Exit Through the Gift Shop

Just saw it with Tate. What a bizarre film (documentary?). Crowds coming to the theater to see a Banksy film are hoodwinked once again; the film isn't about Banksy at all, but rather Thierry Guetta, or Mr. Brainwash, a totally deplorable character who bumbles his way into the street art scene. His work is pretty much a rip-off of Warhol and Banksy, but some of it has undeniable graphic appeal. According to the film, he was wildly successful (apparently true), which makes me, the viewer, feel uncomfortable and sort of cheated.

Shepard Fairy said something interesting in the movie about how images "gain real power from perceived power." Because he put his image of Andre the Giant with the text "OBEY" (in a Life magazine-y font) up all over the city and eventually the world, people start to notice it and think it's something important, and suddenly Obey gains cult status.

The History of Photography class I took this spring keeps proving to be very applicable to everything. We spent a lot of time talking about pop art, the "ready-made", and photomontage. "Mr. Brainwash" reWarhols Warhol. It's all about celebrity and mass media, but represented in exhausted ways, creating a sort of meta loop of representation. What I mean by that is, when you think about it, this film is portraying a guy who makes images that refer back to other images (such as the Warhol Marilyn) that in turn is a representation of the media imaging of reality (commodity, celebrity, etc). The point of Warhol is that he evacuates the meaning from the icons through their repetition and reproduction. But if someone else repeats that repetition (Campbell soup cans, now on spray cans), how can you evacuate meaning from something that has already done that? That's where "Mr. Brainwash" falls flat. At the same time though, his pieces are undeniably appealing. I like some of them (a fact which makes me feel like it's all a huge conspiracy). They are accessible, they don't provoke too much confusion or outrage, but at the same time they have a sort of straight-forward commentary. People who don't know much about art can enjoy them as much as anyone (maybe even more than those who do). I personally had never heard of him, but I have seen this image before, made to promote his first show in 2008 in LA.

I like this image. I don't know where the image of the woman comes from though, and it almost assuredly isn't him. Most of his stuff is way more pop art-y.

During the movie I also thought of Hannah Hoch and the phenomenon of bringing mass media images to the sphere of high art. John Heartfield comes into play too. If the purpose of street art is to deviate from conventional forms in a revolutionary way, how can it have meaning when it is sold at auction for thousands of dollars to art collectors? When this work is taken into a gallery space, one could sat it's no longer "street" art. The value it has is dependent on its exhibition space. If you see graffiti in a museum the experience of viewing it and the meaning it contains is completely changed. [Oh shit Yoonz. Professor Alberro was right.]

Even weirder is this thing my mom just showed me. Literally bringing the street art into the galley. An art gallery in Detroit removed a chunk of wall with a Banksy piece on it from a dilapidated industrial building. This has caused a legal uproar regarding who owns it, not to mention all kinds of philosophical issues about art and intent.



Anyway, my brain just exploded.

I guess this is the perceived power. You could think of it as propaganda almost. On the other hand, the first Sate I saw when I got back made me so happy. Learning to look and recognize makes one a more aware urban dweller. It's part of the landscape here, and it makes living visually unique. Photo courtesy of my favorite, drowned man.


Tell me what you think.