A controversial Banksy work at the British Royal Court of Justice in London.Image: keystone
An investigation by Reuters has revealed who is behind the world-famous pseudonym “Banksy”. But many don’t enjoy the revelation.
March 15, 2026, 9:40 a.mMar 15, 2026, 10:34 am
He is one of the best-known and most mysterious figures in the art industry and receives attention far beyond this with his graffiti works, which often appear suddenly and in unexpected places. Now reporters from the renowned news agency have Reuters Through extensive research, we found out who was behind the pseudonym “Banksy”.
The artist’s real name is Robin Gunningham and he was born in 1973 in Bristol, Great Britain. He is said to have later had his name changed to the common English name David Jones to make it more difficult to trace him.
What’s interesting is that even if the Reuters report leaves little doubt about Banksy’s identity, the assumption that Robin Gunningham is behind the world-famous pseudonym is not new. Gunningham’s name was mentioned for the first time in 2008 by the British newspaper “Mail on Sunday” in connection with Banksy’s identity. The paper was unable to definitively prove its information.
And by changing his name to David Jones, which the artist is said to have made at that time, he is said to have managed to avoid being finally unmasked. Although his old name was known, the artist himself managed to remain unrecognized for years.
How did the Reuters journalists finally find out about Banksy? According to the report, a trip to Ukraine was crucial. In December 2022, works by Banksy appeared in the war-torn country. In one case, in the village of Horenka, which is just outside Kiev, the creators of a graffiti were observed by witnesses. They reported how two masked people brought a work of art to ruins destroyed by Russian bombs within a few minutes.
The man in the bathtub in the bombed-out house: This Banksy work appeared in Horenka, Ukraine.Image: keystone
Reuters journalists were able to trace the sprayers’ journey from that point on and connect them to further information about Banksy. Through further witness statements and connections in the art scene, the reporters came across a court case from 2000 in New York – a former manager of Banksy had told them that the artist had once been legally convicted.
In unpublished New York court documents, a man was convicted of defacing an advertising poster. He admitted this in a handwritten confession signed with the name Robin Gunningham. According to Reuters, the name, signature and other details matched previous clues to Banksy’s identity.
The second Ukraine sprayer is believed to have been Robert Del Naja. The musician and artist is the frontman of the group Massive Attack and was previously suspected of being behind Banksy. However, Del Naja is said to have only frequently worked with Gunningham on projects.
Robert Del Naja performing with his band.Image: EPA/LUSA
Banksy, or David Jones or Robin Gunningham, did not want to comment on the report. Instead, Banksy’s long-time lawyer Mark Stephens, who is considered the artist’s public mouthpiece, took the stand Vanity Fair reported. According to Reuters, Stephens wanted to prevent the article from being published. He criticized the purpose of the research itself – the artist might be exposed to threats as a result, and it was imperative that his true self remain hidden from the public. Stephens also stated that not all details in the Reuters report were accurate.
According to Stephens, Banksy’s anonymous work also serves social interests, such as the expression of freedom of expression. Creative people could speak the truth through anonymity without having to fear “retaliation, censorship or persecution”. Banksy’s works always have a political or social tone and sometimes point out grievances. Ultimately, the artist also benefits financially from the myth created by anonymity.
The Reuters revelation did not necessarily meet with a positive response from the public either. In the social media Many people criticize that Banksy has such a strong impact because he is a mystery. If this no longer exists, the importance of his works of art would also disappear, according to the tenor. Many also find the research unnecessary. (con)