45
votes
Reuters reveals Banksy's identity in a long investigation
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- In search of Banksy, Reuters found the artist took on a new identity
- Published
- Mar 13 2026
- Word count
- 3492 words
I get the blasé reaction to this, but I find it (the "exposure") fucked up. Yes, the 2008 exposé was right, I was there too, but the evidence wasn't firm enough to make a splash that stuck. But here we are doing it to build cache with readers of one of the largest news services in the world. Whatever. I'm not attached to Banksy, but taking some whimsy out of the world just for the cred makes me want to vomit.
That's interesting, I never found Banksy whimsical so perhaps that's why I don't have strong feelings about it? I suspect most folks will go on like nothing has changed because he can still do his thing.
But I think it's really interesting to see this article framed both as killing whimsy and fascist threats in this thread.
For my part, the whimsy is "not knowing" who the real Banksy is. Sure, he's been unmasked before, and people moved on in denial, as you put it. They're not seeking out this information, maybe because it's inspiring to have an anonymous or at least questionably identified artist out taking shots at those in power. Do you not understand or do you disagree? I'm having trouble nailing down your viewpoint. (Not an insult. I respect you).
Edit: My biggest issue is the intentional announcement of revealing this despite his, his management's, and especially his fans' requests not to. But it's "of interest" to the readers, so...take that? Maybe my position is that it feels gross. I'm okay with that.
I don't know; I feel like he loses some of that super-secret underground artist cred when he has a manager helping him to earn millions on his art. I don't fault him for it, but it feels like having his cake and eating it too.
No I understand why you find it a piece of whimsy, it just doesn't feel that way to me. It's not even a "I don't agree" it's that I didn't feel that way about Banksy, so I dont have any sense of a loss of whimsy now. And since I didn't find him whimsical, I had the blasé reaction and not one more similar to yours.
And I think it's because his work itself wasn't whimsical (or at least my perception of it). I also think it's because he's not new anymore. He isn't just a mysterious guy, he's been around for 20+ years and isn't dodging arrest but seems to be making quite a bit of money now. And good for him, to be clear. But I just don't have that emotional attachment.
So I get why a piece of whimsy being ripped away is heart wrenching. After all, I'm here occasionally roleplaying as someone desperately trying to convince everyone they're not one of the Fair Folk, because I think the world is a bit more fun with magic. And obviously I'm just a human like everyone else.
My last line was just regarding the span of different responses, that this article has destroyed whimsy and made you feel ill, and to another person is a fascist threat of persecution because art is too threatening. It is quite a spectrum. But it's just an observation with no intended subtext or snark or anything.
I get it now! What's funny is that for me, there was really no whimsy left. I just hoped there was for others, but I really have no reason to think so.
More importantly:
Bullshit! You'll never convince me.
𖡼𖤣𖥧𖡼𓋼𖤣𖥧𓋼𓍊𖡼𖤣𖥧𖡼
nothing new here. Gunningham used to go as Robin Banks back in the day.. yada yada yada. there’s no benefit to knowing ‘who’ Banksy.
That really is the conclusion I came to after reading this. Like oh, this was literally "exposed" in 2008 and everyone just moved on with a denial. Banksy isn't at risk of persecution, his persona is just part of the performance. And that's fine!
He was really smart changing his name, frankly.
If you ever see a Banksy exhibit thing coming through town, don't go to it. Its a total scam and not authorized or endorsed by him.
I like Banksy's larger works, but for stencils, Blek le Rat is still better.
Perhaps I’m just not “familiar with Ukrainian immigration procedures”, but are Ukrainian immigration records public data? Or is this term a euphemism for Reuters bribing Ukrainian immigration officials to illegally reveal data?
I imagine it's a bit more casual than that; I'm sure most immigration officials would rightly balk at sharing actual private records, but I'm also sure that if you're a reporter working locally it's totally plausible to have a conversation like "Hey, Anton, your cousin works at the border post, right? Can you ask him if he saw [notable celebrity] a few weeks ago? I got a tip that he might've visited...".
That said, I'm kinda ambivalent about the article as a whole - I think it's right about the public interest argument in a broad general sense, I think it makes some very fair points about Banksy getting special treatment that other artists don't, and I personally think that Banksy's messaging is pretty trite anyway, but I also think that Banksy absolutely does needle at establishment thinking in a way that seems to resonate with a wide audience. The tone the article uses when talking about him doesn't quite sit right with me in terms of what it suggests about their motivations in publishing it, even though that's more of a broad feeling than a specific fault in what they're saying.
I also initially thought it might be that, but the statements suggest otherwise. They directly refer to records, include what appear to be searches over long timescales (eg, there was no record of someone with a particular name ever entering the country), and include records of passport information based on name searches.
Yeah actually, now that you say it a couple of those do only really make sense if they had someone doing specific searches on their behalf. I'll be honest, I wasn't reading with absolute full focus on this one, and I was parsing "sources told us" as the more casual scenario - I think that still could've plausibly been the case for a couple of things they said - but you're right that "no record" for specific names, and referencing the specific passport details for others, very much sounds like someone was taking the reporter's questions and typing them straight into the main system, which definitely isn't a great look.
but why
Because art irritates fascists.
Especially art that cannot be monetized.
A billboard is just corporate graffiti.
It's just a coincidence that unmasking prevents them from doing what they do.
It's one thing to unmask a violent arsonist. Or someone gobbling up 2/3 of the world's wealth. Or is buying politicians.
It's another when it's an artist.
It'd be nice if Rueters applied this level of journalism where it would challenge those in power instead of the ones inspiring those whom are not.
I have a genuine question. Did you read the article?
Banksy no longer goes by his old legal name and now in fact has one of the most common legal names in the UK. Or has in fact changed it again possibly. I don't actually think that this article will impede banksy's ability to do art in any significant way.
But I could be misreading the situation
Edit: to be clear, I don't necessarily think this article needs to be written or posted, but frankly his identity was revealed almost 20 years ago. Everyone just denied it. So I don't know. Beyond being a celebrity in general, it is not clear to me that he's actually facing any real threat of prosecution or persecution at this point in time.
I was mostly commenting on the way that policy was worded. Specifically this one:
Given the UK's fetish with deanonymization, I quite dislike the implications.
As well as legal name changes having a paper trail. It'll keep John Q public at bay for a bit, but criminal prosecutors will have no trouble.
Banksy has a company and a manager. If they wanted to arrest him I'm pretty sure they could find a way to do so. Like I know that he started very much at risk of that, but currently that does not seem as if they have any interest in prosecuting him.
"We unmasked Banksy, we'll unmask you. Now fall in line."
It's very much one of those situations where it would be a lot less ominous say in 2008.
I mean sure, if you imagine Reuters as an arm of the British Government and invent shit they didn't say or even imply. You literally said they did this because "art irritates fascists." Are the writers the fascists?
I'm pretty ambivalent about the story, and I understand caring about privacy but this really seems just like a knee-jerk "first they came for the artists" response when literally they seem to have found a 2008 article and fact checked it, dressing it up as more investigative than it was and literally no one is coming for the artist.
A kto to przyszedł? Pan maruda, niszczyciel dobrej zabawy, pogromca uśmiechów dzieci.
nic już nie jest zabawne ani święte