http://www.businessinsider.com/banksys-dismaland-is-bad-and-...
He's getting mocked pretty bad on Tumblr too, which is notable considering how popular pictures of his work have been on there in the past.
This is just a completely nonsensical statement. Since when has art been about intellectual knowledge? "Yeah, yeah, trees are beautiful, I get it, stop with the landscape paintings please".
The purpose, at least in this case, is to take something that people already probably know, on an intellectual level, and give them some more visceral reaction to it.
And, to repeat myself from the last thread about this, Banksy is repetitive and cliche-ridden, but if marketing/advertising/campaigning bludgeons the point home (Eat such and such fast food and have a happy relationship with your children! Use such and such deodorant and have a sexy girlfriend! Have you absorbed this political talking point yet!?) it's only fair that people trying to puncture that are allowed the same license to labour the point to the edge of boredom and despair.
The installation about Princess Dianna's death really adds to the "by and for people who stopped paying attention to anything 20 years ago" vibe.
Princess Diana seems carefully selected to me. a more recent death would be "too soon". a less famous death wouldn't be familiar. a less public death wouldn't prove the point. a less innocent death wouldn't be sympathetic.
Anyway, it can't be as unoriginal as the "I'm going to take the highly original step of lampooning Paris Hilton... and fuel demand for an album most of us didn't realise she'd released" stunt he pulled off several years ago. But that got more attention than most of his street art too.
Perhaps people are finally seeing the hypocrisy? FYI His net worth is estimated at somewhere north of $20 million:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/daniellerahm/2013/10/22/banksy-t...