Ok, drum-roll...the moment you've all been waiting for, the Banksy film review, is finally here! In short, best documentary ever. I noticed my buddy Jon also wrote a review, but I'm averting my eyes until after mine is finished. I'm looking forward to reading all of his thoughts on it too. Please comment on this post...that is if you get through it all. I tend to ramble a lot so I'll throw in some good pictures to keep your attention.
The film stirred up a ton of questions in my mind about the definition, purpose, and philosophy behind art. Philosophy tends to be more about asking questions than finding answers, so don't expect this review to have any sort of conclusive result. So first I'll tell you about the movie, then the questions it raised in my mind, followed by random tangents about art.
The movie, Banksy's Exit Through the Gift Shop, was about an odd video camera addict turned street artist named Thierry Guetta. ***Warning! I'm about to reveal a good chunk of the movie, so this is your spoiler alert*** The basics are that this dude Thierry followed around these street artists with a camera filming them at their craft. The street artists included Banksy, Shepard Fairey, Space Invader, and a few others like Borf, Neckface, Swoon, Coma, Cheez, and finally Mr. Brainwash a.k.a. Theirry Guetta. After following these guys around Theirry learns their craft. Banksy mentions to him that he should make some art. With this suggestion Theirry jumps straight into a full scale art production operation with a crew of 20 people and decides to do a massive one man gallery show. The show is a huge hit, and just like that, without any prior exposure and little following he is a millionaire. The art he sold was mass produced Ikea style wall pop art that his 20 minions that worked for him produced... Essentially at the end of the film you're left with the feeling that he is a complete sell out. While the other street artist he filmed produced art for the love, or the message, he jumped straight into fame with massed produced commercial art.
So now that you know the basics of the film these are the questions and thoughts it raised: Well, first off, prior to the movie I had expected to leave with moral questions about graffiti and vandalism. Instead I was left with questions about the authenticity of the art world as a whole. It left me with the questions: what is/qualifies as art?; what is, or should be the purpose of art?; and who gets to label themselves as an "artist"?
question 1:
Dictionary.com's first definition of art is: the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. I guess this is a pretty good definition. Broad, non-specific definitions are always good because they don't piss anyone off. Lets just call everything art so there's no debate! I think there are major fallacies with this def though. For example, I think cakes are appealing. Does that make them art? I think that art should be the culmination/amalgamation of technique and meaning. So this brings to question, are mass produced graphic renderings like those of Theirry Guetta really art? Are mass produced Ikea prints of cityscapes art? What is the meaning...what is the point? Then again, who am I to define art? Maybe a broad definition is the only way to go. Art is different for every person. It might be that what I see as a pointless cityscape reminds someone else of a personal story which brings meaning and makes the piece relevant. So does the artist have to establish the meaning or is it the viewer who qualifies what is and isn't art?
question 2:
This question is really just an extension of the first...So if art needs purpose to qualify itself who determines what that purpose must be? Toward the end of the film Banksy was talking about the motives behind his art and relating it to the motives of Mr. Brainwash, he said something like "It never was about the hype, or the money...but then again there never were supposed to be any rules...so is anyone in the wrong...I don't know...". I think that people often don't realize that the world of graffiti artists represents a huge group of people and they each come with different styles and motives. There are the taggers or "writers" who usually throw up the quick bomb style names for notoriety and to claim territory, the same goes for the "bubble style" which is a more developed tag. Then you get into the more talented groups that do the "wildstyle" writing and characters. These forms take large amounts of time, skill, and a fair chunk of money. The pieces are often massive and are done in crews. The easiest style of street art is "stenciling" and "wheatpasting". These are the styles that Banksy uses and Mr. Brainwash mimicked. The difference is that the majority of Banksy's pieces are thought provoking or controversial. The meaning behind them is brilliant. Whereas Mr. Brainwash picks iconic pictures of celebrities, bumps the images to full contrast, and puts clip art on them. This has been done before though by phenomenal artists; Duchamp put mustaches on the Mona Lisa, and Warhol repeated icon images over and over until they were meaningless. These artist were pioneers...does that make Theirry Guetta an undeserving copycat? He mass produced an easy art technique which the fickle masses bought into. Does that make it un-art though?...One begs to question, "What can I do that hasn't been done? What social construct can I break to make a name for myself as an artist?".
question 3:
Who gets to label themselves as an "artist"? When I first started producing art I felt hesitant to call myself an artist. I wasn't even sure what the word meant. Again, dictionary.com defines it as: a person who produces works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria. Ok, whatever...that makes sense. But then, if art can be anything, anyone can be an artist right? Is it up to me to decide if I'm an artist or is it up to the people that view my art? Is a tagger any less of an artist than Giotto? I guess that the one who finds meaning validates the art and qualifies the artist. I find meaning in my art, therefore I'm an artist. 'Das ding an Sich' or "the thing within itself" was the precursor to "I think therefore I am. By proving the existence of your own thought you validate that you do indeed exist. I guess this applies to the self diagnosed artist too...
An interesting side note: There are several thoughts that the artist Mr. Brainwash was a creation of Banksy's just for the purpose of the documentary. Maybe he created an "artist" to show how fickle and media-driven the art world is.
So now for my inconclusive random tangents about the art community as a whole: What really matters is what you like to look at. Don't put value in the opinions of critics and what others tell you. (ha, of course, I'm being a critic right now too...so I'm the only critic you should listen to...)Art speaks differently to each person so only listen to the artist's intention, and what the piece says to you. The rest is pointless commercialism crap. Remember that galleries are middle men trying to sell their artist to you for a profit. I'm not trying to say that dealers and galleries are evil; they can be good for the artist if they market and showcase their art. Again it's all commercial driven. This is why I love good graffiti pieces- they aren't typically driven by money. It is one of the purest forms of art to date. True street art is not commissioned, or critiqued. The artists just paint. Those that paint with meaning and technique shouldn't be in the same vandal category as their counterparts. The true quality of an artists product is only as good as their knowledge, experience, and talent allow, but the perceived quality is based on opinions, critiques, and often times media hype. Along the lines of perceived quality is perceived value; I price my art based on material cost, and the time it takes to produce. Often times I underestimate the time it will take therefore underestimating the value. In reality, most art is about perceived value. Someone along the way decided that the value of an art piece rises with the notoriety of an artist. This makes some since because popularity often goes hand in hand with supply and demand. The funny thing is that "popularity" is an abstract term. Someone along the way also decided that the popularity and value of an artist is based on the resume of shows they can list or the articles that were written about the work. The secret that's often left untold is that artists often create the solo shows and contact the reporters to initiate the articles. Again, prestige is self created and media driven. In her book, How To Survive and Prosper as an Artist- Selling yourself without selling your soul, Caroll Michels writes "Most dealers establish a price range based on the hearsay of other dealers or fall into the trap of believing the myth that the work of unknown artists has little value". In conclusion ;-) forget what everyone tells you about art and listen to your gut. If you like it, and the piece has meaning to you that's all that matters.
