The Irony of Banksy and Cobain

How anti-establishment art benefits the establishment

Introduction

Banksy and Kurt Cobain. Two artists who made their names challenging the establishment. Yet, these artists show how this challenge ends up benefiting the same institutions. In both cases, the destructive nature of their work led to increases in value and popularity. Initially, they sought to critique and challenge the status quo. Eventually they grew to the point that their art became accepted, becoming part of it. This relationship between destruction and value demonstrates how rebellion can become the norm.

Banksy

Banksy, the infamous no face, supposedly British, global phenomenon of a graffiti artist. Thought to be born in Bristol in 1974, Banksy became known for antiauthoritarian art. Coming into the public consciousness in 1993, Banksy began to use stencils to speed up his art from 2000. This led to the development of iconic iconography such as policemen and balloons. He also has had many exhibitions. “Turf War” in 2003, painting the bodies of live pigs. “Crude Oils” in 2005, featuring altered replicas of famous art. Banksy also released 200 rats into the gallery. Also in 2005, Banksy installed their work into the walls of major museums while disguised.

Critical of popular culture, Banksy once sold paintings through an old man's stall. A social experiment to see if people appreciate the art without the name. To no one’s surprise, it was not. The name is so important that people vandalise walls to take Banksy’s artwork. This has led to law enforcement responses. This very act shows how the popular consciousness warps criticism.

This failure to rebel came to a head in 2018, when Banksy’s “Girl with Balloon” auctioned at Sotheby’s for $1.95 million. As the painting sold, Banksy activated a shredder installed in the frame. Partially shredded, this rebellion caused the value of the artwork to increase. For a time being studied and talked about. Now it is one of Banksy’s most valuable works. Renamed to “Love is in the Bin”, it sold for $25.4 million. This shows how rebellion is often reinterpreted as artistic expression.

Cobain

Kurt Cobain, an icon, the symbol of grunge and the lead singer of Nirvana. Kurt Donald Cobain was born in 1967 in Washington. After his parents divorced when he was nine, Cobain became troubled. This emotional pain catalysing his later music. As a teenager, he would house hop and sleep under bridges. Cobain used drugs and committed petty vandalism as rebellion. Cobain formed Nirvana with a local bassist, Krist Novoselic, and they signed to Sub Pop. It wasn’t until the release of Nevermind that Nirvana catapulted into the mainstream. Even with success, Cobain medicated his issues with drugs. In March 1994 he was hospitalised after a failed suicide by overdose. One month later, he snuck out of an LA drug treatment centre. He then returned to his Seattle home where he shot himself and died.

Cobain’s music reflected his troubled life. Grunge as a genre contains angst-filled introspective music and Nirvana was no different. Cobain often regaled alienation and depression to the masses, challenging the status quo. This spoke to people and Nirvana’s wide ranging appeal grew the band’s, and by extension Cobain’s, popularity. It grew to such a point that the establishment accepted him. His art also stands as a consistent symbol of youth.

Once again there is an occasion which showcases the futility of rebellion. The band’s performance of “Rape Me” in the 1992 MTV Video Music Awards almost didn’t happen. Asked to perform “Lithium”, once they played the opening, the broadcast was almost cut. This was meant as a protest against MTV. While this did cause a stir, it boosted the popularity of both Nirvana and MTV. More people tuned in to watch the VMAs. Nirvana gained more attention. Cobain became more famous.

How the Establishment Uses Critique

Despite criticising the establishment, Banksy and Cobain’s works are embraced as genius. This is because often, institutions use subversion to their own advantage. Anti-establishment art stimulates thinking and promotes discussions by challenging the status quo. These discussions lead to integration with popular culture and reaching even wider audiences. The combination of a vast reach and discussions will then lead to a lot of expression. This does two things. One, it serves as a valuable way for the establishment to gain insights into the view of the populace. Two, by accepting this art and listening to people, institutions gain public support.

Conclusion

Although institutions often try to capitalise on popular subversion, this can backfire. The general populace can reject this acceptance. There is already a large discontent at how the works of Banksy are treated. Much of this stemming from the artist themselves. Even with this, destruction and rebellion are artistic if one grows large enough. A strong statement that only increases the value of the art. Ironically, art which questions the purpose of the establishment ends up benefitting it.