Over the past fortnight or so there has been a rumble of friction in art circles where old timer institution is flirting with the idea of rubbling up against rebel street-art.
Institutionalised self-importance versus radical guerilla claims.
The art spokesman for Britain's Guardian, Jonathan Jones, sparked some debate by poking the idea that Banksy might be a consideration in some people's minds for the prestigious
Turner Prize.
Jones (ahem, not me) ends up by reckoning "that to celebrate street art is to promote ignorance and aggression".
In his puffed up, armchair way he tries to say that somehow street art and graffiti is the antithesis of what educated people should embrace, and that "For middle class people to find artistic excitement in something that scares old people on estates is a bit sick."
Perhaps he is just deliberately waving a red rag to max his hits on his safe lil blog - but there is definitely some vigorous debate in the comments section.
Banksy is certainly one street artist who lives beyond the grit of the pavements and darkness. His work is sold at big deal auction houses. His limited edition prints have been traded and cherished in safe cozy homes. His big glossy hardcover book is a best seller that sits quietly on lots of coffee tables. But he's still keeping his rep alive by getting out on the street and giving the community art for free. Art that can't be owned. Art that tries to provoke a smile and a political poke.
I'm one Jones that is on the other side of the tracks from this boring British Jones and his tired view of art and self importance. But I do agree that Banksy and the Turner Prize can live without each other.
In the end grafitti and street-art in my mind is awesome because it succeeds without the help of institutional patronage nor pats on the head from authority. It manages to be amazing, tough art without all the white walls and prizes.