32 33oris, number 53, year 2008 Srećko Horvat, Banksy Against Dystopia

Banksy Against DystopiaArchitecture and power in London today

Srećko Horvat

¶ In the past two years we had the opportunity to watch two excellent British science fiction films depicting the near or perhaps distant future of the island we know as Great Britain. The first of the two movies, Children of Men (Alfonso Cuarón, 2006), tells of London in the year 2027. Due to global de stru­ction and ecological catastrophe no human child has been born for 18 years and human civilization as we know it is per­haps facing extinction. In the second movie, 28 Weeks Later (Juan C. Fresnadillo, 2007), the whole of the British population has been contaminated by a lethal virus introduced in the first part of the same movie. The military has secured a small part of London while ‘the living dead’, zombies, continue to ravage around. What connects these two post­apocalyptic films, apart from other characteristics, is architecture. In fact, thanks to efficient interventions by the directors of both movies Lon­don has been simply ‘polished’ in order to give us a glimpse of its near future, a future one can imagine. We are not talking of special effects or architectural interventions like those seen in Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982) or Brazil (Terry Gilliam, 1985). On the contrary, London has been subtly turned into a dystopic city by emphasizing its existing urban characteri­stics. For instance, in both movies, Children of Men and 28 Weeks Later, CCTV cameras are strongly accentuated although

oris, broj 53, godina 2008 Srećko Horvat, Banksy protiv distopije

Banksy protiv distopijeArhitektura i moć u današnjem Londonu

¶ U posljednje smo dvije godine mogli gledati dva odlična bri­tanska znanstvenofantastična filma koji portretiraju dalju ili bližu budućnost otoka zvanog Velika Britanija. U prvom, ‘Dje­ca čovje čanstva’ (Alfonso Cuarón, 2006.), je radnja smje štena u London 2027. godine. Zbog globalnog uništenja zemlje i eko lo ške katastrofe već 18 godina nije rođeno nijedno dijete i čita voj ljudskoj civilizaciji prijeti izumiranje. U drugom filmu, ‘28 tjedana poslije’ (Juan C. Fresnadillo, 2007.), smrtonosni virus iz prvog nastavka filma ‘28 dana poslije’ poharao je čitavu Engle sku i vojska je, pokušavajući vratiti normalno stanje, uspo sta vila sigurnosnu zonu u malom djeliću Londona oko kojeg i dalje haraju zombiji, odnosno ‘živi mrtvaci’. Ono što povezuje ta dva postapokaliptična filma, uz sve druge značajke, je upra vo arhitektura. Naime, i u jednom i drugom filmu uspje­šnim redateljskim intervencijama London je naprosto ‘dotje­ran’ tako da izgleda kao London u bližoj, a ne nekoj nezamislivoj budućnosti. Nema tu previše specijalnih efekata ili arhi­tektonskih intervencija nalik na onima u ‘Blade Runner’ (Ridley Scott, 1982.) ili ‘Brazilu’ (Terry Gilliam, 1985.). Umjesto toga London je suptilno pretvoren u distopijski grad i to tako da su naprosto naglašene one urbanističke kara kte ristike koje već postoje i danas. Primjerice, i u ‘Djeci čovje čanstva’ i u ‘28 tje­dana kasnije’ naglašene su CCTV kamere, sada vidljive na sva­

kom koraku. U tom smislu ta dva filma nisu znanstvena fan­tastika, već briljantna detekcija trenutnog sta nja u kojem se ukidaju javni prostori i građanske slobode. Bilo pod egidom ‘rata protiv terora’ ili naprosto zbog ‘sigurnosti’ (od poveća­nog kriminala, nasilja, imigranata, itd.). ¶ U ‘Djeci čovječanstva’ ima jedna divna scena koja nas izravno dovodi do naslova ovog teksta. Naš junak Theo odlazi u posjet svom bogatom prija­telju koji živi u zgradi nalik na prepoznatljivi Tate Modern. Ono čega se svi gledatelji filma sigurno sjećaju je veliki kip Davida koji stoji odmah na ulazu u njegovu ogromnu sobu, odnosno privatnu umjetničku galeriju ili Picassova ‘Guernica’ koja visi na zidu u blagovaonici. Naime, kako je čitav svijet u rasulu, a jedino se još London koliko­toliko drži, posebni je sloj ljudi, poput Theova prijatelja, zadužen za čuvanje najzna čaj nijih umjetničkih djela u povijesti. Ono čega se većina gledatelja vjerojatno ne sjeća je da se u predvorju zgrade, kada Theo izla zi iz auta, na otrgnutom komadu zida može vidjeti poznato Banksyjevo djelo ‘Kissing Bobbies’. Osim potvrde Banksyjevu radu, taj odabir redatelja postavlja i neka pitanja o tržištu um­je tnina, ali prije svega naznačuje da će u nekoj skorijoj buduć­nosti street art biti umjetnost ravnopravna svim dru gima. Ili barem neka djela te umjetnosti, poput onih Banksyjevih.

napisaowritten by

34 35oris, number 53, year 2008 Srećko Horvat, Banksy Against Dystopia

we can see them at every step even today. From this perspe­ctive, the two movies seem not to belong to the genre of scie­nce fiction, but to be a rather brilliant detection of the current state of affairs in which the abolishing of public places and civil rights has become frequent. ¶ In the Children of Men there is one beautiful scene which navigates us directly to the title of this article. Our hero, Theo, pays a visit to a wealthy friend who lives in a building very much like the well­known Tate Modern. What all the film’s audiences must remember is a big statue of David, standing right at the entrance to a large room, or better, at the entrance to a private art gallery, or Guernica by Picasso hanging on the dining­room wall. As a matter of fact, in the midst of global decadence, while the only place which is still hanging on is London, a special class of people, like Theo’s friend, has been put in charge of preserving the most significant art pieces in history. What most viewers pro­bably don’t remember is that at the very moment that Theo is getting out of the car they were able to see a piece of wall ripped out from somewhere and hung in the lobby of the same building showing the famous creation by Banksy, Kissing Bobbies. Apart from honouring Banksy’s work, the director’s selection of art pieces places in front of us some serious que­stions about the art market, and most of all it indicates that in some rather near future street art will be peer to all other arts. Or at least some street art pieces will be accepted as equ al to other art pieces, like those made by Banksy. ¶ The history of urban interventions, which, in spite of their mutual differences, can be reduced to a general notion of street art, goes back to the 1970s. Although the trend of painting graffiti, generally associated with the hip­hop subculture, existed be­fore that time, street art is special for two reasons: the main means of expression is no longer just graffiti and urban inter­ventions are nowadays very often connected with some sort of political statement. The best example of that fact are slo­gans from May ’68 Paris, which by their contents, if not by

their form as well, go side by side with what today we gene­rally consider being street art: Soyez réalistes, demandez l'impossible (Be realistic and ask for impossible!), On achète ton bonheur. Vole-le (They are buying your happiness – steal it!), Lisez moins, vivez plus (Read less, live longer!), L’ennui est contre-révolutionnaire (Boredom is counter revo lutionary.), Ni Dieu ni maître (Neither God, nor master!), Il est interdit d'interdire (It is forbidden to forbid!), etc. By casting criticism through the mass media against the national football team, even Jean Baudrillard said that the ‘genuine revolutio nary media in May ’68 were walls and graffiti, serigraphs and banners in hands, a street where the word was being exchan­ged – all that was spontaneously written, dispatched and sent back, moving, happening at the same place and at the same time, mutual and contrary.’ Moreover, according to Baudri­llard, the street is an ‘alternative and subversive form of all media because the street is not like them, objectified supp ort of messages without response, a remote transit web; the street is a clear space of symbolic exchange of the word, fuga­cious and mortal as it is, the word which does not reflect its meaning when displayed on the platonic screen of the media.’1 ¶ It is exactly within this context that today’s street art is to be understood. Both classic graffiti and street art share the same awareness of ‘having the right to send a message’. The street becomes their medium, but they are separated by the intention to make the message even more subversive prese­rving it, at the same time, from being lost due to mere ‘Art for Art’s Sake’. It is in this sense that we can consider Parisian graffiti to be the origin of street art. The name of Blek Le Rat should be mentioned here as the name of the greatest street artist in Paris, who was among first to use templates instead of ‘classic’ graffiti methods. Moreover, it was Blek Le Rat who was first to draw little rats on streets, a motif that was to make another artist famous later on, Banksy. Banksy himself made the following statement in the year 2005: ‘Every time I think I drew something at least a bit more original, I discover that Blek Le Rat had already done that. Only, he did it twenty years

1 Jean Baudrillard: For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign

Banksy's rats for which he became famous

That Banksy has made it is also confirmed by these photos. Someone has simply stolen a piece of wall with Banksy’s rat on it.

oris, broj 53, godina 2008 Srećko Horvat, Banksy protiv distopije

¶ Povi jest urbanih intervencija koje se, unatoč svojim razli­kama, mogu svesti pod zajednički naziv street art seže u 70­te godine prošlog stoljeća. Premda je i prije postojao trend gra­fita, koji se prvenstveno veže uz hip­hop kulturu, street art je specifičan po tome što glavno izražajno sredstvo više nisu samo grafiti, ali i po tome što sada urbane intervencije najčeš­će dolaze uz neku vrstu političke poruke. Najbolji su primjer slogani iz svibnja '68 u Parizu, koji bi se, barem po svom sadr­žaju ako već ne i po formi, mogli staviti uz bok onoga što danas razumijemo pod street artom: Soyez réalistes, demandez l'impossible (Budi realan, traži nemoguće), On achète ton bonheur. Vole-le (Oni kupuju tvoju sreću, ukradi je), Lisez moins, vivez plus (Čitaj manje, živi više), L'ennui est contre-révolutionnaire (Dosada je kontrarevolucionarna), Ni Dieu ni maître (Ni Bog ni gospodar), Il est interdit d'interdire (Zabra­njeno je zabraniti), itd. Čak će i Jean Baudrillard, kritizirajući reprezentaciju '68­te u masovnim medijima, ustvrditi da su

‘odistinski revolucionarni medij u svibnju '68 bili zidovi i gra­fiti, serigrafije i transparenti u ruci, ulica na kojoj se govor prima i razmjenjuje – sve što je neposredni upis, odaslan i uz vra ćen, pokretan, onaj koji se zbiva u isto vrijeme na istome mje stu, uzajaman i suprotstavljajući.’ Štoviše, po Baudrillardu je ulica kao takva ‘alternativni i subverzivni oblik svih maso v­nih medija, jer ona nije, poput njih, objektivizirana podrška porukama bez odgovora, tranzitna mreža na daljinu, ona je iskrčeni prostor simboličke razmjene riječi, prolazne i smrtne, riječi koja se ne odražava na platonskome ekranu medija.’1 ¶ Današnji street art treba shvatiti upravo u tom kontekstu: njega uz tradicionalni oblik grafita veže svijest o ‘pravu na po ru ku’ (ulica postaje medij), ali ga razdvaja intencija da ta ista poruka postane još subverzivnija i da se, kao što to često biva slučaj sa grafitima, ona ne izgubi u čistom larpurlartizmu. U tom smislu su pariški grafiti začetak street arta. Ovdje kao najvećeg pariškog uličnog umjetnika valja spomenuti Blek Le Rata, koji je među prvima umjesto ‘klasičnih’ grafiterskih me­toda počeo koristiti šablone. Štoviše, upravo je Blek Le Rat prvi crtao male štakore na ulici, po kojima je kasnije postao poznat Banksy. Uostalom, sam Banksy će 2005. izjaviti slje­deće: ‘Svaki put kad pomislim da sam nacrtao nešto iole origi­nalno, otkrijem da je Blek Le Rat to već učinio. Samo dvadeset godina prije’. Druga je bitna figura street arta svakako Jean­Michel Basquiat, njujorški umjetnik koji je također započeo s medijem grafita, da bi u 80­ima završio u neoekspresionizmu. Umjesto klasičnih grafita koji su prvenstveno težili estetskom savršenstvu on je sprejem na zgrade u Manhattanu dodavao – danas već kultne – natpise ‘SAMO’, što je skraćenica od same ol' shit. U jednom ‘ranom’ intervjuu s Glennom O'Brienom ovaj ga proziva ‘language-oriented’ grafiterom; to je vjerojatno najbolji opis koji naznačuje bitnu diferenciju spram prijašnjih grafita. Basquiat je, osim toga, vjerojatno prvi od ‘uličnih umje tnika’ koji je ušao u profitabilni svijet umjetnosti, pri čemu mu je pomogao (ili odmogao, kako god interpretirali) nitko drugi nego Andy Warhol. ¶ No za razliku od Basquiata, Banksy je još uvijek enigmatičan lik. Premda je nedavno na

1 Jean Baudrillard, ‘Kritika političke ekonomije znaka’, Simulacija i zbilja, Jesenski i Turk, Zagreb, 2001., str. 39­40

Banksyjevi štakori po kojima je postao poznat

Da je Banksy uspio potvrđuju i ove fotografije. Netko je naprosto ukrao komadić zida s Banksyjevim štakorom

36 37oris, number 53, year 2008 Srećko Horvat, Banksy Against Dystopia

before me.’ Another important figure of street art is certainly Jean­Michel Basquiat, a New York artist who also made his beginnings with graffiti as a medium in order to finish in neo­Expressionism during the 80s. Instead of crea­ting classic gra ffiti, which had a tendency for aesthetic perfe ction, he used to write the famous ‘SAMO’ slo gan over Manhattan buil dings, the abbre via tion for same ol’ shit. In one of his ‘early’ inter views he gave to Glenn O’Brien, the journalist called him a ‘language­oriented’ gra­ffitist, whi ch probably is the most appro priate des cri pti on. It points out the most impor tant diffe rence compared to previous graffiti. Besides that, Bas quiat was most likely the first ‘street artist’ who entered the world of profitable arts, help ed, or not at all, depending on the point of view, by no less than Andy Warhol. ¶ But Banksy, as opposed to Basquiat, is still an eni­gmatic figure. Although he himself recently ente red the world of the art market, Banksy still sta nds by his principles – he remains anony­mous and, alle gedly, does not make any profit out of his work. He entered the art market when Christina Aguilera bought the original of his Queen Victoria, depicted in a lesbian act, for

Banksy’s subversive actions in museums.

£25,000. All of a sudden, he became a new Andy Warhol (or Basquiat, for the sake of the matter). In 2006, Sotheby’s sold his pictures of Kate Moss for £50,400, while at the same aucti­on his green Mona Lisa was sold for £57,600. Only few months later, in February 2007, Sotheby’s sold his work titled Bom bing Middle England for the enormous amount of £102,000, while in that same month the owners of the house which happens to have this particular graffiti on its façade decided to sell the entire house to an art gallery. In April 2007, a record was reached: Banksy’s work titled Space Girl & Bird hit the roof with a price of £288,000. ¶ Despite the popularity of his art pieces, there is very little information about Banksy. Allegedly, he was born in Bristol in around 1974. He never sells his work to commer cial galleries. He even came once to Sotheby’s and wrote ‘We are getting rich on Banksy’ (in case you had any doubt, the slogan was sold next day for £16,999). When in May 2005 he won an award as the greatest British living artist, Banksy, cle arly, did not show up at the award ceremony. What Banksy thinks of the arts establishment he showed with a subversive action in March 2005 when he simply hung his art pieces on the walls of New York’s most revered museums: the Metro politan Museum of Art, Museum of Modern Art, Broo­klyn Mu seum and American Museum of Natural History. When asked why he did it, Banksy briefly answered: ‘These pieces are good enough to be there, so why should I wait.’ He gave a similar answer when he was asked why he put a picture

oris, broj 53, godina 2008 Srećko Horvat, Banksy protiv distopije

velika vrata ušao u svijet tržišta umjetninama, Banksy i dalje ostaje principijelan – i dalje ostaje anoniman i na vodno ne zarađuje od svojih djela. Kada je Chri stina Aguilera kupila origi nal njegove ‘Kra ljice Viktorije’ kao lezbijke za £25.000, ozna čila je Banksyjev ulazak na tržište umjetnina. Odjed nom je postao novi Andy Warhol (ili Basquiat, kako god). Godine 2006. Sotheby's je pro dao nje gove ‘Kate Moss’ slike za £50.400, dok je na istoj aukciji njegova zelena ‘Mona Lisa’ pro dana za £57.6000. Samo nekoliko mjeseci po slije, u veljači 2007.,

Banksyjeve subverzivne akcije u muzejima.

Sotheby's je prodao njegov rad ‘Bombing Middle England’ za enormne £102.000 (preračunato – točno milijun kuna!), dok su isti mjesec vlasnici kuće na čijoj se fa sadi eto našao Ban­ksyjev grafit istu tu kuću odlučili prodati jednoj umjetničkoj galeriji. U travnju 2007. postignut je novi rekord za Banksyja, a njegov rad ‘Space Girl & Bird’ dosegao je cijenu od čak £288.000 (znači, gotovo tri milijuna kuna). ¶ A sve što se da­nas zna o Banksyju je sljedeće: navodno je rođen u Bri stolu oko 1974., a unatoč svojoj slavi ne prodaje svoja djela u ko­mer ci jalnim galerijama. Štoviše, jednom je došao upravo u Sotheby's i napisao ‘Bogatimo se na Banksyju’ (djelo je, zar ste sumnjali, idući dan prodano za £16.999), a kad mu je u svibnju 2005. dodijeljena nagrada za najvećeg živućeg britan­skog umjetnika, nije se, dakako, pojavio na ceremoniji pri­manja nagrade. Što Banksy misli o etabliranom svijetu umje­tnosti najbolje je po kazao svojom subverzivnom akcijom u ožujku 2005., kad je svoja djela naprosto zakačio na zidove vo dećih njujorških mu zeja: Metropolitan Museum of Art, Museum of Modern Art, Brooklyn Museum i American Museum of Natural History. Kad su ga upitali zašto je to uči­nio, sažeto je odgovorio: ‘To su dovoljno dobra djela da budu ovdje, stoga ne vidim razlog za što bih čekao’. Slično je odgo­vorio kad su ga upitali zašto je 2004. u Louvreu objesio sliku Mona Lise sa žutim osmijehom: ‘Proći kroz čitav proces oda­biranja slika za galeriju mora biti jako dosadan. Zabavnije je otići tamo i staviti vlastitu sliku’. Kad su ga pak u jednom

38 39oris, number 53, year 2008 Srećko Horvat, Banksy Against Dystopia

of Mona Lisa with a yellow smile in the Louvre in 2004: ‘To actu ally go through the process of having a painting selected must be quite boring. It’s a lot more fun to go and put your own one up.’ When in one interview he was asked what was the most perfect untraditional piece of art he had seen outside a mu seum, Banksy said: ‘The most perfect piece of art I saw in rece nt times was during an anarchist demonstration in Lon­don a couple of years ago. Someone cut a strip of turf from the grass in front of Big Ben and put it on the head of the sta­tue of Winston Churchill. Later, the demo turned into a riot, and photos of Winston with a grass Mohican were on the co­ver of every single British newspaper the next day.’2 ¶ Banksy’s understanding of art as a subversive and political tool is even more visible in his work. A great number of his pieces are dire­cted against CCTV cameras, which keep overwhelming Great Britain more and more. One of the best examples of his atti­tude towards CCTV cameras is, for sure, the graffiti with the slogan What are you looking at? near a camera in Hyde Park, London. It is exactly with that inscription and a camera poi­nti ng at it that Banksy actualizes the semblance, to use Plato’s, or Lacan’s terminology respectively, that there is a democracy in power in Britain, and not a ‘surveillance society’. According to one study, there are 500,000 cameras in London, whereas in the whole of Great Britain there are about 4,200,000, which means there is one camera for every 14 people. A regular per­son, going to work, to school or to college, or a person pur­suing all different kinds of jobs around the city can be recorded up to 300 times just in one day.3 In 2003, so­called Talking CCTV cameras were installed, for video surveillance with loud

2 The whole interview is available at: http://

swindlemagazine.com/issue08/banksy/

3 Michael McCahill & Clive Norris, ‘CCTV in

London’, working paper No. 6, http://www.

urbaneye.net/results/ue_wp6.pdf.

oris, broj 53, godina 2008 Srećko Horvat, Banksy protiv distopije

intervjuu upitali koje je najsavršenije netradicionalno umjetni­čko djelo koje je vidio, a trenutno ne visi u muzeju, Banksy je odgovorio: ‘Najsavršenije umjetničko djelo koje sam nedavno vidio bilo je na jednoj anarhističkoj demonstraciji u Londonu prije nekoliko godina. Netko je ot kinuo travu s travnjaka ispred Big Bena i stavio je na glavu kipa Winstona Churchilla. Kasnije se demonstracija pretvorila u iz gred, a fotografije Winstona s travom, koji je sada izgledao kao Mohikanac, bile su na naslov­ni cama svih britanskih novina idućeg dana.’2 ¶ Banksyjevo shvaćanje umjetnosti kao sub ver zivnog i političkog oruđa još bolje do izražaja dolazi u njegovu vlastitom radu. Velik broj njegovih djela usmjeren je protiv CCTV kamera koje sve više preplavljuju Veliku Britaniju. Jedan od najboljih primjera je zasigurno grafit s natpisom What are you looking at? pokraj kamere blizu Hyde Parka u Londonu. Upravo tim natpisom i kamerom koja je usmjerena na njega Banksy – da iskoristimo Platonove, odnosno Lacanove termine – aktualizira privid da se u Velikoj Britaniji još uvijek radi o demokraciji, a ne o ‘dru­štvu nadzora’. Prema jednoj studiji broj kamera u Londonu je 500.000, dok ih u čitavoj V. Britaniji ima oko 4,200.000 (što znači da postoji jedna kamera na 14 ljudi). Prosječna osoba koja ide na posao, u školu, na fakultet ili naprosto obavlja stvari po gradu navodno može za samo jedan dan biti snimljena čak 300 puta.3 Godine 2003. uvedene su i tzv. Talking CCTV, kamere za videonadzor sa zvučnicima, pre ko kojih službenici osiguranja mogu opominjati prolaznike, itd. Argument je sljedeći: te ‘govoreće kamere’ služe za spre čavanje ruiniranja ulica grada, za vandale koji grafitiraju jedna ko kao i za prola­znike koji bacaju smeće. Da se ‘obični’ Britanci baš i ne slažu

2 Intervju je dostupan na: http://

swindlemagazine.com/issue08/banksy/

3 Michael McCahill & Clive Norris, ‘CCTV in London’, Working paper No. 6., http://www.urbaneye.net/

results/ue_wp6.pdf.

40 41oris, number 53, year 2008 Srećko Horvat, Banksy Against Dystopia

speakers through which security officers can admonish pa­ssers­by. The reason behind it was: these ‘talking cameras’ serve to prevent people ruining the city streets, to prevent vandals from drawing graffiti and to prevent passers­by from littering the pavement. That the ‘ordinary’ British do not go along with this new situation was confirmed by a YouGov survey, published at the end of 2006, which showed that 79% of Britons consider that Great Britain has become a ‘sur vei­llance society’.4 ¶ All this suggests that we already have one foot in the dystopic world described by Philip K. Dick in his novel Minority Report, of which a movie was made, directed by Steven Spielberg in 2002. In this novel the concept of con­trol is conceived as foreseeing and preventing crime. A police­man’s job is no longer detecting criminals who comm itted a certain crime in the past, but finding criminals who will co­mmit a crime in the future. Minority Report is a perfect illu­stration of the world after September 11, because control be­comes interactive, sophisticated technologies are being used, like biometry (the analysis of physiological and behavioural characteristics designed to determine or disclose personal ide­ntity by examining someone’s finger tips, iris, hand geo metry, etc.), RFID (Radio Frequency Identification), etc. ¶ The scene when John Anderton (Tom Cruise) walks through a store and, thanks to RFID, is addressed by an invisible ‘Big Brother’ sugg­

esting, based on data of his socio­economical status and geo­demographic characteristics, which products might be the most suitable ones for him, is not just science fiction, but a future already present today. As David Lyon shows in his book Surveillance Studies, special loyalty cards issued by super sto­res are the main means of tracking customers’ purchases and preferences, data which serves to create various consumer profiles and classifications. Once affinities and shopping inter­vals of customers are established it can greatly help in targeted marketing, leading to an increase in the corporation’s profits.5 However, as much as Lyon’s book is instructive because it ex­plains different aspects of control bringing them in conn ection with Bentham, Deleuze and Foucault, the author is mis taken when alleging: ‘To use infra­red devices to see into a blog­writer’s room at night would infringe personal rights and inva­de private space. But for blog­writers to describe their noc­turnal activities online that is considered their inalienable right to free expression.’ What is problematic in this state­ment? We are dealing here with one crucial difference: in the first example, the blogger did not give permission for his pri­vacy to be invaded, while in the second he did. This is what reinforced video­surveillance is all about in Great Britain after a terrorist attack attempt in 2007.6 Today, there is almost no place – and not only in Britain – where, without our permission, we are not daily exposed to cameras; in trams, stores, banks, on the roads, etc. ¶ In this sense, today’s society is just a radi­calisation of the trend of control, which has already been on­go ing for several decades, but what differs it from standard methods of control is its characteristic that more than ever the most advocated reason for it, just like in Dick’s novel, is crime prevention – we are all suspects even before committing any crime. Here we can quote what Hannah Arendt wrote think­ing primarily of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, and not of ‘democratic’ Britain: ‘From a legal perspective, totalitarian substitution of suspected transgression by possible crime is even more interesting then converting a suspect into a real enemy. Possible crime is considered to be nothing less unreal then the real enemy. A suspect is arrested because he is sus­pected of being capable of committing a crime which more or less fits his personal profile (or his suspected personality) – a totalitarian version of possible crime based on the logic of anticipation.’7 ¶ With his politically incorrect graffiti, which shows a policeman searching a little schoolgirl, Banksy is again referring to that state. At her side are a teddy bear and a sch­ool bag. Except for being politically incorrect, because it pri­ma rily makes an association with paedophilia, this graffiti is at the same time an excellent criticism of the ‘totalita rian

Banksy’s schoolgirl. Of course, in the era of political correctness, such graffiti cannot survive for long. What Banksy did here, on the other hand, is ‘fight back’ by depicting a schoolgirl searching a soldier, taking his message and criticism of social reality to the extreme. As if what the artist wanted to say is: ‘It is not the schoolgirl who needs to be searched – it’s our soldiers!’

5 V. David Lyon, Surveillance Studies. An Overview, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2007.6 It is indicative that German internal affairs minister Wolfgang Schäuble, not long after the attacks in July 2007, using the ‘danger of terrorism’ as an argument, demanded reinforced video­surveillance of the centres of large cities in Germany. This will probably happen after a terrorist attack attempt in Frankfurt.7 Hannah Arendt, ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism’, A Harvest Book

4 http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/

TEL060101024_4.pdf

oris, broj 53, godina 2008 Srećko Horvat, Banksy protiv distopije

s takvim novim stanjem, potvrdila je i YouGova anketa obja­vljena krajem 2006., koja je pokazala da 79% Bri tanaca smatra da je Velika Britanija postala ‘društvo nad zo ra’4.¶ Sve to impli­cira da smo već jednom nogom stupili u dis topijski svijet kakav nam je prezentirao Philip K. Dick u svo m romanu Manjinski izvještaj, koji je ekranizirao Steven Spielberg 2002. godine­ U njemu se kontrola poima kao spre čavanje i predviđanje zlo­čina. Posao policajaca više nije pro nalaženje zločinaca koji jesu počinili neki zločin, nego pro nalaženje zločinaca koji će poči­niti neki zločin. Minority Report je ovdje savršena ilustracija svijeta poslije 11. rujna zato jer kontrola postaje interaktivna, koriste se sofisticirane tehno loške metode poput biometrije (analiza fizioloških i bihe vio ralnih karakteristika u svrhu deter­minacije ili otkrivanja identi teta putem otisaka prstiju, prepo­znavanja šarenice, geo me trije ruke, itd.), CCTV­kamere, GPS­a (globalni sistem pozicioni ranja putem satelita i kompjutora), RFID­a (identifika cije ra dio frekvencija), itd.¶ Scena u kojoj John Anderton (Tom Cruise) prolazi kroz neki dućan, a putem RFID­a mu se obrati nevidljivi ‘Veliki brat’ sugerirajući mu na temelju podataka o njegovom socijalno­ekonomskom statusu i geo­demograf skim zna čaj kama koji bi proizvod za njega bio najbolji nije samo znan stvena fantastika nego i budućnost koja je već ovdje. Kako to pokazuje David Lyon u svojoj knjizi Surveillance Studies, poseb ne kartice u supermarketima (npr.

K­plus karti ca u Hrvatskoj) glavna su sredstva za praćenje proi­zvoda, odnosno afiniteta mušterija, što onda pomaže u izra­điva nju profila i klasifikaciji potrošača. Jednom kad se utvr de prefe rencije i vrijeme kupo vanja, to uvelike može pomoći u ciljanom marketingu (targe ted marketing), te na kraju krajeva povećati profit korporacije.5 Međutim, koliko god da je Lyo­nova knjiga instruktivna jer tu mači različite vidove kontrole povezujući ih s Benthamom, Deleuzeom i Foucaultom, autor griješi kada, objašnjavajući današnju posvemašnju kontrolu, kaže: ‘Koristiti infracrvene uređaje kako bi se vidjela soba nekog blogera narušilo bi oso bna prava i narušilo privatni pro­stor. No kad blogeri online opisuju svoje noćne aktivnosti, to se promatra kao nepobitno pravo na slobodu govora.’ U čemu je problem s tom tvrdnjom? Radi se o jednoj ključnoj razlici: u prvom slučaju bloger nije dao dozvolu da se ulazi u njegovu privatnost, dok u drugom jest. Upravo je o tome stvar i kod pojačanog videonadzora u Velikoj Britaniji nakon poku šaja terorističkih napada 2007.6 Danas gotovo da nema mjesta – i to ne samo u velikoj Britaniji – gdje nas svakodnevno, bez našeg dopu štenja, ne snima neka kamera; u tramvaju, u duća­nima, u ban kama, na cesti, itd.¶ Današnje društvo nadzora u tom je smislu samo radi kalizacija trenda kontrole koji postoji već unazad neko liko desetljeća, a ono po čemu se izdvaja od standardnih metoda kontrole je osobina da više nego ikad prije u prvi plan, baš po put Dickove priče, stupa moguće predvi­đanje zločina – svi smo mi osumnjičeni i prije nego što smo išta počinili. Ovdje u neku ruku vrijedi ono što je Hannah Arendt napisala misleći prvenstveno na nacističku Njemačku i staljinističku Rusiju, a ne na ‘demokratsku’ Britaniju: ‘S prav­nog stajališta, od pre tvaranja osumnjičenog u objektivnog nepri jatelja još je zani mljivija totalitarna zamjena osumnji­čenog prijestupa mo gu ćim zločinom. Mogući zločin nije ništa subjektivniji od obje ktiv nog neprijatelja. Sumnjivac je uhićen jer se misli da je kadar počiniti zločin koji se manje ili više ukla­pa u njegovu osobnost (ili njegovu osumnjičenu oso bno st), totalitarna ver zija mogućega zločina temelji se na logičnoj anticipaciji zbi vanja.’7 ¶ Banksy se iznova referira na to stanje svojim politički nekorektnim grafitom koji prikazuje policajca kako pretražuje malu dje voj čicu­školarku. Kraj nje su vidljivi mali medo i škol ska torba. Osim što je taj grafit politički neko­rektan jer prije svega asocira na pedofiliju, on je ujedno i izvr­stan kritički ko mentar na ‘tota litarnu zamjenu osumnjičenog prijestupa mo gu ćim zločinom’, koja više nije karakteristična samo za neke bivše i naizgled daleke totalitarističke sisteme ili znan stveno­fantastične pro jekcije tipa Minority Report već i za današnju Englesku. Uzmimo slučaj Jeana Charlesa de Menezesa. Mladić pod tim imenom je ubijen samo nekoliko

Banksyjeva školarka. Naravno, u doba političke korektnosti takav grafit ne može dugo preživjeti. No Banksy je ‘uzvratio udarac’ školarkom koja pretražuje vojnika, dovodeći svoju poruku i kritiku društvene realnosti do krajnjosti. Umjetnik kao da želi reći: ‘Nije školarka ta koju se treba pretraživati – to su naši vojnici!’

5 V. David Lyon, Surveillance Studies. An Overview, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2007.6 Indikativno je da je i njemački ministar unutarnjih poslova Wolfgang Schäuble nedugo nakon napada, u srpnju 2007., koristeći argument ‘opasnosti od terorizma’ zahtijevao pojačani videonadzor središta većih gradova u Njemačkoj. To će se vjerojatno i dogoditi nakon pokušaja terorističkih napada na Frankfurt.7 Hannah Arendt, ‘Totalitarizam’, Politička kultura, Zagreb, 1996, str. 175.

4 http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/

TEL060101024_4.pdf

42 43oris, number 53, year 2008 Srećko Horvat, Banksy Against Dystopia

switch between suspected transgression and crime’ which is no longer characteristic of some former and only seemingly distant totalitarian systems or science fiction projections like Minority Report, but is a characteristic of England today. Let us take as an example the case of Jean Charles de Menezes. A young man by that name was killed only a few days after bombs exploded in the London underground just because his ‘clothes and behaviour seemed suspicious’. The police men who, during their routine working day in the underground, killed that young man who wore a jeans jacket and for that reason was suspicious, have never suffered any consequences up to now. The official justification said that Menezes looked like a terrorist. This story teaches us that the definition of ‘bad guys’ is becoming more and more arbitrary. Just wearing a jeans jacket seems to be enough. As shown on the latest Bri­tish police posters: it is enough to carry two mobile phones, a ca mera or be doing something suspicious at home to fit the terrorist profile and be denounced as a terrorist. ¶ Only few months after these posters become public, there was a comic response to them at the artistic level of Banksy on the Inter­net. Instead of a stills camera, CCTV cameras were super­imposed on the poster saying: ‘Thousands of CCTV cameras track you and photograph you every day. And yet for you ­ a subject of this free and pleasant land ­ to carry a ca mera, is to be under suspicion of being a terrorist. Is there nothing about this that seems odd?’ ¶ Let us summarize what has been said so far. It is not by chance that in Britain in the last few years dystopic movies like Children of Men, 28 Weeks Later, 28 Days Later, V for Vendetta, and others are being filmed. All this can be described as a symptom of a broader phenomenon and a reflection of the surveillance and control society which already today makes London a city where architecture and po wer are inextricably connected. Moreover, architecture ser ves as a means of installing power. Art pieces like those made by Banksy are praiseworthy since they emphasize that rela­tionship. We could even go so far as to say that Banksy, by subverting the established rapports of power, manages to cre­ate an awareness of the dystopia of our present time. The fu­ture has already come.

oris, broj 53, godina 2008 Srećko Horvat, Banksy protiv distopije

dana nakon bombi u londonskoj želje znici i to zato jer se ‘nje­gova odjeća i po našanje činilo su mnji vim’. Policajci koji su to kom uobi ča jenog dana u podzemnoj ubili tog mladića, koji je nosio traper jaknu i zbog toga bio sumnjiv, do današnjeg dana nisu snosili nika kve posljedice. Službeno je opravdanje da je de Menezes ličio na teroristu, a pouka je te priče da defi­nicija ‘loših momaka’ po staje sve proi zvoljnija. Dovoljno je nositi traper jaknu. Ili, kao što to poka zuju najnoviji plakati britanske policije, dovoljno je nositi dva mobitela, imati foto­aparat ili vršiti sumnjive aktivnosti kod kuće. Ako slučajno za mijetite nekog tko se uklapa u taj profil, odmah ga prijavite za terorizam. ¶ Samo nekoliko mjeseci na kon što su ti plakati pušteni u javnost, na Internetu se već pojavila parodija plakata s kamerom dostojna Banksyja. Umjes to fotoaparata na plakatu se nalaze CCTV ka mere i natpis: ‘Tisuće CCTV kamera te snima i fotografira svaki dan. Pa ipak, ako ti – kao subjekt u ovoj slobo dnoj i ugodnoj zemlji – nosiš kameru, onda te se sumnjiči za tero rista. Nije li nešto čudno u tome?’ ¶ Da rezimiramo. Nije baš sasvim slu čajno da upravo u Velikoj Britaniji u poslje­dnjih nekoliko go dina nastaju dis topijski filmovi poput ‘Djece čovječanstva’, ‘28 dana poslije’, ‘28 tjedana poslije’, ‘V for Vendetta’ i drugih. Sve je to samo simptom jednog šireg feno­mena i refleksija na dru štvo nadzora i kon trole koje već danas London pretvara u grad gdje su arhi tektura i moć neodvojivo isprepleteni. Štoviše, upra vo arhi tektura služi za provođenje moći. Djela poput Ban ksyjevih su hvalevrijedna jer naglašavaju taj odnos. Štoviše, mogli bismo reći da upravo Banksy subver­ti ranjem uspo sta vljenih odnosa moći uspijeva proizvesti svi­jest o distopiji naše sadašnjice. Budućnost je već ovdje.