
The Economist is running an article entitled “Serbian street art: Belgrade’s Banksys.” From the title, it’s pretty obvious what it’s about — but the article author does not seem to understand Serbian street art or the (new) Belgrade’s history. A commenter argues, convincingly, that this is yet another poorly researched and ill-informed article from The Economist:
Errrmm… No.
Neither is “New Belgrade” classifiable as “so called”, nor is it suburban. Were the subject researched a little bit better, this would have been painfully obvious.
New Belgrade is remarkable in its design, development and short, but fascinating history.
True, its development was stagnated during the war years, and yes, there was an influx of wide spectrum of populace from around the former Yugoslavia into it, but this influx was present in every other city and community, not just New Belgrade.
As for the art… Art as art was always present, in its good and bad form, even before the wars.
So, I have to conclude with sadness, this is yet another ill researched and ill informed article trying to make something into something that it is not. The linguistic mess in the previous sentence is deliberate.
I totally agree with the comment. That said, it’s worth taking a look at the “Belgrade street artists” image gallery of The Economist. Want to know more about Belgrade street art? Visit Belgrade Stencil in English excellent website.