Reply With QuoteThis film showed exactly why I dislike interpretive art: If something can mean anything, it means nothing.
I think Banxy had 2 points:
1. Guetta is a fraud.
2. art does not respect you if you sell it or buy it.
I can't decide if this was real or an amazing, lengthy, mockumentary.
The first 55 minutes I had no reason to think this was anything other than an underground documentary. Then when the Thierry Guetta aka Mr. Brainwash truly goes nuts with his show it was so over-the-top I started to put pieces together that may or may not have been there.
* Thierry Guetta, being called Mr. Brainwash. Was this Banksy's way of saying how easy it is to brainwash people in modern society through the presentation of information. Present it as fact - and it becomes fact.
* Thierry Guetta's art displays were pretty much - not his. He has no talent, copies other work and adds a splash then sells it for tens of thousands of dollars. What does this say outside of "most art buyers are stupid"?
* Are French people really that nutty? He left his family (for years!) to follow some random (night) graffiti artist?
The original documentary Thierry Guetta cut did not seem complement Thierry Guetta at all, unless he'd done it all on Crack.
This film showed exactly why I dislike interpretive art: If something can mean anything, it means nothing.
I think Banxy had 2 points:
1. Guetta is a fraud.
2. art does not respect you if you sell it or buy it.
But that's making the assertion Banksy & Guetta didn't dream him up (Mr. Brainwash) and implement that character the way they did.Originally Posted by Sander 001
So you believe all the stuff about Guetta was totally for real?
All art is interpretive. That's why it's art. You could theoretically create some idea of art that isn't, but it would rely on not being observed, ever, and becomes more of a physics problem than an artistic one. Some people enjoy art that has a more predefined context in which to appreciate it, like a body of criticism or a lot of formal rules. Some people don't. And some people mix and match. It's all interpretive, though.
I think Banksy had a lot more going on in this documentary than you give him credit for, and it is itself interpretive art in that way you claim to hate. You and I can watch it and get totally different things out of it, and neither of us might be anywhere near what the creator intended.
I suspect (although I have no real reason to believe this, aside from my own interpretation of the movie) that Mr. Brainwash's art is actually a front for Banksy and his friends to have an outlet for the worst, hackiest ideas they can think of, sort of like how Vonnegut used the character of Kilgore Trout as a vehicle for his wackiest sci-fi ideas. The L.A. art show is essentially a massive fraud, as it's goal is to a) establish Brainwash as a real artist, and b) sell some truly horrible art.
Once the last part of the movie gets going, it becomes harder to trust anything you've been told. Somebody must have filmed that footage of street artists, but was it necessarily Guetta that did it? I also have to assume the first cut we see of Thierry's movie is a wild parody of terrible film-student garbage, but who knows?* Are French people really that nutty? He left his family (for years!) to follow some random (night) graffiti artist?
Thanks for making me laugh. Hehe
It's not necessarily totally for real, but based on what I know about Guetta from people who have had encounters with him, his aspirations are sincere and he's not clever enough to be self-aware.
For me, the smoking gun was that they didn't show Guetta falling off that ladder. They had a camera trained on him, but instead of giving you the footage, they show a sequence of freeze frames.
It's been a while since I saw the film but didn't Banksy want Guetta to just go away and leave him alone? So he got him occupied I guess and that's how Mr Brainwash happened. As alexlitel says.
And Banksy did not like street art becoming mainstream so he set the pretender up to clash head on with the foolish public.
Lizard: I guess I just like to separate the Monets from the Guettas.
You can't trust anything Bansky says or shows you in Exit. That's one of the points of the movie.
By the way, anybody who loved this movie should check out Orson Welles' weird, wonderful, way-ahead-of-it's-time sort-of documentary F For Fake, which thematically covers similar territory.
But he did have his team set up that famous event with the elephant, which attracted lots of celebrities and mainstream attention. Are you saying he did it to make a point, to segue it with Mr. Brainwash? Come to think of it, that would actually make more sense if Mr. Brainwash was a fake.
Banksy himself is a small celebrity, probably reasonably wealthy, and clearly has an ego. Maybe he's just protesting the establishment all the way to the bank. At this point, the boy has cried wolf too many times and I admit I don't feel compelled to believe in anything he says, the interview linked above included. I still think it's all a prank, and Guetta, Shepherd and Banksy are in on the con. Not sure about Banksy's staff or anyone else, though.
I don't remember the elephant. Was that what Banksy contributed to Guetta's exhibit?
Khelavaster's referring to the earlier Bansky exhibit they show in the movie before Mr. Brainwash's - part of the exhibition included a live painted elephant.
That's one possibility, sure. But I don't think his problem is with being mainstream so much as art being turned into a commodity. We tend to view the two things (popularity and being commercial) as interchangeable, and what's interesting about Banksy is that he's not approaching this from the traditional kumbayah hippie approach or via some variation of marxist thought. His tactics and strategies are the message itself, a peaceful asymmetrical war (or quixotic tilt) against consumer culture and established authority.
I don't think he comes off as an elitist so much as an educator; he wants people to think about art, and has provided an opportunity to learn by experiencing the ambiguities in his film.
Naturally, that's my own bias as a teacher, so that's where it gets interpretive.
Sure, but that's only easy to do on the basis of received authority and historical precedent. You can go your whole life and enjoy art by never prioritizing anything but those things, but most people tend to be forward thinking in at least one genre, and then simply selective about others. For instance, I am most resistant to new things when it comes to novels, noticeably more open-minded when it comes to music, and prefer modern art (and, curiously, archaic or ancient) to traditional approaches.Lizard: I guess I just like to separate the Monets from the Guettas.
I like it when people push me in genres in which I'm not accustomed to being tolerant of innovation, and a purposefully unreliable narrator in a documentary (a form where I tend to be somewhat conservative) is a great way to do it.
A century from now, it might be Banksy that fills the slot Monet has currently as a broadly recognized artistic cultural touchstone. Or it might not, but it's worth it not to be reflexively close-minded on the basis of litmus tests that might not be as logical as they first appear.
I really dug this movie. I don't have any insight into the reality or fiction aspects except that a friend of mine in Los Angeles works in Mr. Brainwash's art warehouse.
By the mere fact that people lined up and paid for that shit, makes the question of the film being truth or fiction irrelevant. ;>
Sick day, on the couch under blankets, and I decided to watch this, as it has been on my queue for quite some time.
I have no clue how people could see this as being fake at all. Guerra is very sincere, and if he is some sort of character, he was playing it that way for nearly 8 years.
Look at the way he filmed things, and think about how his mentality is all about quantity, and making sure that everything is captured in every way possible.
Wouldn't it make sense for his art to be the same way? For him to take his experiences on the road with street artists and emulate them in a way?
I think the film is brilliant, taking street art and shining a light on its players, and then turning the camera around on the film-maker. Clearly a nice guy, but someone who really wanted to be part of a scene. From his beginnings as a vintage clothes store owner, to tagging along with street artists. He is a guy that wants to be part of a movement looking in, and you see what happens when he does get involved.
I really did like how the film just let you see the MBW stuff and think... this is all... unoriginal. It didn't push you in that direction, you came to that conclusion based on what you saw. MBW was exploiting the street art movement with the best intentions. And everyone bought it, it is a story too good to be true, that it has to be true.
All through the movie you see how simple this street art is, the movie is about a bunch of people that like vandalizing things. They talk about the rush they get when defacing a wall, running from the cops and the thrill of it all. Banksy brings the political spin with his art, further legitimizing the genre, and MBW commercializes it.
When you get down to it, Guerra's art does have some merit to it. It is Andy Warhol style pop-art that has its own style. I really think that the spray paint tomato soup can in particular is genius. But I think he definitely came up with all of the stuff on his own. He really is one of those people who is a parody of himself, the whole film shows that.
Amazing watch, I would recommend anyone see this.
Because the movie never actually shows Guerra making any art. They show him spilling paint in the back of a truck, or slipping off a ladder, but not successfully doing anything. Between that and the sheer quantity of art that was presented at his big L.A. show makes me think Guerra was a front for a Banksy/Shepard Fairey's loose collective of artists to crank out a bunch of intentionally terrible work under Guerra's name.
I disagree. "Guerra's" art is (purposefully) utterly worthless. You know how you get into conversations with certain people and you describe a piece of art or music or whatever than moved you, and the person says "Pffft, I could have done that, so what?" and then you realize you're talking to a complete idiot? That person would have made Guerra's art.When you get down to it, Guerra's art does have some merit to it. It is Andy Warhol style pop-art that has its own style. I really think that the spray paint tomato soup can in particular is genius. But I think he definitely came up with all of the stuff on his own. He really is one of those people who is a parody of himself, the whole film shows that.
Plus, with Guerra's show being terrible, it gives Exit another layer of showing how easy it is (in L.A., anyway) to pass off anything as being important or worthwhile in the art scene regardless of actual merit, as long as you hype it properly. Thinking of his art as being worthwhile in and of itself defeats that theme.
Of course, Exit being what it is, it's wildly open to interpretation.
Hahahaha, OF COURSE.
Granted, the title should be at least a small tip-off.
Tip-off of what? You can take Exit Through the Gift Shop to be a scathing criticism of how shallow the art world is for accepting this talentless goofball as a genius, or how they accepted a total con. Neither interpretation impacts Banksy's point that "the scene" is utter BS.
I disagree. If Guerra is on the up-and-up, why use a title that reinforces the powerful relationship money holds over art in modern America?
This is an amazing paragraph and I'd like to know how long it took you to write it.
As long as it took to read it, more or less. Why?
Why would it matter if Guerra is on the up-and-up? The message doesn't really change.
I'm not taking a position one way or the other, but it is clear watching the film that Guerra has an army of people working for him to actually create the art. The question is only whether he is providing the actual direction and inspiration himself. Or not.
Furthermore, the quality of all of that work is independent of its provenance, and therefore the title is entirely appropriate whether or not Guerra is the force behind the work or is just a face in front of it.
I will say, that I do believe that this started as an earnest project by Guerra. What it turned into is another matter entirely.
Banksy and Shepard Fairey are both on the up-and-up, but the title could apply equally well to their work. They both make way more money off their art than they need to just get by. I liked that the movie is as much a criticism of the artists that sell out (including the creator of the movie) as the people who mindlessly patronize them.
These are all interesting points, and to get further into it I'd have to really screw on that moth-eaten beret of mine and sadly I have to go to work. Although I do like the idea that the title is reflective of Banksy as well as Guerra. That's something to chew on.
Posting Permissions