunately the article doesn't tell us much. I'd have hoped for some footage beyond what was released by the artist.
"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<p>The whole piece is great - <a href="https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/hakim-bey-t-a-z-the-" rel="nofollow">https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/hakim-bey-t-a-z-the-</a>...<p>Or if you have 5 mins to spare, the album version with Bill Laswell is even better - <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt9vMF01Pd8" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt9vMF01Pd8</a>
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.
Don't be part of anything bigger than yourself that treats you as expendable human oil.
You forgot to add:<p>... that blinds you to any alternative; that indoctrinates distrust in different perspectives; that elevates the humanity of fellow believers above others.
much more sound advice than you think…
I doubt Banksy is a single person fwiw.
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.
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].<p>1. <a href="https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/global-art-banksy/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/global-a...</a>
He's also Satoshi.
Despite the denials, the answer is most likely this was all coordinated with LEAs.<p><pre><code> 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."
</code></pre>
<i>In Search of Banksy</i>, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/global-art-banksy/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/global-a...</a> (2026).
Not sure I agree it’s “most likely” when the linked article presents no evidence of LEA awareness or complicity, just one person speculating.<p>I know firsthand what can be done with a hardhat, clipboard, and high-viz vest. IMO it is <i>far</i> more likely that Banksy is just really good at social engineering in ways that other street artists are not.
The difference is that you'd get a police visit and your artwork torn down if you're not Banksy.
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.
Plus this is pretty much the only street artist with worldwide name recognition; of course things are going to be different.
[dead]
It took me a minute to figure out why I think it's lame.<p>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.<p>Maybe a more powerful piece of art would have that self reflection effect across the board. As is it feels about as nuanced as "fuck trump" and similar. If you already agree you already agree, if not then you just think it's stupid. So ultimately feels like impotent art unless I am totally misunderstanding.
> It took me a minute to figure out why I think it's lame.<p>> 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.<p>So close. Based on your own statement, it appears that you disagree with the proposed thesis by this piece of art.<p>> So ultimately feels like impotent art unless I am totally misunderstanding.<p>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?
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.
Is it that important to decode what author thought when he was making it?<p>What if the design was made by generative model, does the statue become more or less valuable?
Are you trying to be ironic?
Yet us talking about it just prompted me to consider how that applies to my life, so something good came of it :)
I don't think it's impotent at all.<p>I think you're wildly overestimating the general population's capacity for nuance.<p>Particularly in a world where nuance goes the same way as wood logs near a fire place.
Which flag?
Statue of a man in a suit walking off a precipice while blinding himself with the flag he is carrying.<p><a href="https://banksy.co.uk/index.html" rel="nofollow">https://banksy.co.uk/index.html</a>
I can't get over the flag itself… It's a black flag. Not a British flag, not a white flag,… A BLACK flag.<p>Historically, the black flag is strongly associated with anarchism, anti-state politics, revolt, and rejection of national authority.<p>Had he colored it in the union jack, then I would've said it was nationalism, and the person is blinded by nationalism.<p>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.
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.
It’s Banksy. He uses color to highlight things or where the color is important. Here, I assume the flag is intentionally indistinguishable.
It's a monochrome artwork so there is no colour assigned to the flag, rather than it being specifically black.
I think it's about being slightly more subtle than a frontal attack on a specific flag.<p>But from an American perspective a guy wearing a suit while carrying an "anarchist" flag wouldn't be inappropriate, either.
But what is the anarchist flag?
Why not?<p>We anarchists with careers do in fact exist. There are probably <i>dozens</i> of us outside of tech, even!
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.
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.<p>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.<p>Does that help?
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.
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.
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.<p>“Rage against the machine” by doing what the machine wants type thing.
Wind bad.
He definitely got a permit for that which makes the whole thing even more laughable
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
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?
He posts on his Instagram to verify authenticity: <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DXwf7pis6KT" rel="nofollow">https://www.instagram.com/p/DXwf7pis6KT</a>
If you want to know authenticity, you submit to <a href="https://pestcontroloffice.com/auth1.asp" rel="nofollow">https://pestcontroloffice.com/auth1.asp</a> -- they verify / deny, and that is the final word.
His agent would tell the media that your vandalism is not genuine
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.
This statue might be the best thing he's ever done. I love it.
very current, elegant yet simple to appreciate - everybody can find some reference there
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.)
And how is blindly following a flag differ between a national flag and an ideology flag?
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.
> I assume it is a commentary on Brexit.<p>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]<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Raise_the_Colours" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Raise_the_Colours</a>
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.<p>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.
This feels ai generated, was it?
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.
It probably does means that, but by having a black/blank flag, he has left it open to many other interpretations he never intended.
Trite and uninspiring. Banksy trying to stay relevant and failing.
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.
Got you to comment, job done. Engagement: tick.
Really makes you think. I guess Palestine and Ukraine should just give up.
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.<p>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.
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.
<p><pre><code> > There's no luck involved in the fact that you were born to your parents, as they were to theirs.
</code></pre>
Are you claiming to have controlled where and to whom you were born?<p>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 <i>earn</i> them.<p><pre><code> > There's no luck involved in the fact that you were born to your parents
> we were so fortunate to inherit from them.
</code></pre>
These two statements appear to be contradictory.<p><pre><code> > It is right to be proud of the achievements of your ancestors
</code></pre>
And what was your contribution to those achievements to justify this pride?<p>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.<p><pre><code> > 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.
</code></pre>
Are you implying that the place belongs more fully to descendants of earlier inhabitants than to newer members of the community?<p>So then Native Americans have a stronger claim than European descendants? Or is that a standard to only be applied moving forward?<p>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.<p>That's ugly and abhorrent.<p><pre><code> > It is right to be proud of the achievements of your ancestors
</code></pre>
Are you then also ashamed of their crimes?
>Are you claiming to have controlled where and to whom you were born?<p>My parents did. Their parents did. My children will.<p>>you did not earn them<p>My parents did. Their parents did. My children will.<p>Everything I have today has been hard-earned by my ancestors. Everything my children have will be hard-earned by my ancestors and I. <i>We</i> earned them.<p>>These two statements appear to be contradictory<p>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.<p>>And what was your contribution to those achievements to justify this pride?<p>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.<p>>You have to be careful to not fall into the trap of borrowed glory<p>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.<p>>Are you implying that the place belongs more fully to descendants of earlier inhabitants than to newer members of the community?<p>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."<p>>Are you then also ashamed of their crimes?<p>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?