We might even reasonably say that art of low technique which is as appreciated as much as art of high technique is better because it can done more quickly and more efficiently. After all, is it the art or the experience had through viewing the art that people want? Say for example, the experience of walking down the street and experiencing the ‘ghosts’ of the city in the form of art on the wall.

Besides that, Banksy uses more technique on canvas and less on walls probably because they get painted over by vandals or the city.

In a world where art is everywhere (movies with big budget CGI, advertising, architecture etc…) emphasising a message becomes (or at least can be) very important for a modern artist. People like to tout on about artists like Leonardo Da Vinci, from an apparent cultural high ground, but if he were alive today, I strongly suspect that he would do something different himself.

By the late 19th Century, any competent artist could do photorealism, and photographers were seriously cutting into their portrait business. Then a man named Picasso had a brilliant idea: Instead of limiting ourselves to what is natural and beautiful, let’s open up the subject space by painting things that are unnatural, disgusting, or just plain weird. Instead of following a few well-established styles, let’s each invent our own unique “style” that says, “Look at me, I’m special! I painted the canvas solid black, no one ever thought to do that before!”