If you love art, maybe you agree that the process that decides which artists become "listed" (and therefore collectible, valued and revered) is arcane and probably corrupt.
I find it interesting that the works of a graffiti artist who goes by the nom-de-brush of "Banksy" are called "fake art" in the news stories about his latest exploit.
I will leave it for you to judge whether this is fake or quite real and interesting.
What Banksy managed to do in the last several days is smuggle his work, with appropriate captioning, into the Met, MoMA, the Brooklyn Museum, and the Museum of Natural History, install the work in an appropriate spot, and leave it there.
I gotta say, if I had a chance to buy something by this gentleman, I would. But the museums, instead of being delighted with the gifts he left them, made sniffing comments such as:
"I think it's fair to say that it would take more than a piece of Scotch tape to get a work of art into the Met."
This is truly funny, considering the Met has actively acquired numerous works later found to be forgeries. In fact, there are few if any of the major museum-galleries that have escaped forged or fake acquisitions.
Banksy's no forger. But he's also working from outside the smallish international circle that makes and breaks artists' reputations and bankability.
That is why the spokesperson at the Brooklyn Museum was anxious to get Soldier with Spraycan "out of the gallery and tucked away somewhere where it couldn't be seen."
Yeah, a function of any art museum should be to hide art away where it can't be seen.
I'm a fan of populism in all its guises. Banksy's picked up a following in Europe and I hope he gets one here, too. At least enough so that the artworld stiffs might actually offer him an exhibition of his own.