If you’ve seen the Banksy film “Exit Through The Gift Shop,” did you get the feeling that the whole thing could be a hoax? That Thierry is a creation? (Loved the flick, by the way.)
Argh - I keep getting hits on my radar about this documentary, and how Banksy does it again, in terms of flipping what you expect into something different…I gotta see it.
I saw it. I didn’t know it was “controversial” and took it at face value while watching it. Later, reading that it all might be a hoax, I thought, who cares? It’s fun, funny, interesting, and is stuffed from end to end with the most amazing, wonderful art. Not that I liked every single thing I saw and I do think stencils are lazy even if they’re efficient, but a good chunk of the art, I loved. It’s interesting as hell if a straight film done they way they said it was done (Thierry a filming addict, and Banksy taking over the footage to make the movie), and clever as hell if Banksy (or someone else) filmed and edited it as a mockumentary. Either way, win-win!
Great film!
just saw this. searched the forums for a thread. disappointed that this one is only 3 posts deep.
anyway, as for the hoax/not…
i think the “ending” was manufactured and hoax-ish but everything up until where banksy saw the 1st draft of thierry’s video seemed to be genuine. i think thierry existed before banksy, and really was just a weirdo who liked to film anything and everything, and somehow ingratiated himself into the street art community.
i’m pretty sure banksy had some idea that theirry was a no-talent ass clown but gave him the benefit of doubt because he was harmless, loyal, and enthusiastic. however, once the rough draft came out (i bet it wasn’t even edited. i can honestly see thierry being THAT bad and THAT lacking in artistic vision) it became clear to banksy that if anyone was going to make a movie about street art, it wouldn’t be thierry so banksy took up the banner. then the scissors met the tape and a huge amount of editing took place, not to mention banksy himself inserting new material like the interviews, the palestine footage, newsreels, etc.
i have a question that’s been bugging me and is probably unanswerable, though. banksy needs bankroll to do what he does. plane tickets, flatbed trucks, elephant rentals, movie productions… etc. i mean he’s not paying for this with counterfeit bills. where does he and his crack team get their financial backing from? an anonymous patron? is banksy independently wealthy and using his trust fund to make art instead of sailing off the french riviera? did he hit the lotto? insurance fraud? is he up to his eyeballs in debt? the world may never know.
I think he makes money by selling art.
Oh yeah- his art is not cheap.
Small prints are $500, originals are 6-7 figures.
I very much enjoyed the film.
I did get the feeling that it was a hoax but I admit I really have no idea what the truth is.
At face value the point of the movie seemed to be that street art was a bit of fun that ended up attracting attention and some goofballs (some of whom seemed to be mistakenly convinced their work was deep) managed to make a lot of money of it. The joke was that an enthusiastic guy could be successful by paying graphic designers to make pictures and then generate enough hype about his show to convince people his work was exciting. It seemed to be saying that street art is bullshit, which I agreed with. Maybe I was just seeing what I wanted.
Whether or not it was a hoax, I like to think Bansky was just pointing out that his work is just a bit of fun and plenty of people could do it.
If no one knows who Banksy is, how is the provenance of his works established? Surely there are Banksy imitators.
At one point in the movie, he puts a modified London phone box on the street. Later in the film, it sells for something like half a million. It certainly didn’t cost him anywhere near that to buy the box and modify it, so he made a lot from that one item.
I’ve heard about this movie, but haven’t seen it. It streams on Netflix, but I haven’t gotten to it yet.
I kind of assume the whole thing is a hoax, though. It’s just another wacky art project for Banksy.
I’m hardly an art expert, but when I saw the movie, the impression I had of Thierry’s art was that it was derivative and unoriginal. I mean, one of the pieces I remember was a six-foot tall spray paint can with a big label saying Campbell’s Tomato Soup. So it seemed to be a cross between a graffiti artist’s spray paint can and Andy Warhol’s Campbell’s soup paintings. And the process of making the art was basically Thierry identifying some photo or image in a book, and having one of the staffers modify the scanned image in some way. He didn’t actually create much of anything himself.
Now, I know that some “respected” artists use staff to create their art. I think Jeff Koons works this way. And Richard Serra must have a bunch of steelworkers assisting him. Definitely Thomas Kinkade, although I’m not sure he’s respected. But what I’ve seen of Shepard Fairey and Banksy’s works indicates something clever and original that was missing from Thierry’s art. So perhaps the whole thing was a commentary on how people will buy anything if you hype it enough.
The same as any other artist, he has an agent and does gallery shows or has his stuff listed at art auctions. Well, has them done on his behalf, he’s likely not there in person or persona. It’s not that nobody knows who he is really, it’s that those people who do aren’t telling.
My take on the movie was it was self depreciating humor on Banksy and (Shepard Fairey’s) parts as well as making the statement “What I do isn’t important, it’s that it’s done that makes it important”, so art for art’s sake and he used the strange and belabored part of Thierry to do so. It’s not a hoax…well maybe just a little, but more of an allegory.
The main parts are that the art is more important than the artist and that it’s not hard to do if you have an idea so why not try it out yourself, mixed with a bit of Banksy’s trademark cheekiness and disdain.
My feelings exactly. I’m pretty firmly in the “it was all a joke/hoax/social commentary” camp.
I like street art and the concept of street art a lot; I like Shephard Fairey and I especially like Banksy. I streamed this on Netflix one night thinking I’d wrap my xmas presents while it was on and ended up not wrapping a single one because it was so funny and so great. I thought the whole thing was a Banksy fabrication that he brought Shephard Fairey in on. Thierry was just too much of a nutjob to be anything but a wacky fictional character. I think the whole thing was a really nicely planned piece of performance art, especially the Banksy show in L.A. which probably netted enough to finance the whole film.
Either way, it doesn’t much matter. The film works great as a definitive documentary of street art (which is what Banksy supposedly thought Thierry was doing) and/or as a commentary/satire of the art world in general.
I only just watched this. Since this thread was posed further evidence has emerged: Thierry Guetta has done two more shows, and been sued by another artist for using one of his photographs and modifying it.
My take is: Banksy and Shephard Fairey probably created a lot of the first show as a prank to see if they could fool the art world and make anyone famous, but that Thierry Guetta’s life story is real and that he is now sincere in trying to create his own art.
When I saw it, it rang basically true to me. I’ve known a couple people uncomfortably similar to Thierry, close enough that the concentrated dose you get in the film seems all too plausible. Of course there will be some fictionalizing & editorializing - that’s what Banksy does. Pretty much any doco is going to be edited to support the filmmaker’s POV and agenda, if any, so there is always an element of fiction even in the most apparently straightforward, unbiased and, well, dull documentary, which Exit Through the Gift Shop is not.
Small anecdote to add: a friend’s brother is an established street artist, and has said he feels his work was appropriated in a Mr Brainwash show. At least as I’ve heard it, he blames Guetta.
I think most of the film is true, although I’ve heard (and believe) that the success of the MBW show at the end was largely manufactured and that he probably didn’t actually sell nearly as much as the movie implies.