Christopher Walken painted over an original Banksy

Originally published at: Christopher Walken painted over an original Banksy | Boing Boing


‘Impermanence’ is an inevitable part of existing.


What are the logistics involved in keeping this guy anonymous when he’s working with BBC producers and painting on film sets?


What do you mean? Her real identity was unmasked a decade ago.


Has anyone created an NFT of the footage in a gif yet?


It wasn’t an original, it was a stencil. That’s basically tracing.


And Andy Warhol’s silk screen prints were basically xeroxes.


I’m up to episode 3 (yeah - watching each week’s episode as it is broadcast - how quaint!) and so far it is shaping up nicely. Ok so the Banksy thing was not a plot spoiler - but take care please!


Doubly so for street art. Lord only knows how many Basquiats are out there in the Lower East Side of Manhattan hiding underneath layers of other people’s paint.

Oh noes, you gave away his secret!

(Those stencils didn’t just pop into existence fully formed, you know)


Even after a sizable third cup of coffee, I still can’t give a shit about this.


Uh, how is this (or any Banksy) known to be an actual Banksy? His style is highly imitable.

Isn’t it obvious that was a fake Banksy painted over? The huge BANKSY signature is a massive giveaway.

Was there a press release saying “Hey, we destroyed a real Banksy!” Or by “lying” are you imputing that because we see a putative Banksy on the TV show, it must be an actual Banksy?

That office is only involved for prospective purchasers. Who is going to “expose” them? What is there to “expose”? It was an obvious fake being painted over as a gag. They could have reproduced a Mona Lisa on that wall just as well.

Or, it could be fake. No need to “commission”! Which is easier? I can entertain the idea it might be legitimate, but it would be so much easier to have an art student render up a creditable fake.

Im sure the public has no idea whether its real or fake. It would be equally as funny. Again, it would be like repainting over a Mona Lisa (in a mockup of the Louvre).

OK! See now we’re getting somewhere.

New tack. How do we know Walken “destroyed” it? If its water-soluable paint, it will wash right off.

1 Like

Especially when one finds he painted it specifically to be painted over.


Unless the show’s producers are flat-out lying through their teeth, yes. And if they are lying it should be exposed quickly through the office that handles his public communications and verifies his work.

Sure they COULD have easily forged a Banksy for the show, but commissioning a real one just to destroy it for a gag is exactly the kind of stunt that would tickle his funny bone.


Last I knew, her identity was still in question, but most likely to be Kamilah Al-Jamil.



A spokesperson for The Outlaw told The Mail: 'We can confirm that the artwork at the end of The Outlaws was an original Banksy, and that Christopher Walken painted over that artwork during the filming of this scene, ultimately destroying it."

A source told The Sun : ''The creative team came up with the dream scenario and got in touch with the artist’s representatives in the faint hope that he might help them.

So yes, this is coming from the people who made the show and not just wild speculation from people watching a comedy on TV.

Easier, sure. But it wouldn’t be as funny.


I thought it was massive attack? All I know is I saw their pop up store in Croydon (lived there at the time) and it was quite well done, I really liked the Tony the Tiger rug, and Stormzy’s stab vest, plus I think a welcome mat made of life vests…

I can also definitely see them being amused by their art being painted over.


Sorry, I’m making a reference to the TV show “The Good Place” wherein one of the characters is forever being overshadowed by her sister, Kamilah (the referenced individual in my link), who, among other praises, was voted most likely to be Banksy. As far as I know, they have not actually publicly annonounced their identity.

I can believe that. I know some artists who get quite a bit of amusement (mixed with pained concern) over how people treat their works. The artist may consider something a castaway piece, just a quick sketch or planning piece, and some of the fans treat it like the holy shoe. “Yeah, go ahead and destroy it on camera.” :smiley:

1 Like

So far all of the questions you have been asking have been answered by the article itself. Again:

'We can confirm that the artwork at the end of The Outlaws was an original Banksy, and that Christopher Walken painted over that artwork during the filming of this scene, ultimately destroying it."

If we assume the show’s spokespeople are big fat liars, or they deceived Banksy by lying about destroying it as agreed, then who knows. But there’s no evidence they lied about either getting Bansky’s involvement or destroying the piece.


Possibly, I’ve always gotten the idea that they put their art out there, and come what may, they don’t seem to want it to become an object traded between rich collectors, almost anything else is fair game, although they don’t want people making greeting cards with it either (seems they might have an issue with capitalism…)

1 Like

Masks, front people, and payment through an LLC.

Along with deliberately poking the speculation with a stick to keep it as ridiculous and unbelievable as possible.

A friend of mine worked on this as one of the drivers/performers.

He was identified as THE REAL BANKSY by NY area press. And though he wouldn’t confirm it, he was later sighted at various Banksy doings in the area. IIRC people had even come up with a suitably British name and back story for his American and 15 years too young ass. So I think it was Banksy’s people who initially fingered him, then hired him to keep it going for a bit.

He wouldn’t say a ton about the gig, but apparently he met with multiple be-masked people who identified themselves as Banksy. Sometimes several at once. He was paid, and all communications ran through Banksy’s company or his management team. One of whom the friend was very sure was most often in the mask. He has said he is 100% sure he never actually met Bansky, and didn’t know it was Bansky related until after it was booked and rehearsals began.

ETA: I should also say that I have no clue how much of what I was told is true. Could be further fuckery, could be that friend letting me in what he could.