Why Banksy’s ‘guerrilla art’ is dangerous

Banksy is very lucky that he lives and works in the UK. And it is not surprising that his latest work — a 25-foot resin statue of a suited-booted man marching off a plinth with his face obscured by a fluttering flag — appeared in the heart of London, a city now famous for its lax general vigilance. Would it be possible to pull off something like this in New Delhi or Washington, DC? Well, maybe even the latter but certainly not, say, on Vijay Chowk in New Delhi.

Both the subject and the manner of its placement are symbolic of the state of the UK today. While King Charles III is away making witty statements in Trumpland, his loyal government has been tying itself up in knots over even mundane governance issues, and Prime Minister Keir Starmer is trying to cling on to 10 Downing Street while the Labour Party flounders. What better time for Banksy to draw attention away—to the dangers of “blind patriotism”?

More from Opinion

This is not the first time that the mysterious artist has erected artworks around London. In 2004, The Drinker, pegged on Rodin’s The Thinker, appeared on Shaftesbury Avenue but was soon stolen. Last year, he painted a mural in Bayswater of two children lying on the ground, while in September he painted a protester lying prone, holding a blood-stained signboard as a judge brandished a gavel near the Royal Courts of Justice. It was soon removed.

But is it a coincidence that unabashed patriotism is the central plank of the Labour Party’s biggest bugbear, the irrepressible Nigel Farage of Reform, and Banksy’s latest seems to be a commentary on the validity of that sentiment? With his signed statue on a pedestal at Waterloo Place at St James’ providing the trigger for thousands of posts, it provides the Labour Party’s proxy army of commentators the ammunition to target Reform in media and social media.

His choice of subjects shows that Banksy is anti-establishment and all the other “anti-es” that go with it, including war, capitalism, borders, etc. So his views and his artworks are broadly “progressive”, not sympathetic to the Conservatives or Reform, and thus more akin to the Labour Party. The Left used to be suspicious of him, and the left-leaning Guardian newspaper had even called his art “crass populism and media stunts” in 2013. But times have changed.

In fact, now London’s Labour Party Mayor Sadiq Khan’s representative, in an email to The New York Times, wrote: “Banksy has a great ability to inspire people from a range of backgrounds to enjoy modern art. His work always draws great interest and debate, and the mayor is hopeful that his latest piece can be preserved for Londoners and visitors to enjoy.” That indicates that the city authorities are not displeased at all with the interest generated by the resin statue.

And as if on cue, the Westminster City Council said in a statement that they have no plans to remove the statue. “We welcome Banksy's latest sculpture in Westminster, which makes a striking addition to the city's vibrant public art scene. While we have ‌taken initial steps to protect the statue, at this time it will remain accessible for the public to view and enjoy.” So much for rules and regulations for the display of public art, not to mention the use of public spaces.

Clearly Banksy’s artsy political comments find favour in the right (left) circles. Which could explain how and why he was able to sneak the statue into a high security area in the wee hours of the morning and erect it without CCTV cameras or sensors sounding alerts or a patrol car coming to investigate. Authorities must have been in the know about the “guerilla action”, as the installers were wearing high-viz jackets and had put up traffic cones to cordon off the area.

If the ruling party or city government functionaries knew about Banksy’s plan and let it go through—as the unimpeded installation seems to imply—it signals another cynical attempt to divert attention from their own troubles. And if the powers-that-be did not know, it points to a serious potential security breach. Luckily, the transgression was only done by a famously anonymous artist, not a terrorist. But London or other locations may not be lucky next time.

How terrorists could interpret this weakness anywhere is moot. If a large statue can be erected without prior permission and stay put in a spot with symbolic significance and still not attract action by the police or civic authorities at any point, arguably terrorists can also leave large weaponised objects in prominent places without being challenged. All it requires is chutzpah—which Banksy clearly has—but that can also give more dangerous people ideas.

It seems churlish to draw attention to matters like terror threats when the issue appears to be brilliant artistic commentary by a famous incognito artist, but in today’s world, caution is warranted. When people are repeatedly told to be vigilant about backpacks left in public places, the prospect of far bigger objects getting away with being unexamined is scary. Hopefully Banksy’s “guerrilla installation” narrative is only a mutually agreed publicity gimmick.

Banksy’s arts, in London and cities around the world, are tourist magnets. His favoured media of murals and graffiti, however, are less concern-worthy from a security point of view than 3D objects like statues. While his latest statue is predictably firing up the web with discussions on the dangers of “blind patriotism”, the UK's intelligence and security agencies are hopefully aware of the dangers of large objects being sneaked into busy public spaces.

(The author is a freelance writer. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.)