Life is short…


Leave a comment

September 15, 2014 · 4:20 pm

Brand™ is dead

The complexity of simplicity

You don’t have to be a quantum physicist to realize the world around us, especially that of nature is full of amazing detail and wonder. Flora and fauna is full of golden section mathematical perfection. Bees make honey and ducks fly south for the winter. Sunrises and sunsets stir the soul and the stars in the sky make us remember how small we really are. From Galileo to Gaudi, Einstein to Hawking understanding the complex in simple terms is hard work. “The straight line belongs to man, the curve to god” said Gaudi.
He was talking about architecture but I think you could apply it further. To me, it implies the limits of humanity and the effortlessness of the divine.
Modern communication has been partly about trying to simplify messages, whilst the process and technology behind things becomes exponentially (for the time being) complex. A picture paints a thousand words, and the greek derivative “logo” is therefore the ultimate simplified word or name of a business, app, product, thing or ahem, brand.

It’s getting a bit boring now, but back in the early nineties, Orange was a colourful cut through in a black and white business orientated market place.
Yes it used a thin weight of Helvetica, yes it looked nice, yes it used people not phones, yes it had nice ads with rousing soundtracks, Yes it was simplified.
But, the genius in this last to market, rubbish network newby was simple: per second billing. Not too far behind it was Apple, regenerating itself with cool ads and simple thoughts and thinking different. Again, the genius was its product was actually pretty cool.
Revolutionary. Unfortunately branding hasn’t moved on much in the twenty years since Orange launched. As any honest practicioner of ‘disruptive’ strategies will tell you (behind closed doors) the product or service has to be not just good or different but better than what has gone before. Then, you can be simple.

Branding today

Most agencies now site themselves as branding companies. So what does that mean?
It could be packaging, design, marketing, advertising, events, films, and so on.
It seems to me that whilst all these companies argue internally about what they do, and who they are in competition with, and what they offer – they are making the process more complicated. There’s a great Bill Hicks monologue about marketing from the 80s.
That’s where we are at now. In the narcissistic condescending way we mere mortals that have become branding gods, we have devised a way of talking about business in a humanized way. Ever since around the time of Orange we persuade our clients to be Human, straightforward, friendly. We have visions, missions and values. We have ‘tone of voice’. The thing is, twenty years later when everyone and their brand dog wants to be a brand, it just becomes the same old same old. Then it was relevant, now maybe mundane.
There’s a great bit in “The Young Ones” when Vyvyan is entering a competition on the back of a Cornflakes packet. The question is “What does Cornflakes mean to you in ten words?” – He submits: “Cornflakes Cornflakes Cornflakes Cornflakes Cornflakes Cornflakes Cornflakes Cornflakes Cornflakes, Cornflakes”
This is so brilliant on a number of levels. Firstly its like what the “Consumer” probably really thinks of Cornflakes. ie “Cornflakes”. Do you really believe someone plays back the proposition of Cornflakes when they “Purchase” Cornflakes ? Have they been on a customer journey and made an informed decision based on the parity of communication etc etc or do they just like Cornflakes?
Secondly, in the old days the laws of branding were simple. In any given market, only one can be the cheapest option, the rest will have to compete on brand. However, once all things are branded, especially when they are all trying to be human and straightforward, or different for the sake of it. Well, it’s Cornflakes.
Different’s been done daddio

Remember USP? Unique Selling Proposition. That was about being different. Branding valued the underdog challenge. Virgin Atlantic was different to BA but now its the same.
Or you launch a retail chain of coffee shops, can being pink really be a sound business idea? Different was then, not now. I think we need to seek amazing clients and also be harder on our peers to be original and create real competition again. Stop offering them another Orange, Apple, Levis or Lynx. Focus more on maintaining tribalism in theirs and our own businesses. Training not just mantras. Credos and credibility. Less TMs and more genuine desires to be better. There’s a big difference between FMCG and big purchases, but where I think we need to be smarter is things like power, banks, airlines, insurance: the things we are inert to. The things that are taking the piss. Worry less about Facebook presence and more about customer service. Stop the greed. Otherwise we will become the media equivalent of Estate Agents (in the 80s). And as much as I love a bit of the Human league, please, let’s not go there.

What Conspiracy?

As long as we continue to remove ourselves from reality with jargon, as long as we still think people (in the third person) are “Consumers”. As long as we think we some coercive masters of neuro linguistic programming, we will be on borrowed time.
Coke wasn’t trying to fuck the world up when I was a kid, it was a fizzy drink. The real thing. What’s wrong with that? There was something exciting about the big ads of the 80s.
But they were simple. I’m not suggesting we have to get to the Viz idea of “Smoke Tabs, Drink Beer” but where’s the epic simplicity gone?
I mean, “Be more dog” is fine, as long as they have the cool things to back it up.
Ever since someone thought it was pretty funny to say “meerkhat” instead of “market”, bring on the abstract ads. Thing is it (the actual service thing) any good?

Finally, because of this stuff, when you look at charity work. It’s a nightmare.
Apparently people don’t like to see charities spending money, and they don’t want to be brainwashed by the marketing mafia. So until we can find away of simplifying stuff or breaking down the barriers of being able to have fun in the name of charity, cue the ALS challenge. Until we help our clients not feel guilty. It’s OK to have a good idea.
Until we realize we are the man in the street, and word of mouth is always the best viral campaign. Until we pop down from our ivory towers. The BETTER asteroid is heading for us. Anyone got a defibrillator?

Leave a comment

Filed under The Art of Branding™


Have you noticed how everything seems to be or want to be a brand these days?

Good, bad, intrusive, corporate, individual, global, local. From the coffee shop to the Police to celebrities to biscuits. Brand agencies or brands themselves still argue amongst themselves what sort of brand they are or aren’t, what’s on or off brand and who is the brand owner. I find it brand boring and missing the point. The sort of mild disappointing disdain that was reserved for Estate agents has crept in, fast spreading to the self named “Marketeers” that ebb and flow through media circles and powerpoint peaks. The experts. Bringing with them the camouflage of coercive facts about footfall and #trending currency.

The current landscape or brandscape (if you like words like ideation) is rammed with adverts, semiotics, messages and communication – mostly trying to be funny or quirky. Quirkiness for me is a copout that flirts with originality by being irreverent. However if the end game is irrelevance for the sake of memorability – well, that’s not a success. How about the “old school” idea of buying the item in question. 

Branding, advertising whatever you want to call it. Media people that do stuff. These people are like any profession – there are good ones and bad ones. Not to take it too seriously, it’s not the end of the world if they’re bad. I mean, you hope you’ll never meet a bad policeman or have a bad airline pilot flying you somewhere. I’m pretty sure no-one died of bad branding. Maybe they came close, but then I haven’t seen the spider chart. 


Perhaps one of the reasons that I get annoyed is quirky stuff feels like creatives making ads for ad people. Rushing into their blue period or abstraction before they’ve mastered still life naturalism. Or if you prefer less footfall and maybe a football analogy (which I’m not that good at) I imagine it’s like a 3rd division trainee trying to invent the Keegan flick or overhead back before he’s planted a proper first goal. The other big reason things irritate me is because I think the world revolves around me. I demand everything be done to my taste whether I would use it or not. Fair enough. I think good stuff starts with a bit of healthy narcissism. If you don’t like something then why would anyone else? After all, all we’re really asking people with an advert is “Is this you?”. For the pedantic among you, maybe when this transmogrifies into egocentrism that you could have a problem. The only dangerous buttons I press are “Print” or “send” so no great shakes there. 


Unlearning what we know as conventions is a good thing. But it takes time. And with the obsessive rush to own and defend brand territory it often gets overlooked. You have to know the rules, to break the rules, before you rewrite the rules. That get broken by someone else, and so it goes on. The ants will take over the world.


Imagination and creativity are things you can’t learn at University or by copying the techniques of others. However, as timeless as pen and paper. If we go back to basics, maybe we can find our own inner voice. What turns us on, what gives us goosebumps.

Only you know what that is. Consider it a personal avatar hidden in the cosmos. 

Although we are as professionals, not self indulgent artists: It would be nice to see less brand cards in workshops of other people’s logos or materialistic life style cues. More Matisse’s primary palette than Paul Smith stripes. Even better sunsets, nature. a visceral nautilus, not necessarily the golden section mathematical science.


We need, I would argue to get back to what I call Uncommon Sense. I didn’t say I made up that word, after all it’s two words and even if I TM it I’m sure it’s been said. But that’s not important. What is, is if you’d like to come and indulge me and Andy Milligan talk about what Uncommon Sense might start with. If you’d like to come, it’s a week today, next Thursday 28th November at the Hide Gallery SE1. Tickets are available at the following link:



Leave a comment

Filed under The Art of Branding™

Beware of the can’ts


Leave a comment

November 1, 2013 · 6:19 pm


I said don’t read this! Look, it’s going to be a massive rant, too many big words like “promiscuous”, you’ll think I’m trying to be funny again or mildly amusing, then when I dumb it down you’ll feel patronized. If that doesn’t get you, you’ll think I’m swearing too much. So, all in all best fuck off now really. No? OK then. Shit – you’re not thinking for yourself are you? You mean to tell me your parents brought you up to realize the difference between “NO!*” (*don’t run in front of that car) and “No.*” (*you may not go to that illegal rave and stay out all night doing heaven knows what). Now, read on.
Mr. Brand

Blimey, that Russell Brand has poked the hornet’s nest hasn’t he? There’s been mixed views on his apparent ‘rant’ on Newsnight and in the New Statesman. He’s quickly had responses from journalists discounting him and Robert Webb countering him, but again mainly undermining him. I’ve seen open letters to him about it blah blah blah. What appears to be the most controversial thing about his views is his comment about “Don’t vote”. It seems to have struck a chord, and for me, his recent behaviour was very interesting. I like Russell Brand. I like Paxman and Webb, too. However I find I can empathize more with Mr. Brand. Stupid hair cut, cocky bastard, hit or miss in terms of making people laugh, controversial, former prolific drug user and heroin addict, promiscuous and highly sexed, a bit bonkers, we could go on. Let’s just say he’s had his demons (btw Mum, if you’re reading this I never took heroin). But what he’s done the last few days really resonated with me. Something I’ve long suspected about the media and many other things, that have been bubbling along for a while – were just brilliantly agitated by his interviews and editorials. He’s done his bit for now, because all the guy is trying to do is make you think. And think about it I have, and the more people responding to him, attacking him, are frankly exposing themselves as condescending, patronizing wankers, scared that people might take him seriously. Journalists are quick to ridicule him for being verbose – but if he dumbs it down or swears – they attack that. The guy can’t win. For me, it was less of a hornet’s nest and more a cup of tea he stirred. I’m not going to deconstruct or critique him or his detractors, however as I understood it: All he said was there is a ‘revolution’ happening, he wanted to draw attention to humanitarian issues such as the planet, he wasn’t convinced by any particular political party (therefore he doesn’t vote and maybe that shouldn’t be a stigma) and above all else – ‘he just wants to have a laugh’. What’s wrong with that? What’s right with it is it got my attention, and I’ve re-engaged my brain with trying to understand how to solve political issues without politicians. What I think scared people is that he isn’t being so moronically obvious as aligning himself to a party. He isn’t really trying to sway anyone, anywhere, I think he’s just telling us how it is. And it makes fucking sense. Oh my god, but he’s a druggy nut nut comedian Elephant riding fruitloop isn’t he? Well, yes but that was him live, running rings around Paxman on Newsnight. How many ‘kids’ busy twattering themselves over Miley Cyrus are going to be watching that? Isn’t that more important? “Read Orwell” says Webb. Sure. As long as you don’t get upset if we use ‘big words’ like allegorical, quasi-political and propaganda. Why stop at Orwell? Didn’t they have Plato and Socrates in the library at Cambridge? Aesop? Just what are they so offended by? maybe it’s the chaos that will ensue. Maybe he’s actually a plant of Mi6, maybe he’s deluded and mentally ill, or maybe we shouldn’t get so hypertensive about someone’s opinion. Why can’t we all just get along? Brand proves that the nail that sticks up gets hammered down. He’s only saying to me what I want to say to the media bashing conspiracy theorists: “WAKE THE FUCK UP AND THINK FOR YOURSELF”. What seems to being aroused, especially in the UK, especially on the streets of London, especially in the social media fraternity is consciousness. And, joking aside, it’s whatever works for you, as long as it helps you, and makes you more intelligent (in whatever way that means to you). My blog is my personal outlet and although I started to write mainly about design, and still do, these bigger issues are what inspires people the most. I wrote a piece on “Happiness” the other week, and I wrote it for myself but for one particular person who was actually clinically depressed. They loved it, but I was surprised and inspired by so many people who contacted me about it, mostly privately, some emotionally and very publicly. It was touching. And the same goes for this piece. If just one person, mate or stranger reads this and is inspired to think for themselves, even if they disagree. Then the revolution is on baby. It’s that simple. No need to burn down the Reichstag, not just yet anyway.

They say one man can make a difference. I think in politics it’s the fastest way to become assassinated. Luckily Brand is suffering only mild character assassination. I still haven’t heard a solid counter argument to him, but then he’s not actually arguing, he’s just pointing out stuff. There seems to be so much information overload in the media, it’s all about control, and how many twitter followers you have, but really one man can’t do it all on his own, but he can be the change that makes the big difference. I’m trying hard not to get all Deepak Chopra or Buddhist about this – as this is really about political issues, and why some people get their knickers in a twist when things are simply “debated”.

So, what all this “DON’T VOTE” malarky got me thinking was quite a lot of things, but mainly the way it works with the media. We used to call it reverse psychology. The Americans (I think) developed Neurolinguistic programming. One could also consider it Socratic thinking, that is to say after Socrates who unlearned the truth by eliminating all other possibilities or something. (I’m paraphrasing, and not using Wikipedia so this is also a mini experiment in thinking for myself and not relying on the media, just my memory.)
By saying “don’t vote” and uttering the words “revolution” makes him dangerous then does it? So the Sun or Daily Mail coercing you to vote that’s better and more honest is it?
Or maybe he’s just encouraging people in or out of politics to discuss stuff. I don’t buy that people are that ignorant they would be swayed either way. What sort of morons are the ‘public’ after all? But this is delicious thread that Brand has pulled. It opens up all sorts of questions. Who is ‘allowed’ to have a view. He’s a comedian, right? but also NOT a politician. So if he aligns himself to a particular party existing or not he forfeits his objectivity doesn’t he? Errr…. So who decides what the right thing to do is then, in an expansive way? Government? (Cue the read Orwell quote again) But what sort of government? We live in a democracy, right? So is the house of commons really proportionate to the total percentage of votes made by the country? Well, no, it’s made up of constituencies, so your local authority who you voted (or not) is what makes up the battle for a majority in a general election. Phew. Anyway let’s not go there, but all that kind of waffle about that is really reserved for TalkRadio in the back of a black cab for me. It’d give an asprin a fakkin headache mate. Where as the not so really verbose but articulate and oh so dandy and eloquent Brrrrand clicks on my frequency. And that’s an important lesson again, getting someone’s attention. Part of that, in the media with “experts” is assuming a role, again. Now, in a business, it is important to have roles and responsibilities, otherwise you get politics and blame. You need accountability, authority, but in most normal businesses you need happy* workers (*valued, motivated, etc etc) to be the most productive. But society is not a business. Anyone that’s worked in management will have come across the politics of the work place, them and us, and misinformation that gets fed to the floor. You can’t ignore it, but it’s not always as simple as doing the right thing. A government ought to therefore be accountable to the shareholders, and investors. You’d THINK that would mean the taxpayers, ie the public. But in reality we know that’s bollocks, and resources are what create revenue, where do those resources come from? That’ll be the middle east etc. War is good for business. Where do you think all the technology comes from you use? Easy one – the military. The thing that makes you play games on your iphone in a gyroscopic manner – it’s called an accelerometer, which is used to help guide cruise missiles. Think about it, it’s only one component in an iPhone, made in China for sod all before being shipped and packaged and sold to you, actually for free* now if you upgrade. So how many do you think these guys made or how old is that technology for it to be so cheap? Get it?. I’m not going to edit this post on purpose, because this is why I don’t normally start thinking about “politics”. But I’m not going to tell you who to vote for, just to think for yourself. All it takes is a cup of tea. Like in Boston, back in 17-something (sorry Mr. Lively never was that inspired in your history lessons). I do remember that the premise for that particular revolution was “NO taxation without representation” Sound like we have that in this country, right here, right now?
Do you feel represented? In government, locally, nationally, Europe, have you ever met your local MP, do you even know their name? Do you follow them on twitter?
So, Webb, I’ve read Orwell, now go get your fucking shine box.

Government. Authority. Power. Control. Force. Agreement. Revolution.
They are only words, not especially big ones, but really important in that
they can be extremely positive or extremely negative.
Good or Bad. Good or Evil. Chelsea V Man U.
One thought good, a million followers – bad.

Wishing for world peace then is impossible. By our very nature, sub atomic particle molecular make up we are essentially made of the same cosmic dust that fights itself in reactionary opposition. But as Adidas says “Impossible is nothing” which comes back to mindset. The mindset of a person, a human, your own consciousness. And the empathy of others that may have a different, even diametrically opposing view to yours.
And maybe, if we slowed down a bit, and stopped and thought, we’d think differently™.
We might listen and learn and do it your way, even have it your way.
I’d like to believe in humanity, I’d love to believe that everyone is
doing the right thing.

This whole Brand debate, debacle, diatribe, discussion, load of old bollocks, whatever it is, is a stark reminder that those in the media and those in ‘authority‘ or even those who assume to be an authority on something are stuttering for a sexy response. It tells you that most people (not getting into demographics today) don’t like it if you ‘over step the mark’. But what does that mean? Surely the outcry about voting ergo affiliating oneself to politics is everybody’s business, right and legal whatnot (yeah my grandparents fought in the war too, I think most people’s did, around the world, at that time, that’s why it’s called a world war). So why can’t a comedian talk about it? Ricky Gervais did a show about Politics. He twatted on about atheism for so long on twitter that, I un-followed him (Orwell? get it get it). I really hope Brand doesn’t hobby horse this, but does something else. The point is when we are not assuming roles of this or that, but just accept we are all people.
Not subjects, not voters, but people, first. Surely that’s the first step.

I was going to launch into the media conspiracy theorist shit about advertisers, but as I reach far too many words for one post, thanks for not reading, and don’t forget to think™.

I’d like to leave you with a song by the not so illustrious Dan le sac & Scroobius Pip, who sum it up much better than me.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Underground overdone.

A current underground 'ad' for disrupted service

A current underground ‘ad’ for disrupted service

This is the type of thing I find just stupid on the underground.
Why is it that some people think everything is a branding or advertising opportunity.
You can understand why old Banksy gets his templates in a twist when you see things like this. As I talked about before in different posts, information has become diluted by the mass shout for attention. However, when you are effectively in charge of the microcosm or system – in this case – the underground total environment, there needs to be a simple tiered messaging system.

I tell you why I think this fails as an information piece:

1 – If I’m not going on a date this weekend is this no longer relevant?
2 – If I’m not going on a date this weekend, thanks for fucking rubbing it in TfL
3 – If I was going on a date, I don’t think a few laps of the circle line would be “memorable” for the right reasons, and what would swing it in terms of down to earth originality
4 – If I was going on a date I imagine “FREE BEER” wouldn’t really grab my radar
5 – It thinks its an ad and doesn’t realize its information

I just don’t see what my love life has to do with whether the tube is disrupted or not.
Neither do I need a condescending poster about pasta demographically spearing my senses and emotionally charging my attention the website in too small lettering.
Don’t you think, especially for the thousands of tourists that don’t speak English, we are adult enough to just read information relevant to the issue at hand. I know it’s not sexy, I know it’s probably mind numbingly boring designing stuff like that – but I think if it was done properly – then that would be a great challenge. I hardly think the stuff that’s being put out in house currently is going to make Maurice or Charles screech to a halt and say “Why aren’t our guys doing metaphorical association like that!?”

For me, the TfL stuff fails in much more objective ways. Don’t get me wrong, the execution is quite nice, and the typography “breaks” the line, suggesting the disruption in services. But the reality is, this poster is placed on an electronic billboard for less than 3 seconds, amongst a load of other media planned ads. Surely this is information, not an advert. It wouldn’t take a media planner to tell you that noone will see it, but then the only planning London underground seems to have is planned engineering works. I refuse to believe that creating a system on the tube is really that hard. I wonder what happens to the saturation of communication in an emergency? It would be pretty cool if the billboards suddenly changed to direct you out to the nearest safest exit, sponsored by McDonalds. I guess it points to a wider problem of London and its lack of proper design council. This needs people that have the experience and know their craft, Trevor Beattie, Hegarty, Michael Wolff for starters. I don’t think our public environment needs the hot new creative team. There’s enough shite on the telly for them to caress and redo. Am I the only person in London that thinks we need design, for a nice, pleasant, safe environment? Not a continually branded experience. Commercial stuff can be let off as “art”, self-indulgence, subjective – that’s actually how you get great work. However I’m talking about a public service and services. Be safe on the underground, not art on the underground.


So, with that in mind, here’s my generous and free suggestion to TfL. Why not create a level of infographics. Like the concept on the left. Get to the point, set it in a swiss clear typeface. No need for flourishes. And if that doesn’t float your boat, well trains – then may I present my hilarious pun route. After all, all you need is a pun and it’s an advert, right? I think it’s relevant and screams of the vernacular.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Banksy: taking the piece

I used to to quite like the odd bit of Banksy. For the many years I lived in central London I did indulge in the odd wry grin in his quasi-political work that was often subtle and hard to find or brazen and epic in Soho. There were many other cool bits of street art, the French dude who does his mosaics of space invaders. Even the odd Barbara Hepworth if you look up, on the corner of John Lewis, for example. When I was a kid, graffiti was crude, scrawled and opportunistic. The sort of thing chronicled by Nigel Rees, mostly banal but sometimes witty. “Buy me and stop one” on condom vending machines or “If you can reach this high you should be in the fire brigade” at the highest point of the wall of the men’s urinals. Toilet humour, you could say. Then with the influx of American influences, that came with the magazines, and families of the forces – graffiti became ‘art’. If we weren’t being cool on our BMXs, breakdancing to hip hop and early electro – me and a select bunch or ‘crew’ of friends imposed our art on the few subways or multi-storey car parks that we could find. As a 13 year old, the mean streets of west Berkshire were never a political hotbed. So, we mainly sprayed our crew’s name everywhere. There were no satirical messages, we mainly concentrated on not letting the paint drip. My love affair with ‘street art’ or just ‘graffing’ as it was called was like all the best love affairs – intense for a while, but brief. I’m no graffiti artist, any more than I consider myself a DJ (even though I can beat match and get you dancing). Friends I met at Art College, now, these guys can spray. And still do. Bearing in mind we’re now all in our 40s, some of them have managed to commercialize and effectively monetize their skill. Others are holding strong to their passion and you’ll find them doing bizarre things on the internet and at galleries around the world. Whatever path they’ve taken, they’ve managed to grow up without selling out.

Which is why I don’t get where Banksy is coming from anymore. I don’t see the relevance. I’ve spent many a boardroom meeting or workshop where his name crops up in a cliche of cool. But, that feels like 10 years ago, and then it was ten years too late. When I read the captions to his work in the book he published (someone that thought it was hip bought it me) he lost a lot of the magic. I don’t get it, him, Banksy™, I just find it irritating, now. 

Even I can remember back to when I was an early teenager and copying or “biting” as it was called was a very uncool thing. We only used templates when we needed to spray a branded logo on something for whatever reason. Templates were a cop out, and whether Banksy copied Blek le Rat’s style ‘back in the day’ or not – he’s still a trite template monkey. That, in essence, my homies, is whack. I went to see his rat ‘infested’ Crude Oils, I was happier that Ian Brown was there, looking ‘bemused’. What I don’t get about Banksy’s latest exploits in NewYork is – why is he surprised his pieces didn’t sell? I mean, this is fucking NewYork – they invented that shit. A template, sprayed on a canvas, is effectively a print, not even the skill of a lithograph. If he wanted to make a statement about the value of art, why not look back to Duchamp, or even more accessible, what about the KLF? The KLF are underestimated geniuses in my opinion. Around about the time, just before they burnt a million quid and tried to sell the ashes (The subsequent publicity launched their single to number one) – before that, they nailed a thousand pounds to a canvas and sold it for £900. Now, you don’t need a rib-digging “Get it, get it, get it!!?” Banksy in your ear to understand that if you dismantle the art to make £100 you do not appreciate the art for its philosophical worth, and potential future greater worth. The KLF were making the point to the art world, but I’m not clear on who Banksy is testing or mocking, or are we supposed to believe he is some modern day street art Robin Hood? He’s resurfaced on the internet thanks to some student making a quote of his into a Coke bottle. A quip against the ‘advertisers’. Although somewhat deluded and conspiracy theorist, it is really only a comment on hype and intrusion. Which is maybe something he himself has mastered. If he’s that bent on educating us all and making a statement, why doesn’t he paint, sorry, stencil Lady Thatcher on the side of Charles Saatchi’s house. Maybe she’s pregnant, and sports a Hitler moustache along with the Duchamp legend “L.H.O.O.Q.” emblazoned underneath. Fuck it, maybe I’ll do it and release my picture book entitled “Am I not clever?”

The anti-establishment Banksy has spent so much time hyping himself to heard that he’s become part of an establishment. The trouble is for me, he’s been taking the piss so long, I think he’s forgotten his point. 

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized