@tinyfaery this is all very subjective territory.. but I’ll tell you what I see and how I relate to his aesthetic:
In short: I consider him a comic book artist similar to Gary Larson with a visual style similar to the sort of cut-and-dry illustrations you would find in old school text books. They are direct and simple illustrations, not necessarily surreal or funny in themselves.. Their somewhat boring appeal contrasts the brilliant messaging that they’re a part of. The artwork itself, visually, is almost entirely unremarkable. They feel like they won’t have any kind of well thought message behind them. They’re in disguise, like so many of the bad things in society which they allude to.
I almost like them better when I hear that you (not you personally, of course) don’t see an aesthetic appeal in them. I consider that more of a success on his part. That he communicates without candy coating is also a paradox because there are certainly less aesthetic ways to communicate still.
He’s achieved a level of visual minimalism that communicates extremely clearly and everything from the visual appeal to the “writing” of the pieces feels purposeful.
Another comment on the visual style, it feels like a graduated street artist’s work. If you take a regular vandal and graduate him up through the highest levels of art while maintaining his medium, the permission-less public space, you would have a banksy. His artwork is true to the form.
@ragingloli, yes, he is a vandal. He’s good at it. He has mastered the art.
Sorry, i can’t spend much time editing this :(