Banksy VS GUESS: An Attack on Artistic Integrity?
Photo Source: Unsplash
With the doors closed and security tightened, you would think the GUESS store on Regent’s Street were anticipating a grand heist. Yet, all it took for the brand to seize up in this manner was an Instagram post from the elusive street artist Banksy. In the post, Banksy spoke out against GUESS’s use of their artwork in a new collaboration with Brandalised, stating: ‘Please go to GUESS on Regent Street. They’ve helped themselves to my artwork without asking, how can it be wrong for you to do the same to their clothes?’ With this statement, the discussion of artistic integrity opens up - questioning the ethics of compromising an artist’s intent and authority for profit.
In the brand’s press release, GUESS described their new collection as ‘created in partnership with Brandalised, an urban graffiti license whose mission is to offer Banksy fans affordable graffiti collectibles.’ The partnership gave them permission to use Banksy’s work without the artist’s consent, as Brandalised is a source of urban graffiti licence. Collaborating with this third party allowed GUESS to obtain creative licence over Banksy’s work; thus, prioritising Brandalised and the commodification of Banksy’s work over the artist themself. This makes their description of the collection as a ‘way for fashion to show its gratitude’ almost comical, especially as we now know what Banksy’s reaction would eventually be. When an artist has not been consulted, it does not feel like a celebration of their work, but rather a way to make profit.
Observing the collection itself, one cannot help but question if the brand truly appreciates Banksy’s art and the messages they attempt to portray. One clothing piece that stood out was the print of Banksy’s piece ‘Follow Your Dreams’ on a T-shirt. In the original piece the optimistic phrase is stamped over with the pessimistic ‘CANCELLED’, acting as a commentary on the disillusionment of the American Dream that has been ingrained in the lower working-class. Thus, for GUESS to profit off a piece such as this is paradoxical, due to the anti-capitalist nature and meaning of the original piece.
The commodification of an artist’s activism is seen throughout various ranges of commerce nowadays, one example being the works of Keith Haring. The New York artist played a huge role in the graffiti art subculture of the 1980s, and advocated for queer issues such as the AIDs epidemic throughout his work. However in recent years, his important legacy, especially in the LGBTQ+ community, has been commercialised and commodified, with his work used in ‘collaboration’ with fast-fashion brands such as Abercrombie & Fitch. With Haring passing in 1990, it is necessary to question whether he would appreciate his work being profited off without his permission - in the same way Banksy does not appreciate it today.
Although it is easy to agree with Banksy’s intent, the severity of the statement is arguably drastic and extreme. Despite its playfulness, the threatening tone implied from the post gives GUESS every right to feel on edge. Yet in the same breath, Banksy is still justified for wanting artistic authority. And with no detrimental repercussions recorded as a result of the Instagram post, maybe it is better to interpret Banksy’s post as a social statement, rather than step-by-step instructions for committing theft. From this debacle, we can see that the debate on artistic integrity has been lost in the sea of modern-day legalities and complications. With GUESS technically having permission to use Banksy’s work through Brandalised, the desire for transparency has been lost through the cracks of modern-day copyright loopholes.