Banksy Art: Tag, You're It

We’ve had Warhol, now we get Banksy. What’s your preference?

Are these even legitimate Banksy prints? I have a hard time believing he would throw in with this site.

I could be wrong. But, something seems really fishy to me.

In the italics for each one:

This sale is in no way authorized by the mysterious figure known as Banksy, and these are not official or authorized reproductions. Which makes them, like, “unsanctioned” and “underground” and “cool”, right? Right?

It’s kinda hard to get legit prints from his artwork, as most of his work is usually on the side of a building or on a bridge.

From what I can find, it appears that he does not ‘sell’ the reproductions itself, and iCanvasArt clearly states that these prints are reproductions.

I picked up one directly from iCanvasArt, and I am pretty satisfied with the quality; looks and feels like it will hold up for years.

Considering he’s basically a criminal, contacting him to authorize these prints would be very difficult. And very few people even know who he is at all for that matter.

I do find it amusing that his graffiti is now being sold as collectible art prints.

I purchased 3 of these prints last time around.

Pulp Fiction Bananas
Stained Glass window
Yellow Lines fellow painter.

With all of these, I was really disappointed in the richness of the colors. I felt the printing was of low quality. They don’t look anywhere near as full of color as the graphics on the webpage do.

For instance, in my print at home, I can barely make out the brick pattern in the Pulp Fiction Banana.

“Keep the Coins, I Want Change” is NOT Banksy. It’s by a Melbourne street artist named Meek (inspired by Banksy though). Obviously icanvasart is capitalizing on the Banksy fame without doing homework. Don’t support them as Banksy and other artists will not see any of your money.

I was lucky to get a set of the Warhol 10 Marilyns about 6 months ago (from another pop up site) - so I now have 20 colorful Marilyns hanging next to each other.

Saw a bunch of Bansky prints on another pop up site but missed out on that sale… then they were on Woot but more costly… waited a bit and got a free shipping coupon from the other site and the price was great so picked up their Drunk Angel #2.

It is also from iCanvasArt and looks great… seems to be stretched a bit different than what is described here but maybe not… you can re-stretch this print… and though most is in b&w the RED X is very bright and the other lines are very bold. It hangs opposite the 20 Marilyns *** to be honest cant compare my love for Warhol to Bansky!

Also, on the previous Woot Bansky sale another poster posted that Bansky has all/most of his stuff on his site for anyone to print out for themselves - so go ahead and print away all.

Bansky is what art is NOT. It sucks

Do they at least donate some of the money to Banksy-promoted causes?

Just because Banksy breaks the law doesn’t mean you can just lift his art and sell prints of it. Heck, in some places, his art has been legal, so the argument that he (and the respective property owners) have no copyrights is utter BS, and the disclaimer here on Woot nearly admits as much. Copyright, in the US, has provisions for anonymous authors and aliases, iCanvas is just choosing to ignore it.

Calling these “prints” and seeking to accurately reproduce the original art means that we can pretty much ignore any claims that iCanvas is clean because the original art was an open public display. You can take and sell pictures of public art displays, for example, so long as you are not trying to reproduce the original. A side note: Although there’s a disclaimer here on Woot that lets you know that Banksy and friends get no gain from sales and have no connection with these prints, the iCanvas website says nothing of the sort. On a plain reading of their Banksy page, which carefully avoids the word, “unauthorized,” an average reader would assume that these are prints by Banksy.

Banksy’s art has different values, leaves different impressions, and holds different meanings when taken in situ. Therefore, such prints arguably devalue the original art and distort its messages. For example, the girl with the balloons, in real life, is on the Bank of London. Seeing that, rather than the print, conveys something bittersweet rather than just “Oh cool a girl with balloons. Balloons are awesome! I’m putting this over my Ikea futon bed!”

The originals of half of the other images are near or on key landmarks. Context, for Banksy, is almost as important as the art itself. That’s why he’s an anonymous graffiti artist: so he can put his art on specific, powerful canvases even when it’s illegal to do so. The canvas matters. I wonder how many people have iCanvas prints hanging over their sofas and beds while having no clue that the original was, say, on a Palestinian wall.

If not a legal issue, then the selling of these prints is certainly is a moral one. I’m not saying that iCanvas needs to knock it off, because I’m sure my words would have no effect on them, but I’m arguing against Woot (and Amazon) associating with iCanvas and thus profiting off of the same problem. Woot, with the presences of a disclaimer that was missing from iCanvas, evidently had a similar concern but chose to sell the prints anyway.

You guys are better than that. You Woot guys have a higher standard than ordinary companies.

Woot buyers, likewise, are intelligent people. We’re nerds, by and large–nerds who have expressed outraged when guys like Todd Goldman plagiarized art. The T-shirt community right here at Woot has had a few incidents of complete rage against T-shirt artists plagiarizing. And those were tracings, not the full-on, brazen selling of unauthorized prints with the artist’s own name attached at the top. The message is nearly as bad as the act itself: “We know selling this is kinda wrong, but we’re hoping you suckers won’t notice or care.”

This is not cool, Woot. This is the polar opposite of a Woot deal. It is a fooM.

This is immoral profiteering on images without context. I can’t believe woot sells it and people buying it only because they think it is a bargain.

I don’t really care about the whole moral outrage thing about selling prints of pictures of graffiti. Picked up a large Thinker Monkey last go around and was impressed by the construction quality, seems like it will hold up well. Looks awesome too! That being said, I can see what a previous poster meant about the color contrast being a bit off. It doesn’t matter much in the one I got, but it may be more offputting with the more colorful prints.

Banksy has a dealer that sells his work. His work is highly sought after by collectors. Occasionally he will do reproductions, but often times a piece of wall will be removed (with permission of the building owner) and sold at auction for a rather hefty price.

art is in the eye of the beholder, dink

art is in the eye of the beholder, dink

That’s what I’m thinking? And the “Life is Beautiful” is a Mr.Brainwash print instead of Banksy, isnt it?

I agree. The “Life is Beautiful” is not a Banksy either. Isn’t it a Mr. Brainwash print? Which we should all know is garbage

DO NOT BUY. This is not supported by Banksy. In fact, on his own website ( he talks about the unauthorized use and sale of his work. You can download it for personal use, but not for resale. This company is breaking the law and woot should not be supporting this company.

In addition, as others have mentioned, these are not all works of Banksy! Rather, Mr. Brainwash, Dolk, and others - so even the advertising of the artist is not correct!

If you want a real Banksy print, signed or unsigned, they run $1000-$15,000 with cerificiation from Pictures on Walls (POW). They are amazing pieces of street art which often have a political message - stencil art is a very challenging and creative form of expression. As with all art…in the eye of the beholder - love Banksy, Dolk, Blek le Rat, Miss Bugs, Jeremy Geddes, Josh Keyes and others…but don’t waste your money on this crap.

5 pounds in the art shops in England…