Collapsing the box

Allow me to preface this column by saying that this will not be the first time a story concerning vandalism has

stained the pages of our school's newspaper. Readers will remember the over-abundance of articles, letters to the editor and all-around drama that accompanied the Giles bench incident this past year, as well as the appearance of swastikas and other offensive symbolism around East Campus. The incident in question here, however, is one that hits much farther away from home. It is a story composed of far cleverer artwork, greater debate and a wholly more deserving subject.

That subject is this month's newly unveiled takeover of Bristol's City Museum and Art Gallery by the anonymous British graffiti artist known simply as Banksy. Banksy, who first surfaced circa 1992 with a series of combination stencil and freehand spray paint renderings in public places, worked in league with only four members of the museum's staff to prepare the exhibit. The stunt, which consisted of removing almost all of the museum's normal displays in favor of the street artist's satirical and often subversive installation art, has served to spur the debate surrounding Banksy's work.

Some say that celebrating and endorsing an artist like Banksy, who gets his kicks from defacing public property, sends the wrong message. Others say that the displacement of classic works of art to make room for common vandalism is tantamount to disgrace. But as Nasher director Kim Rorschach pointed out in a response to an e-mail I sent asking for her opinion, the works of the artists listed above were not always considered fit for viewing either. After all, today's eyesore can become tomorrow's classic every once in a while.

But not all critics taking issue with Banksy's invasion of the museum are doing so from the right. Some are criticizing the artist for "selling out," insinuating that by displaying his message in a space actually reserved for it, he is simultaneously undermining that same message. It's similar to supporters of the Giles bench vandal (if any exist) slandering him for unveiling a masterpiece among the residence hall murals crowding the East Campus bridge. Even Banksy himself points out the irony of his action, joking in a statement that, "This is the first show I've ever done where taxpayers' money is being used to hang my pictures up rather than to scrape them off."

Part of the value in Banksy's work lies in the fact that the members of the extreme sides surrounding this debate are now, as they so often have been in the past, sufficiently pissed off. Of course, gaining fame by angering the establishment is nothing new, and neither is holding on to that same fame by turning around and alienating one's own cult following (see Bob Dylan). So if everyone's irritated and it's all been done, then why is it that hundreds will wait in line for more than an hour to see Banksy's exhibit? What is it that makes his work so captivating to a young audience, not only at the museum in Bristol but also here, an ocean away?

The answer, at least as it relates to Banksy's most recent pi