I hate to ruin the punchline, but there is a fascinating op-ed in the NYT called “Bush’s Dangerous Liaisons” that compares the current US administration to French Revolutionaries:

To defend the nation from its enemies, Jacobins expanded the government’s police powers at the expense of civil liberties, endowing the state with the power to detain, interrogate and imprison suspects without due process. Policies like the mass warrantless searches undertaken in 1792 — “domicilary visits,” they were called — were justified, according to Georges Danton, the Jacobin leader, “when the homeland is in danger.”

[…]

Though it has been a topic of much attention in recent years, the origin of the term “terrorist” has gone largely unnoticed by politicians and pundits alike. The word was an invention of the French Revolution, and it referred not to those who hate freedom, nor to non-state actors, nor of course to “Islamofascism.”

A terroriste was, in its original meaning, a Jacobin leader who ruled France during la Terreur.

Good reading. I checked wikipedia (where else?) for the etymology and found this nugget:

A leader in the French revolution, Maximilien Robespierre, proclaimed in 1794, “Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country’s most urgent needs.”

The footnote suggests this fact comes from Mark Burgess, A Brief History of Terrorism, Center for Defense Information. Further reading led me to a poem called Robespierre by Georg Heym, translated by Antony Hasler:

He bleats, but in his throat. The bland eyes stare
into the tumbril’s straw. Sucking, he draws
the white phlegm through his teeth from chewing jaws.
Between two wooden struts a foot hangs bare.

At every jolt the wagon flings him up.
The fetters on his arms rattle like bells.
Mothers hoist their children up, and yells
of cheerful laughter cross the rabble’s top.

Someone tickles his leg. He does not see.
The wagon stops. He looks up. At the end
of the street he sees the last black penalty.

Upon the ash-grey brow the cold sweat stands.
And in the face the mouth twists fearfully.
They wait for screams. But no one hears a sound.

It would seem history shows people often confuse terrorism with the principles of security and safety.

I was a little disappointed with John Stewart’s piece on art authentication. While humorous, he attacked the notion of art and consumerism but skirted the more controversial subjects of graffitti and censorship.

It seems to me that Banksy would have been a better example than Van Gough or Pollock. He is apparently about to have an auction and many of his works are said to be worth hundreds of thousands, while at the same time others still brand his work as too controversial or just an eye-sore. His themes remind me of the sharp jabs of Tom Toles yet in a more public forum and without the consent of the people who own the canvas. On the flip side he does not charge for admission.

I would like to think it is a particular work or theme that is found objectionable, rather than the nature of the art form, but that is not the message from those involved:

A spokeswoman for Tower Hamlets Council said it had not thought of selling the potentially valuable artwork to help raise money for council services, but did not rule out such action being considered in the future.

[…]

Tower Hamlets councillor Abdal Ullah said: “We need to be clear here, graffiti is a crime.

“It spoils the environment, makes our neighbourhoods feel less safe, and costs thousands of pounds each year to clean – money that could instead be paying for valuable local services.”

It is not yet known how many of the artist’s works would be affected.

The future of a Banksy piece painted on a wall in Bristol recently went to public vote, with 97% of people saying it should be kept.

Perhaps, then, Banksy’s crime is not in the manner chosen to create art but in the message. My guess is that an authority has to be exceptionally confident and secure in its position to allow freedom of expression and creative works. The Tower Hamlets insecurity and subsequent reaction (on the premise of exerting control) could actually increase the value of Banksy works and raise support for graffitti.

The cost of preventing an immitator of Banksy is higher than most tagging artists since the originals come from stencil. Can you tell a real Banksy?

The Tower Hamlet could use this point to their advantage and host talent competitions to supplant Banksy’s stencils with local ones with more general appeal. On the other hand, his work is nothing if not controversial and sarcastic and so a mainstream competition might not have the appeal for rebellious “artists” — like most competitions in art, even Banksy could lose if the criteria includes making people comfortable. He certainly has critics:

Here’s a mystery for you. Renegade urban graffiti artist Banksy is clearly a guffhead of massive proportions, yet he’s often feted as a genius straddling the bleeding edge of now. Why? Because his work looks dazzlingly clever to idiots. And apparently that’ll do.

Clever to idiots? That about sums up the definition of something with broad appeal, no? How long did it take for Pollack and Van Gough to be seen as genius? Mainstream? How much longer would it have taken if they used graffitti as their medium rather than private canvas?

I love the “anti-climb paint” sign, almost as much as I like the rat characters themselves.

Here is an excellent commentary on the surveillance society in Britain, which has been unable to crack the identity of Banksy.