Mr. Brainwash: Secret Genius?


Before I get flamed for my subject line here, I want to say that I don't think the guy was bright enough to pull this off intentionally.

But think about this: Street art is kind of an anarchical art form, a statement against the establishment. These artists are out under cover of darkness "Vandalizing" public and private property for the sake of self-expression. NOT that it isn't a valid art form. It just speaks to the rebellious nature of the medium. Banksy himself said it was in a "Legal grey area."

Then along comes Thierry Geutta. He approaches it with the mind of an entrepreneur. He invests money, maximizes production, and utilizes his contacts freaking brilliantly. He promotes himself to be the next big thing in an art world that's constantly scrambling to find the next big thing. He comes at it like a business and absolutely CRUSHES it.

And then what happens? These more credible artists (and they ARE more credible artists) are criticizing this guy for not being genuine. For not establishing himself as a legitimate artist. Basically... not doing things the way THEY did things.

So what did he do? He made these guys look like huge hypocrits! Somehow, this strange Frenchman managed to flip these guys' anti-establishment values back around on them. He made them look like the establishment.

But again, is he clever enough to have done this deliberately? I don't know, but it definitely happened.

reply

Interesting.

Step aside Butch

reply

Thanks dude. And I appreciate you not saying "THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED ON ANOTHER POST" or some sh\t like that... That's my LEAST favorite thing about these message boards...

reply

The only thing is, wasn't Guetta's attempt to go mainstream with his work kind of establishment?

Step aside Butch

reply

"So what did he do? He made these guys look like huge hypocrits! Somehow, this strange Frenchman managed to flip these guys' anti-establishment values back around on them. He made them look like the establishment."

That's not how I would interpret it. I would say that Guetta comes off like the establishment man, working the system and making his "art" pay.

reply

[deleted]

Oh, his work is absolutely unoriginal! Everything he did looks like it was either ripped off of Andy Warhol or the Sex Pistols "God Save the Queen" album cover.

The guy is an absolute hack, I just thought it was ironic that in a subculture based on thumbing the rules, this guy was being criticized by peers for not following the rules. (Sidenote: I realize the word "peers" is being generous to Guetta and probably insulting to legitimate artists...)

I'm not going to get this quote exactly right, but it's like Banksy himself said in the movie "He didn't follow the rules, even though there aren't supposed to be any rules."

reply

It's a pretty valid look at things. The criticism for him comes from two places: the work is sh*t and he didn't do it like other artists. One could argue street art his a peak and became an established entity, something with an understood hierarchy or code...

And he subverted it. Through whatever means, intentional or not, that's what makes it so fascinating. And if Banksy poses any real food for though it's in the question of whether his work is art or not? Or if it makes it a joke? or if it's always been one.


As a poster above said, to the effect: didn't he just bring the establishment to the work?

That's equally fascinating. I wonder though - what if the expo had bombed? Utterly and totally. Would it have been because of his approach or because of the art? And would he have been viewed more sympathetically if he had?

reply

This is a really interesting idea. What does it say, though, that Banksy did the documentary on Geutta? Is he celebrating the idea that he's been "put in his place," as it were, by Geutta? I'm not sure, as I hadn't looked at it this way until reading your post. It is certainly an intriguing idea....

What's....this....ruckus?

reply