MovieChat Forums > Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010) Discussion > Hoax or greatest slap in the face?

Hoax or greatest slap in the face?

posted 11 years ago by jonhopper217
21 replies | jump to latest

I believe the latter. It's just too easy to dismiss, but then why? Why create something that was real, just to rub people's faces in it. Also, to have the entire film be a hoax would be to discredit the likes of Barring, Warhol and Banksy himself.

To create this facade that this subculture doesn't really exist, all to say that art critics and society has no taste, seems counter productive when you look at many of the artist's messages.

Guetta did in fact mortgage his business, rent the studio and make tons of money. Banksy might not have intended that. He may have wanted to prove that he and others were the real artists, but hype is more powerful than the message or the art itself. He did so and probably regrets it. Maybe he felt conned by Guetta, but who knows? The result is brilliant and an homage to real artists, but with a strong social message.

[–] bsharporflat 11 years ago

Also, to have the entire film be a hoax would be to discredit the likes of Barring, Warhol and Banksy himself.

Um...right. Did you happen to notice who made this movie? Banksy. Do you think Bansksy is stupid? You think he made this entire movie to discredit himself and make himself look petty and childish?

Did you happen to notice initially showed Thierry to have no artistic ability. Did you notice that the artistic style he acquired at the end of the movie strongly resembled that of another artist....someone like, maybe Banksy? Did you notice the title of this movie which is completely mocking of the mainstream art world? Did you notice the symbolism at end of the movie, which shows Thierry knocking down a wall...?

Banksy already had a recognizable name in the art world. Can you see the nasty irony this movie creates in showing how an unknown, untalented person can be catapulted to fame purely on hype?

Did you consider how much Guetta could actually get by mortgaging his shabby home and thrift shop business (maybe $10-20,000) versus how much it would cost to create all that art, rent the space and promote the show (hundreds of thousands of dollars).

Please reconsider your choice when deciding between "Hoax" and "Greatest Slap In The Face" (to the modern art world). The art show and this movie are very clearly both; exactly what we should expect from Banksy.

[–] big_kmc 10 years ago

Do you think Bansksy is stupid?

yes, this movie was stupid and achieved nothing. On the one hand you are introduced to the world of street art and this fan of it thierry, the next thing you know theirry is doing his own and he sucks. Where is the hoax in that? A good hoax is good for the reason that intention is clearly discernible. Calling it a hoax is just a distraction from the quality of the movie. Hoax or not it was dry and pointless. I feel it was a slap in the face, a complete waste of time.

[–] gnome-5 10 years ago

"Did you consider how much Guetta could actually get by mortgaging his shabby home and thrift shop business (maybe $10-20,000) versus how much it would cost to create all that art, rent the space and promote the show (hundreds of thousands of dollars)."

Even "shabby" homes in Los Angeles are worth millions. And his thrift store business was supposedly booming. So it's not unreasonable that he was able to put together a large lump of cash.

As for his art resembling Banksy's -- maybe you missed the fact that Guetta was ripping off successful artists in creating "his" art. So it's no wonder that a lot of it looks like Banksy's... Or are you also going to argue that Warhol created the stuff that looked like his famous pieces?

[–] maturity 9 years ago

His thrift store looked more like a large busy boutique. Of course they could have shot any store and said he owned it. The thing is that you don't know the truth of any "documentary." How do you know Banksy is the director or even in the movie? All you see is some guy with a hood - his face blacked out - and his voice digitally altered. It could be anybody. Banksy hides his identity as a criminal. How do you know he is just one person and not a collective? How do you know there aren't dozens of copy-cats imitating him? In a museum a piece of "art" could be tested and maybe found fo have a unique chemical signature of style. On the street how do u know what is the original Banksy or just a poseur / imitator?

[–] gnome-5 9 years ago

"Of course they could have shot any store and said he owned it."

And the real owner could sue them. Or you could track down the actual store and find out who owns it.

The simplest answer is that "Banksy" is who he claims he is, and events happened as described. There is evidence to support that.

Why not collect evidence to support your position, rather than just spin out possibilities?

[–] maturity 9 years ago

The store was not identifiable, so the owner could not sue them. Also the owner may have been part of the hoax and given them permission. There is now evidence in the movie who Banksy is because the guy claiming to be him wears a hood and his face is unlit and his voice altered. I am not stating a theory, just being skeptical. You can't prove YOUR theory because the video is an anonymous guy totally impossible for the general audience to identify. So is the graffiti. Prove that the hooded, faceless, voiceless guy did all the graffiti around the world signed Banksy or attributed to him. The burden of proof is on you, not me. He could have any number of people putting up graffiti stencils for him. People could copy or imitate his style easily. That is fact and logic, not theory.

[–] gnome-5 9 years ago

"That is fact and logic, not theory."

That's conjecture. Just like "Banksy is a race of space aliens who enjoy making fun of inferior races." There's nothing in the film to suggest that, but it's possible. And oh yes, if you're going to speculate an alternate interpretation of the film, you should provide as much supporting evidence as possible.

For the record, one does not "prove" theories. Theories are supported by evidence until they are accepted as being true. Like the theory of how gravity works. There's just nothing else that comes close to explaining that.

Skepticism is good, however. If the filmmakers were heavily promoting sales of Banksy tie-in merchandise, books, posters, etc., then I might buy your idea. But I doubt that other artists are going to "copy or imitate his style," simply because they all want to develop and be recognized for their own style. They're not puppets mimicking the Banksy line.

[–] maturity 8 years ago

Lots of artists copy the style of other well-known artists or even make forgeries for that matter. You need to present evidence that the faceless voiceless anonymous mass in the movie is "Banksy" and that he put up all the graffiti attributed to him. I don't need to present evidence that it could be anybody and the original could be dead or in prison or have a collective of followers or copy cats. You take a lot for granted that shouldn't be taken for granted, like that you can't shoot some anonymous store and claim it's yours. Without the exact address and name of the store and proof that Thierry owns it, that doesn't mean much. All documentaries stage event and alter reality. People don't act naturally when they're on camera unless they just have no shame or modesty or dignity at all.

What I am saying goes beyond just skepticism to the nature of identity and truth. Like the hacker group Anonymous. How can anyone prove that they are part of it when it's a group of outlaws who shroud themselves in secrecy? What do they stand for? They can't stand for anything because anyone can claim to be part of it and do things like they do just to discredit them. With the right skills, they could easily fool the media and authorities and most people. Without an identity you're nobody and anyone can pretend to be you unless you have something identifiable and verifiable that can't be copied - like strong public key encryption and digital signatures. If you go out on the town and put up graffiti alone, how can you prove that you did it unless you have witnesses and video and the exact locations? How can you prove that some hooded figure in the shadows with an altered voice did it? You need to show a picture ID of Banksy and statement that he was in the movie and proof that he put up all the Banksy graffiti.

[–] gnome-5 8 years ago

"Lots of artists copy the style of other well-known artists or even make forgeries for that matter."

Artists who copy other well-known artists or make forgeries are usually doing it for the money. Taggers are another matter. Their tags are tied up in their identity, so it doesn't make much sense for them to copy someone else. And they're not getting paid for their work, so why copy?

"All documentaries stage event and alter reality."

Blanket statements like this don't help your case. A large percentage of the documentary was shot by Thierry on a whim with no intention of ever doing anything with the footage, so it's hard to support the idea that it was "staged."

"Without an identity you're nobody and anyone can pretend to be you"

Feel free to go be Banksy. You'll fail, I guarantee it.

"You need to present evidence"

No, I'm afraid I don't. It's not my movie, I don't have to defend it. If you're disputing any of its claims, then you need to provide something more than a skeptical nature. There is a thread here where someone addressed a lot of the doubters' objections to the film with the facts you seek. Maybe you should go look at it.

[–] bsharporflat-50959 8 years ago

A large percentage of the documentary was shot by Thierry on a whim with no intention of ever doing anything with the footage, so it's hard to support the idea that it was "staged."

The key to unlocking this movie is to understand which PART of the movie was staged.

There is no reason to think the first 3/4 of the movie were anything other than they appeared. So some dweeby, talentless guy compiled a bunch of video footage of a subculture that he admired. Fine.

The last 1/4 of this movie is the twist. As many have correctly noted, it would be almost impossible for this dweeby, talentless guy with almost no charisma or social skills to have assembled the money and organized the logistics and promotion needed for the ultimately successful art show he put on.

If you want to stand WAAAAY out on a ledge and argue that he could have done all that, you are STILL left with the impossibility that this dweeby, talentless guy who couldn't even edit a coherent video was able to conceive, pay for and display the many, MANY works of art which were on display and many of which sold for exceedingly high prices.

Look at all that artwork supposedly by "Mr. Brainwash", Thierry Guetta. Does the style remind you of anyone?

Obviously it is all Bansky's work. Consider the name "Mr. Brainwash". Consider the snarky, ironic meaning of the movie title "Exit Through The Gift Shop". Understand the symbolism of the very ending shot, showing "Mr Brainwash", knocking down a carefully constructed brick wall.

It is made QUITE clear that Banksy had a bone to pick with the L.A. Arts community, stemming from his own previous show there. He had every reason to want to mock them and expose them for their hypocrisy and their willingness to follow the most ridiculous hype and show how easily they are duped by the illusion of "coolness" and their desire to purchase "coolness". (Hence the "Gift Shop" title)

Banksy is completely known as a prankster. How could you then possibly deny the art show and this movie is a prank with all the obvious and not-so-obvious clues pointing to it?

Consider the ending where Banksy is supposedly sorry he gave Mr. Brainwash a chance and regrets giving the guy even a smidgeon of publicity or attention. If any of that were true, WTF would Banksy then go and make a movie about the guy?

He wouldn't. It is a clever and very humorous scam. If you taken in at first, don't compound your embarrassment by denying the obvious. As long as you remain on the outside of a joke, the joke remains on you.

[–] gnome-5 8 years ago

"Obviously it is all Bansky's work."

Even the stuff that is a rip-off of Warhol and others?

"Banksy is completely known as a prankster."

His pranks, however, point to the truth of a situation. He doesn't deliberately deceive anyone. In this case, he's pointing out failures in the art community, from artists, to critics, to consumers. That's very Banksy, in my opinion. And it's all too real.

[–] bsharporflat-50959 8 years ago

"Obviously it is all Bansky's work."

Even the stuff that is a rip-off of Warhol and others?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. It almost seems like you are saying that Bansky must, of course, have the utmost respect for Andy Warhol and his originality and creativity as an artist and would never borrow from him. Let's break that down.

Andy Warhol was probably most famous for his artwork which is a copy of the design from a Campbell's Soup can (of course there are his copies of Marilyn Monroe and Elvis prints, but lets focus on the soup).

Are you saying that Banksy has so much respect for Warhol copying Campbell's Soup that he would, himself, never copy Warhol? It makes no sense. Copying is what Warhol did.

In the 60's, Warhol's Soup can idolized and satirized commercial culture. Now Warhol himself has become commercial culture and it is the highest compliment for Banksy to copy, idolize and satirize Warhol.

And when you add the dual symbolism of putting the Campbell's soup logo onto a spray paint can to symbolize the Warholian role that street/graffiti art now has in society and ..well...I find it to be multi-leveled artistic brilliance rather than a "rip-off".

He doesn't deliberately deceive anyone.

Au contraire. For example, Bansky made copies of British currency so realistic people tried to spend them (not noticing Princess Diana or "Bansky of England" on them. And several times Banksy has managed to get hoax painting past the inspectors of major art museums and had his phony art actually displayed for a while, until the humorous parts were spotted.

I guess we can agree to disagree and just see the movie and Bansky in different ways. But to sum up, I think the LAST think Bansky thinks of himself is as a "serious artist". I think his self-mockery is at least as potent as his mockery of the "serious" art community and "serioius" society itself.

[–] gnome-5 8 years ago

"Au contraire. For example, Bansky made copies of British currency so realistic people tried to spend them"

If I remember correctly, he never distributed them because he showed one to a friend who didn't catch the joke. So no, he didn't deliberately deceive anyone there.

I think Banksy sees himself as a very serious artist. He does, however, have a large sense of humor. Which is healthy, in my opinion.

[–] bsharporflat-50959 8 years ago

I think Banksy sees himself as a very serious artist. He does, however, have a large sense of humor. Which is healthy, in my opinion.

We shall have to disagree, I guess.

I don't see how you can consider your artwork completely "serious" and also have a sense of humor about it.

If he was really "serious" about art, why is he a graffiti artist using spray paint on public property? Why isn't he trying to get into the Guggenheim and going on TV to make serious commercials about starving children in Africa and the like?

How is a bent, twisted phone booth or a painted elephant really "serious"? Though there may be social messages in his work. I don't see them as the main point (otherwise he would be painting in oils on canvas). I see his main point as a light-hearted mockery of pretty much everything- society, the art world, and even himself (and this movie very much is self-mockery by Banksy).

I don't really see your point about "deliberately deceiving people". I think that's ALL he does. Everything he does is shrouded in stealth, mystery and deception. Otherwise he would be a "serious" artist, openly making and displaying his work in galleries in a serious manner like every other "serious" artist. Instead he hides and pranks and has fun spray painting and defacing and destroying public property. His way of saying to everyone, "don't take yourself too seriously".

[–] gnome-5 8 years ago

"I don't see how you can consider your artwork completely "serious" and also have a sense of humor about it."

Serious in that he is completely devoted to it.

"Though there may be social messages in his work."

I think you're missing the most important component of his work.

I also think the documentary's portion on Guetta's show contradicts your notion that galleries, etc., are for serious artists.

[–] bsharporflat-50959 8 years ago

Serious in that he is completely devoted to it.

Is he?

I don't see how we can know that. As someone pointed out, "Banksy" could be a team of 12 people who don't put in more than an hour or two per week each.

"Though there may be social messages in his work."

I think you're missing the most important component of his work.

I disagree and think it is vice versa.

I think the most important social message of Bansky's work is: "Society, don't take yourself too seriously".

Surely there were people in England who were angered and upset because Bansky deface "public property" in messing with phone booths and paper currency. Missing the point that the rise of cell phones and credit cards are making phone booths and paper currency obsolete.

Of course there are other "serious" people who are furious that Bansky and other street artists would deface any building or public wall with spray paintings.

Surely the correct response to such "serious" people is a laugh, an eye roll and a shake of the head as we enjoy the talent, intelligence and humour in Banksy's work far more than anyone had ever enjoyed the previously blank wall.

I also think the documentary's portion on Guetta's show contradicts your notion that galleries, etc., are for serious artists.

This is a funny statement from my perspective for a few reasons.

1. Surely you are aware that "serious" artists do indeed display their work in art galleries and at public exhibitions.

2. You have already stated you think Bansky is a "serious artist"

3. The artwork we see in the Mr. Brainwash exhibit is, therefore, the work of a serious artist, Bansky.

4. Just because Banksy doesn't consider himself a serious artist doesn't mean he ISN'T as serious as any other artist. I think he is. Just because, let's say, Dale Chihuly (sorry to pick on you, Dale) takes himself and his artwork very seriously doesn't mean he really IS more serious than Banksy.

They both make art. They both enjoy making art. Millions enjoy the artwork of these artists. But I like Banksy better for his message to everyone in the world about not taking things too seriously, especially art.

[–] gnome-5 8 years ago

"Otherwise he would be a "serious" artist, openly making and displaying his work in galleries in a serious manner like every other "serious" artist."

The documentary makes it clear that "serious" artists openly making and displaying their work have to compete with insincere people like Guetta, and the media and public can't tell the difference. So Banksy doing what you suggest he should do to be legitimate would actually prove nothing.

"I think the most important social message of Bansky's work is: "Society, don't take yourself too seriously"."

And yet, his work continually points out society's problems in a very pointed way...

But as you said, we will have to agree to disagree!

[–] bsharporflat-50959 8 years ago

The documentary makes it clear that "serious" artists openly making and displaying their work have to compete with insincere people like Guetta, and the media and public can't tell the difference.

If you see the movie one way, that is the message.

But seen another way, it is the opposite. Who are the "serious artists" you think the movie refers to? Bansky and Shephard Fairey? Keep in mind these guys are graffiti artists who use spray paint on public buildings. In my view, these guys have spent their lives doing the exact opposite of "serious art". They are renegade, outlaw types. They are, by nature, subversive pranksters and this movie is a subversive prank.

The very premise (and title) of the movie show reveal the prank. Bansky and Fairey are angry at the attention Mr. Brainwash got....so they make a movie about him? It doesn't make sense. It is a movie about THEM.

Long before this movie, Banksy was known for buying paintings from thrift stores for a few bucks, adding a little "graffiti" of his own then reselling them for tens of thousands.

Donating part (but only part) of the profits to charity does say something about him. But getting the arts community to pay fortunes for pieces of junk is his main message, in my opinion.

But as you said, we will have to agree to disagree!

Agreed. But I appreciate your intelligent, polite manner of discussion.

[–] bsharporflat-50959 8 years ago

How can you prove that some hooded figure in the shadows with an altered voice did it?

You can't. But, like handwriting, art has a certain identifiable style which some people can recognize (and others cannot).

Handwriting experts provide "evidence" in court. But generally such expert opinions are not considered "proof". The same principle applies here. There is no need for "proof". Believe what you want to believe, hopefully based on what you personally happen to see as the preponderance of evidence.

You need to show a picture ID of Banksy and statement that he was in the movie and proof that he put up all the Banksy graffiti.

Not really.

If some hooded figure calling himself Banksy is seen in a movie and the film's credit is to "Banksy", then "Banksy" created the film. Is Banksy the hooded figure? We don't know. Is this the same "Banksy" who did graffiti art in London, Paris, Israel, New York, etc.? We don't know. Nor does it matter. If a "fake" Banksy manages to insert his name into the credits of a film then "Banksy" directed the film, whatever and whomever that might mean.

[–] gnome-5 8 years ago

"You need to show a picture ID of Banksy and statement that he was in the movie and proof that he put up all the Banksy graffiti."

"Not really."

Yeah, this claim threw me. Any legal picture ID belonging "Banksy" is going to have his legal name on it, not Banksy. That would prove nothing. He could provide a notarized statement that he was in the movie, but again, that would be under his legal name and no one would know if it was a hoax or not. And "proof that he put up all the Banksy graffiti"? Yeah, right...

[–] maturity 9 years ago

Guetta's store looked like a large expensive and trendy clothing boutique. Not a shabby thrift shop. But they could have shot any store and claimed it was his. How do you know Banksy directed the film or was even in it? All you see is some guy in a hood with his face in shadow and his voice digitally altered. That could be anybody. Banksy relies on anonymity as a criminal. He would be in trouble if he was known. Furthermore how do you know Banksy is even one person and not some kind of Anonymous collective making up stencils and going out in teams to put them all over town? How do you even know the real Banksy from some copycat going around imitating his style or copying what he sees? You know nothing.