Written by: Priyanshi Saxena4 min readApr 3, 2026 06:19 AM IST First published on: Apr 3, 2026 at 06:19 AM ISTA recent article on the revelation of Banksy’s identity (‘We now know who Banksy is. But does that change anything?’, IE, March 26) revisits a familiar tension in the art world: What happens when anonymity — so central to some artists’ mythology — collides with a market that thrives on names? This strikes at an older, unresolved debate: Is the value of an artwork determined by the work itself, or the name authoring it?There are a few metrics in calculating the price value of an artwork, including intrinsic value — based on the cost of material and the time invested — and extrinsic value, which includes “historicity”, launch, and landing markets, and the life stage of the artist’s market. These differ at the levels of primary and secondary markets. In practice, however, they often collapse into one factor: Authorship. The artist’s name becomes shorthand for quality, relevance and financial security.AdvertisementThe question remains: Do we value The Starry Night as an artwork because of the merit and impact of the work, or because it was created by Vincent van Gogh? The question is uncomfortable because it suggests that our aesthetic judgement is rarely pure.This slippage — from work to name — now mirrors another domain — luxury branding. We do not simply buy a well-made shirt; we buy a Dior shirt. The emphasis shifts from material, craftsmanship and cut to the label’s aura. Similarly, when art is consumed as a brand, its value is decoupled from its making and reattached to its market identity. It’s a dangerous shift, which privileges perception over substance. It also entrenches a value system largely shaped by Western market structures, where distance between maker, market, and money is often the norm. The artist becomes a brand, circulating in financial and institutional networks far removed from the act of creation.In contrast, much of the Global South has historically retained a more intimate understanding of making. Whether in textile traditions, sculpture, or craft traditions, there is an embedded respect for the skill, labour, and the sacred dimension of creation. Cultural memory does not just celebrate the artefact, it reveres the act of making. The optics of ownership in a world of brands exacerbates inequities: As the brand grows, the distance between the creator and the economic value of their work can widen, leaving artists both overexposed and undercompensated.AdvertisementOne of the biggest reasons Banksy, and a lot of graffiti artists, remain anonymous is that as a format, graffiti is anti-state, and illegal in most countries. He hasn’t been too pleased with his works reaching auction houses, and has mocked it, like when his Girl with Balloon was auto-shredded while it was being auctioned. Banksy and artists like Maurizio Cattelan mock the market’s insatiable appetite for spectacle.What dealers can do in this case, if they care about the artists and the art market, is set rights of resale or define ownership in a way that the buyer cannot flip a work for profit. We can help temper excess. The Banksy moment offers an opening. It asks us to suspend our fixation on authorship and return, however briefly, to the work itself. In an age increasingly defined by brands, that return may be the only way to preserve art as something more than a commodity.The writer is an art advisor and curator