Celebrity Charity: The mature Art Attack presenter denied that he’s the graffiti artist after a theory went viral – right here, artist Paul Gough compares the similarities between the pair’s work
“This is an art attack. This is an art attack. This is…” Banksy? This week, an extraordinarily convincing theory went viral: that mature Art Attack presenter Neil Buchanan is, in actuality, the elusive graffiti artist is believed as Banksy.
The 58-one year-mature was compelled to announce the recommendation after he was “inundated with enquiries” about it. “Neil Buchanan is NOT Banksy,” an announcement on the artist’s web site reads. “We can verify that there is just not any truth within the rumour the least bit.” Sounds enjoy something Banksy would relate IMO.
As another of painting coronavirus-themed artworks on the tube (à la Banksy), Buchanan reportedly spent lockdown with vulnerable individuals of his family, and is now preparing to open his unusual art sequence, which is decided to attain next one year.
Bright…Neil Buchanan WAS known for his mammoth out of doors pieces utilising multimedia props and gadgets to craft uncanny replicas
(after which frequently getting chased down by a perturbed member of authority who he supposedly “borrowed” the materials from) pic.twitter.com/YiW9BnAL2F
— The Bonsai Treehouse (@BonsaiTreehouse) September 5, 2020
For these who don’t know, Liverpool-born Buchanan rose to status because the charming presenter of children’s TV portray Art Attack, which he hosted from 1990 until 2007. To boot as his purple Art Attack sweatshirt and catchphrase, “Here’s one I made earlier”, Buchanan was known for his mountainous-scale works (see: the Queen’s head made out of cash) and ingenious, easy-to-note creations.
Buchanan was also in a heavy metal band known as Marseille, who released four albums, led the unusual wave of British heavy metal scene, and obtained the first ever Combat of the Bands in 1977. The band reunited in 2008 and released an album, titled Unfinished Industry, in 2010.
Admittedly, this sounds enjoy deal of work to juggle alongside being an anonymous, world-illustrious avenue artist. However, how plausible is it that Neil Buchanan also can very well be Banksy?
“Outwardly, there’s not an mountainous quantity that’s an identical between Banksy’s work and Neil Buchanan’s,” Paul Gough, vice chancellor at Arts University Bournemouth, artist, and creator of Banksy: The Bristol Legacy, tells Dazed. “On the opposite hand, they each use the difficult image – brief film, explanatory text, compelling storytelling – to half their ideas and materials.”
“Outwardly, there’s not an mountainous quantity that’s an identical between Banksy’s work and Neil Buchanan’s. On the opposite hand, they each use the difficult image – brief film, explanatory text, compelling storytelling – to half their ideas and materials” – Paul Gough
“Every steal figuration and representation to particular their options, and in divulge that they each can be predisposed to rely on the human create to bring the parable,” provides Gough, forward of asserting that this is the assign the similarity ends. “Whereas Buchanan prefers slightly coy, poetic, and, now and then, maudlin pictures, Bansky is well-known – certainly revered – for his shrewd, ironic, and acerbic imagery.”
Gough observes that whereas Buchanan’s work attracts on “heart-warming and slightly sentimental issues that garner favour with a swathe of the public”, there is “tiny sentimentality” in Bansky’s stencils, by which “the arouse is mostly palpable”.
Unlike Buchanan, who describes himself as an artist and photographer, and hosted even handed one of essentially the most illustrious children’s TV reveals within the UK, Gough asserts that Banksy “would by no means name himself an ‘artist’; by no means seem knowingly on television; steal not to label for entry to seem an exhibition or installation of his work (with the exception of for charity); and likes to kick laborious against the establishment, the academies, and the institutions which symbolize authority and epitomise crass hypocrisy”.
relying closely on the “Neil Buchanan from Art Attack is Banksy” conspiracy theory to salvage me thru the rest of the one year
— Eleanor Margolis (@EleanorMargolis) September 7, 2020
On the opposite hand, Gough does admit that Buchanan’s pictures “portray a ideally suited sensitivity of motif”. He provides: “They’re deeply tonal, assuredly extra experimental in their composition and make, and restricted to sad and white, which provides them a moody depth.” And who else assuredly works in sad and white, and is a tiny bit moody? Banksy.
There’s also the Disney connection. Buchanan “believes Walt Disney was the ideally suited options man that ever lived”; Banksy hates Disney. Sounds at odds, particular, with the exception of it isn’t. Buchanan was beforehand requested to make an appeal for Disneyland Paris, and what did he attain (as Banksy, who he’s): he created Dismaland.
So, what’s the conclusion? “I don’t judge it matters,” says Gough, “now we must disregard the ‘whodunnit’ fixation, look on the work, procure into consideration its message, and shock on the ingenuity and comic timing of a further and extra refined artist-disruptor.”
“We must disregard the ‘whodunnit’ fixation, look on the work, procure into consideration its message, and shock on the ingenuity and comic timing of a further and extra refined artist-disruptor” – Paul Gough
“For over a decade, folks were speculating about Bansky’s identification, alternatively it has develop accurate into a distraction from in truth wanting on the work, or on the causes he’s making an are trying to address,” Gough continues. “Our Western world has change into unhealthily obsessed by salacious giant title stories, by ‘kiss and repeat’ confessions, and conspiracy theories. Which skill that, Bansky has largely been considered thru the lens of ‘whodunnit’.”
“Though he has thousands and thousands of addicted followers, there are folks that in truth feel that Bansky has forsaken avenue cred for credit score within the bank. But no one in truth talks in regards to the art itself; the practice, the innovative visuals, the extensive and keen graphic language, nor the unprecedented curatorial and filmic expertise that invent Bansky even handed one of essentially the most various fashioned practitioners of our time.”
“Per chance that’s the assign the random connection of Banksy and Buchanan has been made,” concludes Gough. “They each level to well to digital camera, indicate their ideas and motives, and make object-essentially based mostly work which is ‘published’ on film.”
There which you would possibly possibly also enjoy it of us, Neil Buchanan is, obviously, Bansky.