Banksy's Venice mural restoration debate: ephemerality vs. spectacle

Daniele Nicolosi argues that the debate over restoring Banksy's 'Migrant Child' in Venice is misguided, as the work is designed not as traditional street art but as a viral 'web-postcard' for self-promotion. He contends that Banksy's practice, which he terms 'Banksyianism,' shifted after 2001 from local, anonymous urban intervention to a global media spectacle driven by Instagram authentication and calculated location choices (e.g., Venice for climate crisis visibility). Nicolosi criticizes the romanticization of ephemerality, noting that the true transient aspect is the pre-planned operation, not the physical graffiti. He suggests that to honor the artist's supposed environmental message, the work should be removed and sold, with proceeds used for lagoon protection, rather than preserved. The article references the Arab Spring's use of agency (Judith Butler) as a contrast to Banksy's self-serving tactics, and compares his work unfavorably to William Kentridge's smog-disappearing installation in Rome. Nicolosi also mentions Fabio Roversi-Monaco's case in Bologna as a precedent for evolving views on preservation. The piece ultimately questions whether defenders of the work are actually opposing institutions by proxy.