Banksy's art has a far stronger role to play in depicting his relationship with the art business than it does concerning either art or the ostensible subjects of his art. What he has to say about the art business is unsubtle and laboured, and is tainted by the financial gains his works accrue while he wears the mantle of someone sardonically critical of the sector, and by implication of capitalism. The irony is that he gets rich by criticising business. His artworks are more effective as advertising for his own portrayed persona. He has to be ranked as one of the world's most successful brand managers, but one of the least successful artists. He is great at saying he has great things to say.
Other British artists more or less successful as artists but highly efficient as self-publicists using art would include - Gilbert & George Antony Gormley Damien Hirst Tracey Emin Basquiat, Kapoor and Koons might qualify.
I mean, in the case of Hirst, Basquiat and Koons, they all produce work that looks good, but they also want desperately to be famous. These artists originated in an age of mass media and understand that in order for their work be admired at scale, they themselves needed to become media sensations. So they've employed all the cheap tricks of expert salesmen and annoying marketers in order to obtain that goal. Even if you don't care for their marketing or fame-lust, the art is pretty damn good and original. Koons for example works with teams of trained artists to produce his work, so it's not hacky stuff.
We all seek recognition, artists more so than others. Some can't gain recognition and flourish without layers of facilitators i.e galeries, critiques,.. who often conspire to build up artists as the next big thing in exchange for artwork as form of payment. Seen it done.