What a perfect example that it is popularity that brings success, not secrecy.

Popularity is often the goal of street art, the work is put on or executed on highly visible walls for that very reason. The street artist tends to seek the spotlight not evade it (through his art).
The only reason for anonymity is the illicit nature of the act.
Getting caught is counterproductive to the creation and spread of the art.
Immediacy is key.
I do find it a bit condescending that the article insists on using the verb “vandalize” for the act, but legally it’s just that, an act of vandalism.

The problem of Thierry is the formulaic appropriation of something that was naturally born from years of practice, the art DOES need popularity, it also needs to be commercialized to sustain its self, but it is not a business first, it is communication first.
And the man was hardly able to communicate his own thoughts, little less transform them into works of art, and in that sense the man was a farce.

A good article, author of the materials and insights have special place, welcome to my home page ：http://www.tocoy.net, hope can bring you help, also hope to give my homepage provides valuable Suggestions.

This article reminds me of so many mises institute publications. It takes a subject that is meaningful in some context to some people and attempts to show the reader how economics are at play behind the wheels of even THIER world in ways they could never imagine…..If you arn’t “into” street art, dont read this article to understand it, look elsewhere. This guy explains it somewhere between poorly and wrong. Everything from celebrity hand prints in LA cement to free hand graffiti is streetart, you could argue danceing and other live things are also streetart. The one thing that ALL street art has in common is that it TAKES PLACE ON THE STREET, as in NOT in a market…..”not for sale” in other words……But really look up Banksy, hes done legit art gallery stuff, not really a street artist…..Hes a street artist like rush is a journalist.

hi i’m asher i have read this article, really interesting story for me.. but i need to read again to really understand it.
thanks

Given the interest of the participants of this web site in economics, I am surprised there is such a lack of economic analysis in the article. The economic aspect of an artist’s work, in relation to the public or a market, includes the acquisition of resources and the means of execution, regardless of the ‘spiritual’ content of the work. The process of moving from the street to the galleries to the museums (if the artist is so lucky), as with the fortunes of many small businesses, generally takes a long time, marginal finances, and luck with long shots. Banksy fits into this model; Thierry doesn’t. So what really went on?