[hn_throwaway_99]

Strong disagree. First, like many of the other comments mention, Banksy is known for being clever and witty, but not particularly subtle.

But more to the point, while you may think the meaning is a bit obvious, the fact that the flag is unadorned (which/whose flag is it?), and the man is unknown, makes me think this statue could be the ultimate Rorschach test. I'm sure there are tons of people thinking "Ha ha, this is the perfect commentary on all those idiot <people on the other side who I disagree with> wrapping themselves up in their ideology of <patriotism/social justice/cause du jour> as they march <some particular country/society/the world at large off a cliff>".

In other words, I'm guessing you probably felt the meaning was "obvious" because you filled in the blanks in the above madlibs-style statement in a way that feels obvious to you, and I think folks on "the other side" would probably fill in the blanks with the exact opposite notions in a way that feels "obvious" to them.

[squigz]

The ambiguity - that this could apply to anyone, that people are so caught up in their belief of choice - is part of the obviousness, at least to me. I would expect more people to be aware of this, than to actually believe that it's talking about, say, Americans in particular.

[usefulcat]

I do agree that it’s obvious in the way that you describe. But I still think it’s a point worth making—that it could apply to anyone. Because I don’t think that thought is likely to occur to a lot of people, regardless of their particular belief of choice. And that is a problem.

[vkou]

> But I still think it’s a point worth making—that it could apply to anyone.

... anyone who engages in this behaviour, yes. Not anyone nor everyone does.

[anon373839]

One can’t say that proposition is obvious to the population at large. Else, “we” (as in Earth in 2026) would have very political dynamics. So maybe Banksy felt inclined to do a public service announcement.

[Pay08]

> I would expect more people to be aware of this

You'd be very surprised.

[buddhistdude]

if it was so obvious to most of us, we wouldn't be having this problem.

[gerdesj]

The flag is unadorned and I think you can extend your interpretation to include the proliferation of flags which have a minimal "history".

Banksy is from Bris'l which is sort of north Somerset (Somerset keeps on morphing faster than a sci-fi shapeshifter).

Cornwall has had a white cross on a black flag since 18something. Devon decided to adopt a black edged white cross on a green flag. I remember seeing Devon flag car stickers in the '80s - its a little older than that. Somerset now has ... a flag. Yellow and red I think.

No idea why because people can't decide what it is! The land itself knows exactly what and where it is but the political boundaries ebb and flow with the phases of the moon. Is Avon included ... what is Avon? Ooh, BANES - Somerset? Not today thank you. It goes on. Anyway, do Devon and Somerset and co really need a flag? No of course not.

What we really need is a Wessex flag, which will take over Mercia ... and a few other regional efforts ... and end up as a red cross on a white background. Then we could munge that with a couple of other flags and confuse the entire world with something called the Union Flag.

Then we can really get complicated ... hi Hawaii!

[jen20]

> which is sort of north Somerset (Somerset keeps on morphing faster than a sci-fi shapeshifter).

The seats in parliament that represent it and the local authority structure have changed, of course, the same as everywhere else in the country, but the boundaries of Somerset have remained constant for a long time.

Bristol is absolutely not "North Somerset" as a general case (though certain suburbs do extend into Somerset counties, but on that basis Bristol is as much "South Gloucestershire").

> Ooh, BANES - Somerset? Not today thank you. It goes on.

Bath has always been in Somerset and "BANES" literally stands for "Bath and North East Somerset".

[mootothemax]

> what is Avon?

Welsh for river.

[tomxor]

Hah TIL. So it's the river Welsh river on the English side of the Bristol channel.

I often feel like I would understand a lot more names if I bothered learning Welsh. It's pretty popular for made up climbing route names too, because Wales is so good for it I guess. Allegedly some of the classics in the Avon gorge are Welsh derived but I could never figure them out to be sure.

[ndsipa_pomu]

They're more likely Celtic words that live on in Welsh.

[mootothemax]

It’s lovely isn’t it? There’re a good few of these things around: notably Torpenhow Hill (which killjoys dispute); and ones like Pendle Hill (which they don’t).

[gerdesj]

There is also a nebulous region within England that might be called Avon, depending on the moon's phase and the price of loons.

There is a river Avon in England. Welsh at least (inst. celtae) has a noun for "river" which is "afon".

[mootothemax]

Recommend looking up the pronunciation of that there afon :)

[ndsipa_pomu]

The Welsh "afon" derives from the earlier Celtic "abona" meaning "river". Also related to the Celtic "afanc" which was some kind of aquatic monster.

[mootothemax]

Makes sense given Welsh’s evolution from Britannic. Much to my shame, I only started visiting Wales in later life, and there’s really something in the language that grabs me quite deeply. Once I’ve got my Polish down to pat, I tell myself.

[Intermernet]

You avon a chwerthin?

[Nicook]

Never considered that, but mentioning flags that have minimal "history" pushed me in a totally different direction about some modern political transnational movements lol.

[ndsipa_pomu]

Hard disagree that Bristol is North Somerset.

I'm often surprised that Bristol (a lefty city) is surrounded by very right-leaning areas, but I suppose that's the nature of a bubble. I don't think it makes a huge amount of sense to try to lump us in all together, at least politically.

As an aside, it still annoys me when websites put "Avon" as the county - it no longer exists and even the Post Office does this and they're the ones who should definitely know about it.

As far as flags go, I'm very much against the "flag-shaggers" who go around putting up England's St George Cross flag - most of the time, the flags are seen as threatening to minorities which is very much NOT the general Bristolian attitude. (I actually live in St George, Bristol, so somewhat ironic that I'm cross about that flag).

[throwaway894345]

I'm guessing most would assume this is about nationalists, and I don't think even the nationalists would imagine Banksy is on their side?

[pstuart]

I'm tempted to agree, specifically because of the depicted flag waver. That person embodies the leadership of the status quo, and nationalism is a core component of that.

Flags are literally a statement of identity, but I think that comes in two distinct flavors:

1. The national flag which is planted in a state of ownership and assimilation 2. A protest flag to state to others that they are not alone in their protest.

I could be missing something but I think it is effectively this simple.

[gkoberger]

I think you'd be surprised. People interpret art how they want.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musicians_who_oppose_Donald_Tr...

[vintermann]

There's nothing subtle about the things Banksy attacks either, in this case flag-shagging. Yes, he's about as subtle as a sledgehammer, but so what? We are definitively not living in an age of subtlety. Why should opposition be subtle when power isn't?

If anything, I'm more surprised Banksy didn't depict literal flag-shagging.

[arduanika]

> the fact that the flag is unadorned (which/whose flag is it?), and the man is unknown, makes me think this statue could be the ultimate Rorschach test

This is part of what's obvious. The whole thing, including this oooh aahh Rorschach part, is obvious. It's thoughts that we all had in high school, and it is hack.

[hn_throwaway_99]

Lol, right now this comment declaring "the oooh aahh Rorschach part is obvious" is literally just below another comment declaring that the sculpture could only reasonably be interpreted as being anti-nationalist. So thanks for proving my point.

[card_zero]

That just means you're both wrong. "Its location - Waterloo Place, St James's - is an area designed to celebrate imperialism and military dominance in the 1800s", says the BBC. Banksy is from Bristol, where they threw a statue of a slave-trading philanthropist in the river. The statue is wearing a suit. It's not very interpretable. We can wonder whether it's about the Conservative party or the Reform party, but nobody's suggesting it represents Hamas or the CCP.

※ I admit that Xi Jinping wears a suit, but I'm still classifying that theory under "plausible deniability".

[hn_throwaway_99]

Every single comment that proudly declares "my interpretation is obviously the correct one and you other guys are wrong" only further serves to prove what an actual great piece of art this is. That is, it's art that makes you think and can be validly interpreted in many different ways, and more serves as a projection of the own viewer.

Who necessarily cares what the original design of Waterloo Place is for, it's also just a place in the center of London with lots of foot traffic, visibility and a ton of statues. Or that the place Banksy is from threw a statue into the river (that connection in particular is quite the stretch - are you saying all the things that happened in your home town are inherently reflections of you?).

The more I see people declare that their interpretation is "right" (just see the argument thread over whether right wing or left wing people are more likely to wrap themselves up in a flag), the more I think this is a pretty brilliant piece of art.

[card_zero]

That's not brilliant, and it's not important to art. It's more like clickbait.

The statue is blank because deliberate ambiguity is the arty thing to do, because provocation is supposed to be a praiseworthy aspect of art.

But it's paper-thin ambiguity, and ambiguity isn't praiseworthy anyway. Inexplicit meaning is praiseworthy, but that's something else. This statue just has a veneer to suggest that it might possibly be saying something other than what the artist obviously thinks, if you know all about him, as we do.

[leourbina]

And yet here here we all are taking about it. Art is about inciting a response, and he’s done it. Whether we think he’s a hack or not is irrelevant - he has the world’s attention.

[Petersipoi]

Gp said, "it's a hack"

You said, "Whether we think he's a hack", which fundamentally changes what is being discussed.

The only reason we're talking about this is because of Banksy. Not because it is a clever or "deep" piece. It's disappointingly surface level, and the fact that we're talking about that doesn't suggest otherwise.

[hn_throwaway_99]

> The only reason we're talking about this is because of Banksy.

Baloney. It's a guerilla sculpture put up in the center of London. My guess is we might be talking about it more if it were unsigned as a case of whodunnit.

But for me personally, I roll my eyes at all the ex-art students who always complain "it's a hack" for any piece of art that appeals to a wide audience and isn't some obnoxious 8-layers deep meaning. You literally see it all the time, and half the time it just strikes me as thinly-veiled jealousy, if not from the art student perspective than from the "I'm so much more sophisticated than the unwashed masses" perspective.

It happened on HN a few months ago in a post about Simon Berger, an artist who makes portraits with cracked glass. The artist has achieved relatively wide appeal, and many of the comments here were along the lines of "Meh, he's a talentless hack, he just stumbled along a 'cool' technique but the subjects are boring."

I'd have a lot more respect for folks that could just say "it's not my bag" and move on, rather than pretend they're so much more sophisticated than people who enjoy this art.

[arduanika]

This is slander! I am not an ex-art student! :)

I would agree that "it's not my bag" is a fine thing to say about some art gallery piece that fails to inspire you, but when a statue is foisted upon the public square, with possible state cooperation, we're allowed to criticize it. He has inserted it into the conversation.

Moreover, the main complaint about this statue isn't coming from some expert artiste perspective, saying that it's somehow unsophisticated as art. The complaint here is that it's making a truly banal political statement. The entire piece consists of making that statement, with little else to recommend it. (Indeed, most political art is hack, unless it's saying something really original or really well, and it's even worse when it tries to be cute about it.)

So here, the complaints are coming from everyday onlookers who might not be qualified artistically, but who are able to say which sorts of statements are tiresome and overplayed in the culture we all live in. We are all qualified to ask ourselves whether this predictable statement advances or degrades the conversation.

Anyhow, FWIW, I just looked up Simon Berger's portraits based on your comment, and I really like them. Thanks.

[arduanika]

Thanks for drawing the distinction. For the record, I do not think Banksy is a hack (noun), and he has done good stuff in the past. I'm merely saying that this piece under discussion is hack (adjective).

[card_zero]

Where does the "art is about inciting a response" theory originate from?

I went and looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_art but couldn't find it there. The "anti-essentialist" section is good, though, I think. It has Berys Gaut listing ten properties of art, all of which are nice-to-have but none of which are essential. Then if a piece ticks lots of boxes it's a shoo-in, but if it doesn't tick many of them you can argue about it.

Some of those involve eliciting some sort of response, but you could also have a decorative piece with this combo:

(i) aesthetic, (iv) complex, (v) meaningful, (vi) idiosyncratic, (vii) imaginative, (viii) skillful, (ix) art-shaped, (x) intentional

Which would be 8 out of 10, to which we could add "completely ignorable" and it could still be art. I don't see why attention-grabbing and provocation is important, and it certainly isn't sufficient on its own, plus it's irritating.

[IAmBroom]

You are both entitled to your own definitions of "art".

[card_zero]

Relativist.

It's an idea, it describes something real. We can all make our own guesses and our own assertions about what that is, and then we can critique them and try to make them agree. There's no point just saying "we can all think whatever we like about anything" and leaving it there.

[zarzavat]

I'm pretty sure the piece is a commentary on the recent phenomenon of people of a right-wing political orientation hanging up the England flag everywhere, to the consternation of local governments who have to spend money taking them down.

From a British perspective there's no ambiguity, flag shagging is a right-wing activity.

[inglor_cz]

Every single left-wing march flies a lot of flags as well, only they are different flags.

Political movements in general don't seem to be particularly immune to flag shagging, only the colors vary a lot.

But I am pretty sure that Banksy means right-wing flag worship as well. He is a master of "provocative conformism" and wouldn't produce anything that would get him into a real risk of controversy. His art is very fine-tuned to the sensibilities of the English and American chattering class; same recipe for success as Paul Krugman or Malcolm Gladwell.

[carefulfungi]

Choosing a traditionally suited man as the standard bearer adds a formal banality to the blindness (to my eyes).

[zarzavat]

I suppose it's true that the left-wing equivalent is the Palestinian flag, or the centrist equivalent is the Ukrainian flag, however this usually comes in the form of a sticker or the odd flag flown from a house window here and there, rather than a row of flags hung from every lamp post on a street.

Quantity has quality all of its own. Although many different causes use flags for promotion, the obsession that certain elements of the English right have with the English flag is at a completely different level.

[inglor_cz]

Not in the UK, but I was surprised by the abundance of Palestinian flags in the Basque country, Spain, last year.

There were definitely places where you had 7-8 of them in your view while walking random streets.

[datsci_est_2015]

Not surprising to me as much, given their separatist sentiments under the yoke of the fascist Franco not too long ago at all.

[mrighele]

> the obsession that certain elements of the English right have with the English flag is at a completely different level.

You may want to check the obsession that people on the left have with the Palestinian flag. Any situation is good to show it off even when it has nothing to do with Palestine.

[rjinman]

Is it? Most people I know who have flags proudly displayed are left wing and their flags are usually one of: the Palestinian flag, the ukrainian flag, the LGBT rainbow flag, or the trans flag.

[danw1979]

He’s a British artist, the sculpture is in London and the phenomenon of raising of St George’s Cross on every lamppost on every roundabout is a recent initiative of the British right. Most people will be linking the statement of this sculpture to this activity.

(I’m more likely to see the white rose of the House of York in “opposition” to the flag shaggers than a rainbow or anything else, in my neck of the woods, but there’s only a few of these flying)

I do like the wider interpretation though, that any ideology can blind you.

[tim333]

I live in central London where the the statue is and I think can confidently say there are more other flags than St George cross ones.

Personally I kind of thought of Russia which is about the only lot marching off to war with Russian and Z flags all over.

The St George lot mostly just moan about immigrants.

[vkou]

Allright, I'll bite. Could you tell me if there's any meaningful distinction between someone hanging a Ukranian flag and a... Russian Federation flag? Circa 2026, do those flags stand for something, when hanging outside of either of those countries?

If they do, what do they stand for, and what would someone hanging one, versus the other, be communicating?

[rjinman]

It’s amazing how everyone thinks this sculpture’s message doesn’t apply to them. “My side’s flags are different, it’s the other side’s flags that are bad”. So many people here making this argument. It’s beyond parody, yet really so predictable. Amazing lack of self awareness. I thought this place was more rational than Reddit, but apparently not!

[Ukv]

> It’s amazing how everyone thinks this sculpture’s message doesn’t apply to them. “My side’s flags are different, it’s the other side’s flags that are bad”

The sculpture's message isn't "flags are bad" - it's using a flag as a metaphor for nationalism/blind patriotism (based on the rest of the statue, the location chosen, what it's a response to, and Banksy's other works).