[journal home]

Caelyn Anderson is a Visual Studies Student at Dominican University of California and a political collage artist. Much of her research focuses on the social issues surrounding artists and art, and some of her other work has examined the ownership claims of the Elgin Marbles and Anti-Feminism in the Early Surrealist Movement.

Dismaland and Banksy: A Castle-full of Hypocrisy, Exploitation, and Fame

Caelyn Anderson, Dominican University of California

Imagine, if you will, a sleepy seaside town in Somerset: a quaint village, which was once a popular destination for families who wanted a cheap summer getaway; a quiet town with an economy on the decline, praying for a hero to come save them. In 2015 the artist Banksy was that hero.[1]Constructed in secret and revealed to the press exactly two days before its opening, Dismaland took the art world by storm: a “theme park” designed by Banksy, featuring art from a combination of more than 58 artists from all over the world, with the slogan “a theme park whose big theme is — theme parks should have bigger themes.”[2] Some of the many issues addressed in this exhibition were global warming, the rise of fake news, and anti-consumerism.[3] Whereas art savants and celebrities like Brad Pitt and Jack Black thought this show was clever,[4] critics have more than one bone to pick with Dismaland. This theme park installation, although a huge laugh to some, was a perfect encapsulation of everything wrong with Banksy for others. Not only was Dismaland a huge middle finger to working-class families, it was full of hypocrisies and seems to have furthered Banksy’s career rather than solve any of the issues it presented. This fake theme park was for the bourgeoisie, the middle-class folks who look down their noses at blue-collar workers and sneer at millionaires. Critics say, “Banksy is modern capitalism’s loss of faith in itself made flesh. He’s a brilliant monetizer of the modern bourgeoisie’s self-disgust and fear of the masses.”[5] Many argue that all Banksy is, is a rich, popular, and most probably white artist, making fun of people who can do nothing but function in the system they are stuck in. While I can appreciate the hard work behind Dismaland and the artists who contributed pieces to the show, this exhibition fell flat. The present essay will examine the hypocrisy underlying Banksy's work, explore examples of his exploitation of marginalized communities, and argue that both Dismaland and other Banksy creations serve not to advance art and meaning but rather to promote his brand and career.

The Dismaland experience began in a cardboard security office. Guards would pat you down and check your bag, all in a very humorous display. Once you entered the park, the first thing many people reported seeing were lines—lines that crisscrossed and would take hours to diminish. Some park-goers reported that they had no idea what they were waiting for, they just felt the need to see what everyone else was seeing.[6] Dismaland featured art from some of my favorite artists, like Jenny Holzer and the creators of “Don’t Hug Me I’m Scared,” but Banksy was the star of the show, his installations being the most popular attractions. One of the most Instagrammable installations at Dismaland was the twisted take on Cinderella’s Castle, reimagined as a crumbling ruin surrounded by gloom. Inside, visitors found Cinderella's crashed pumpkin carriage turned on its side, while paparazzi figures with flashing cameras swarmed her lifeless body (see Figure 1).[7]

Nearby, a miniature refugee boat game invited visitors to steer tiny overcrowded vessels packed with migrant figures through turbulent waters. There was also a partially submerged police riot van, surrounded by murky water and accompanied by toy-like riot police figures. A nearby sculpture garden featured a figure being mauled by seagulls, which were surveillance drones in disguise.[8] The park put on performances by popular anti-establishment bands and played a looping collection of films made by different UK creators. The park broadcasted Hawaiian steel guitar music that was occasionally interrupted by messages like “If you behaved nicely, the communists wouldn’t exist.”[9] One park-goer described the experience as a “media phenomenon.” Being present at the park wasn’t impactful, it was just something people participated in so they could say that they had participated.[10] No important revelations about the world here; purely celebrity power bringing people together. Another park-goer wrote “The whole thing screams, ‘We are intelligent. You—while not not intelligent—could probably do with reading a few more books.’”[11] For many, the park felt smug. However, it’s impossible to look at the art from Dismaland and not appreciate the quality of it. Dismaland Cinderella is chilling; Banksy’s use of flashing cameras as the only light source on the piece is extremely effective. The carnival games that you can only lose are funny. But it’s important to understand the scope and the impact of this artist, before blindly laughing at whatever Banksy brilliantly brands on a wall next.

One of the main issues that Banksy’s Dismaland confronted was the idea of anti-consumerism. This is all well and good until you consider the consumerist nature of the show itself. The tickets cost money, people flew in from all around the world, ate at restaurants, stayed in hotels, and paid for merchandise. The definition of consumerism from Investopedia is “the idea that increasing the consumption of goods and services purchased in the market is always a desirable goal, and that a person's well-being and happiness depend fundamentally on obtaining consumer goods and material possessions.”[12] By this definition, Dismaland was not just complicit in consumerism—it actively fueled it. Rather than dismantling the system, Banksy capitalized on it, turning anti-consumerist art into a tourist attraction and revenue stream. The irony is unavoidable: a supposed critique of capitalism that could only be accessed through capitalist means.

Although this show was a valiant attempt at assessing consumerism, capitalism, and theme park culture, an interesting article by Theme Park Thoughts explains that Dismaland is not as much of a parody as Banksy intended: “Many real amusement parks the world over look just like this…. This is the theme park reality for many thousands of people, not an ironic portrayal of them.” In attempting to satirize working-class entertainment, Dismaland insults the intelligence and taste of not only the people who visit theme parks but its own visitors as well.[13] Instead of targeting the capitalist elite, Banksy directs his critique at its victims, turning their experiences into a spectacle for the art world. Theme Park Thoughts goes further, arguing that Dismaland fails to meet Banksy’s own definition of meaningful art: “It’s not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster.” In reality, there was nothing risky about Dismaland. Banksy is well known and beloved, and his art is both marketable and broadly accessible. Far from revolutionary, Dismaland offered safe, commodified cynicism—art designed to provoke just enough to feel edgy, but not enough to truly challenge power or spark change. Nothing in Dismaland has the potential to be a disaster, so (by Banksy’s own definition) it’s not art.

Many folks who enjoyed Dismaland argue the fact that much of its effectiveness comes from the curated art from more than 58 different artists in the exhibition. What those folks fail to mention is that the majority of artists who are featured in this exhibition are already world-renowned artists, like Damien Hirst, who don’t need the publicity from this show.[14] The work from lesser-known artists were still under Banksy’s control. A key indicator of this control was how Bansky responded to an issue with one of his artists. Shadi Alzaqzouq, an artist from Palestine, was not aware of the fact that artists from Israel, including one who was a former military member, were also contributing to this art show.[15] When he found out about this, Alzaqzouq decided to protest by covering up his pieces with a bedsheet he had taken from his hotel room and inscribing them “R.I.P Gaza: Boycott Israel”[16] (see Figure 2). Alzaqzouq then lay on the floor below his paintings. After only thirty minutes, security approached him, before calling Banksy’s manager. After Alzaqzouq had explained his protest, he was told that his attempt was “too ugly” for Dismaland. The manager also claimed that Banksy wanted the Palestinian artist’s work to be taken down from display. Although that didn’t end up happening, the artist himself was removed from Dismaland. Alzaqzouq had this to say upon his removal from the project, “I just tried to send him a message—in a very Banksy kind of way—that I objected, and then I was told it would be taken down. I am surprised.”[17] This is a situation that highlights Banksy’s hypocrisy: He is more than willing to make political art when it benefits him, but when someone else attempts to protest in a way that impacts Banksy’s vision, it’s “too ugly” to be displayed. For a political artist like Banksy, whose anti-establishment art has spurred his success, this doesn’t sit right. This act of suppression shows that Banksy only cares about protest art when it can benefit him.

Banksy is an artist who capitalizes on situations where minority artists are unable to speak up for themselves. Take, for example, his art in Gaza (see Figure 3) . Banksy painted a kitten on the remains of a house in Gaza that had been wrecked by an Israeli air strike.[18] Rather than supporting recovery efforts, amplifying Palestinian voices, or offering direct aid, Banksy spent thousands of dollars traveling to Gaza to leave his signature murals on crumbling walls. When asked about the kitten, he explained, “I wanted to highlight the destruction in Gaza by posting photos on my website, but on the internet people only look at pictures of kittens.”[19] This statement is not only glib and condescending, it also reveals how Banksy centers himself in a crisis that is not his own. His explanation reduces a humanitarian catastrophe to a social media experiment, reinforcing his role as a beneficiary rather than a participant in real change.

Shailee Koranne from Huffpost wrote, “Why is it that we feel more inclined to listen when an artist with a White-savior attitude comes into Gaza with ease, talking over the many indigenous Palestinians who don't have the same mobility?” Banksy uses his position as an artist to take advantage of those who cannot speak up for themselves. In fact, his entire existence as a graffiti artist is built on historical graffiti artists of the 1970s and 1980s whose art was scrubbed from walls.[20] The mainstream’s reaction to Black and Latino graffiti artists of the 1970s and 1980s was anything but positive. But now? Banksy has turned graffiti into a hot commodity. Banksy’s probable Whiteness plays a significant role in the way his graffiti is received, celebrated, and commodified. And though his identity remains unconfirmed, one article states, “You may say that we don’t know Banksy is White for sure, but he has a Bristol accent and he was ‘allowed’ to graffiti the Israeli West Bank Wall, so make your own conclusions… any shade of brown clutching a spray-can would have been gunned down by the IDF.”[21] This stark contrast underscores how race and perceived identity shape the reception of street art. Whereas artists of color have been arrested, harassed, or even killed for similar acts, Banksy’s work is protected, praised, and sold for millions. His existence reinforces a double standard that favors White artists who adopt rebellious aesthetics without facing the same consequences as the marginalized communities that pioneered them. Meanwhile, artists like Blu, Saype, and Bordalo II—whose work is equally powerful and politically charged—remain largely unrecognized by mainstream audiences, buried under the weight of Banksy’s fame. The disparity isn’t just about skill or style—it’s about who is allowed to speak and whose voice is amplified in the global art conversation.

After Dismaland was closed and deconstructed, Banksy sent the leftover pieces to a refugee camp in France. While this sounds like an act of generous philanthropy, I highly doubt it was. Take a look at what the refugee camp looked like after Banksy's donation (see Figure 4). This is a very obvious attempt to further Banksy's popularity, wealth, and agenda. Not even he should be allowed to turn a refugee camp into a joke. Thank you Banksy for the wood and metal, and thank you even more for slapping your name on it; I’m sure the refugees appreciated the “Dismal Aid” they received and shared a chuckle over the new title of their camp.[22]

Banksy is an incredibly successful artist; of that there is no doubt. From selling shredded paintings for more than one million dollars to opening an art hotel in Palestine, his success has created a monster. His work is derivative and overhyped, “the kind of social criticism you’d expect to see at an end of school art show put together by 16 year olds about stuff they don’t really understand or have any experience of.”[23]He is known to take advantage of art forms that when created by people of color have been cited as vandalism. “What this means in my opinion, is either Banksy is knowingly and/or happily part of the establishment and therefore a fraud or a complete and utter idiot.”[24]Dismaland is just another installation that screams at average people that we “unlike Banksy and his fanboys and girls in the liberal media, have been sucked in by the empty promises and fleeting rewards of modern Western culture and capitalism.”[25]Banksy spoon-feeds political art to those who don’t want to put in any effort. His art is simple, it doesn't push the envelope or make its viewers confront difficult truths. It’s Revolution Lite, it’s pretentious, and it’s a waste of your time. Everything shown at Dismaland has been said before in a thousand ways by a thousand artists. “Consumerism is bad, Disney is evil, advertising is dishonest — we got it.”[26]Revolutionary artists use their art to challenge people, explore new ideas, and incite self-reflection. Huffpost writes “Art is not revolutionary if it is so easily consumed.” Banksy’s art is so digestible, it is no longer shocking. Banksy is a hypocrite, who uses his fame to take advantage of marginalized communities. Much of his art targets the system we live in and how terrible it is, but Banksy is representative of the system. Dismaland illustrates Banksy’s faults so clearly but at the end of the day, he is a cog in a larger machine—a hypocritical artist who profits from his pretentious nature and from the marginalization of communities of color. What else is new?

Notes

[1] Masterworks. “What Is Banksy’s Dismaland ?” Masterworks, 2 Nov. 2022, insights.masterworks.com/art/artists/what-is-banksys-dismaland

[2] Ibid

[3] “Dismaland: 4 Powerful Reasons Why the Dystopian Banksy Theme Park Still Resonates Today.” Maddox Gallery. Accessed XXXX, www.maddoxgallery.com/news/368-dismaland-4-powerful-reasons-why-the-dystopian-banksy.

[4] Masterworks, “What Is Banksy’s Dismaland?”

[5] O’Neill, Brendan. “Banksy: The Master of Middle-class Misanthropy.” Spiked, 24 Aug. 2015, www.spiked-online.com/2015/ 08/24/banksy-the-master-of-middle-class-misanthropy.

[6] VICE. “Dismaland Is a Smug, Clichéd Monument to Banksy’s Dated Agenda.” VICE, 29 July 2024, www.vice.com/en/article/dismaland-isnt-what-you-think-it-is-or-what-it-thinks-it-is-292

[7] Jobson, Christopher. “Welcome to Dismaland: A First Look at Banksy’S New Art Exhibition Housed Inside a Dystopian Theme Park.” Colossal, 31 Aug. 2024, www.thisiscolossal.com/2015/08/dismaland.

[8] Jobson, “Welcome to Dismaland.”

[9] Vice, “Dismaland is a Smug, Clichéd Monument.”

[10] e-flux, http://www.e-flux.com. “Banksy’s Dismaland: ‘a Lot of Bad Art by the Seaside.’” E-flux Conversations, 24 Aug. 2015, conversations.e-flux.com/t/banksys-dismaland-a-lot-of-bad-art-by-the-seaside/2314.

[11] Vice, “Dismaland is a Smug, Clichéd Monument.”

[12] Hayes, Adam. “Consumerism: Definition, Economic Impact, Pros & Cons.” Investopedia, 14 July 2024, www.investopedia.com/terms/c/ consumerism.asp#:~:text=Consumerism%20is%20the%20idea%20that,consumer%20goods%20and%20material%20possessions.

[13] Theme Park Thoughts. “Banksy’s Dismaland and Theme Parks as an Art Medium.” Medium, 13 Jan. 2018, medium.com/ @themeparkthoughts/banksys-dismaland-and-theme-parks-as-an-art-medium-f89813314ce8.

[14] Koranne, Shailee. “Dismaland Is Not Interesting and Neither Is Banksy.” HuffPost, 28 Aug 2016. www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/ dismaland-is-not-interesting-and-neither-is-banksy_b_8049062.

[15] John, Tara. “Palestinian Artist Thrown Out of Dismaland for Anti-Israel Protest.” TIME, 27 Aug. 2015, time.com/4012897/dismaland-palestinian-artist.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Wright, Alex. “Palestinian Artist Booted From Banksy’s Dismaland for anti-Israel Protest.” The New Arab, www.newarab.com/ news/palestinian-artist-booted-banksys-dismaland-anti-israel-protest.

[18] Koranne, “Dismaland Is Not Interesting and Neither Is Banksy.”

[19] Laboureau, Sebastien, and Sebastien Laboureau. “Gaza Murals, August 2015 - Banksy Explained.” Banksy Explained -, 27 June 2021, banksyexplained.com/gaza-murals-february-2015.

[20] With, What Went Wrong or Right. “What Went Wrong With… Banksy?” WHAT WENT WRONG WITH...?, 7 Apr. 2025, whatwentwrongwith.com/2023/08/01/what-went-wrong-with-banksy.

[21] Ibid.

[22] e-flux, “Banksy’s Dismaland: ‘a Lot of Bad Art by the Seaside.’”

[23] Thoughts, “Banksy’s Dismaland and Theme Parks as an Art Medium.”

[24] What Went Wrong?, “What Went Wrong With… Banksy?”

[25] O’Neill, “Banksy: The Master of Middle-class Misanthropy.”

[26] Nudelman, Mike. “Banksy’s ‘Dismaland’ Is Art About Nothing — and We’re Over It.” Business Insider, 24 Aug. 2015, www.businessinsider.com/banksys-dismaland-is-bad-and-boring-2015-8.