Exit Through the Gift Shop.

I’m nobody’s idea of an art expert, or even an art fan, but I was mostly enthralled by the documentary Exit Through the Gift Shop, even before I was fully aware of the controversy over whether the film is real or an elaborate hoax perpetrated by the guerrilla street artist Banksy, who appears in the film.

Taken at face value, the film covers French expatriate Thierry Guetta, a father of three and owner of a vintage clothing store in L.A. who happens to be related to French street artist Invader, whose specialty is mosaic pieces depicting icons from the game Space Invaders. Thierry films street artists obsessively, accumulating thousands of hours of footage of interviews and of artists creating and deploying their work (as well as many more hours of his everyday life, including footage of his wife and kids at various ages). Thierry’s obsession turns into a documentary project, but when his attempt to make a film turns out to be unwatchable, Banksy – who appears in Thierry’s life after the Frenchman has tried and failed to reach him many times – takes over the task of creating the film, leaving Thierry free to become a (mediocre) street artist in his own right. The film’s climax centers on Thierry’s quixotic effort to mount a giant exhibition in L.A. despite his lack of any real body of work or reputation, relying instead on the powers of promotion to create a buzz where none should exist.

That final third of the film is entertaining and provides it with structure and even a little narrative greed, but it was far less interesting to me than the first two thirds, which focused on various street artists (Shepard Fairey and Banksy in particular) and on the rise of the movement in general. It also hints at the debate over whether such “graffiti” is art, defacement, or something in between. As someone almost fully unfamiliar with the movement other than knowing who Banksy is and having seen Fairey’s “OBEY” images, I found the film enlightening despite no apparent educational aim.

The real question, of course, is whether the film is a hoax or not. Roger Ebert believes it isn’t, and an ongoing lawsuit over Guetta’s use of a copyrighted image of Run-DMC is tangible evidence in that direction. Guetta’s art installation did occur, and if it was all an elaborate stunt, it hoodwinked the local media along the way.

Circumstantial evidence that the film is all a prank abounds, however. The apparent lack of any means of supporting his family while Guetta jets around the world filming street artists and the patience of his wife for his ridiculous efforts both strained credibility: she’s either a saint or a moron. My wife would have divorced me after a tenth of what Debora Guetta tolerated. The various comments at the end of the film and the descriptions in the epilogue all seemed tongue-in-cheek, as if the joke is on us (despite the art dealer’s apparent reluctance to say so). There’s also the question of who actually created the art shown in Thierry’s show, as he’s never shown doing anything more than wielding a can of spray paint, and doing so without the confidence or clarity of purpose that other street artists in the film show. Could Banksy and Fairey have produced all of this derivative art to parody themselves and the street art scene’s devolution into a critically acclaimed and commercially successful medium? Of course they could have … but if so, why have they still not revealed that it was all a put-on?

Exit Through the Gift Shop is available for rental on amazon through that link or for instant streaming on Netflix. It’s worth watching just for the superficial primer on late 1990s/early 2000s street art, one which made me want to learn more about the movement, but the mystery of whether this cartoonish Frenchman really did subvert the movement he claimed to admire gives the viewer a different lens through which to watch the film.

Comments

  1. Brainwash continues to release new prints, to make new art, etc. I don’t think he’s a hoax:

    http://www.mrbrainwash.com/news/news.html

  2. I loved this film when I saw it last year. In terms of the question of it being a hoax, I’m not sure. I suspect it is something in-between. I suspect that Banksy bankrolled his art launch. I’m not sure anyone bankrolled his documentary work. Regardless, MBW is still making art and has staged a few other large exhibitions in New York and Miami. If it is a hoax, art buyers have paid millions for garbage. Though, I guess even a hoax would potentially make it valuable…the art market always has the last laugh.

    Here’s the MBW website, and you can find several interviews with him online: http://www.mrbrainwash.com/home.html

  3. Brian in Tolleson

    Hoax? hmm…I didn’t think that at all, maybe I’m just dense. I thought it really a tacit shot at the absurdity of consumerism. We see the arc of this art as being vandalism, it being slowly accepted, and then embraced through an absurd art show where A list types (who panned this a few years ago as hoodlum hi-jinx) now shelling out gobs of money for an artist’s work who is widely considered a joke amongst his peers.

    I also love the title.

  4. Hi Keith,

    I’m also a big fan of the film and no film better complements Exit Through the Gift Shop better than Orson Welles’ F For Fake ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072962/ ). It’s a fantastic film – part documentary, part film essay about the art world. Weaving together the work of Elmyr de Hory, an art forger, Clifford Irving the author of the fake Howard Hughes and some Orson Welles slight of hand.

    You need to watch it!

  5. PBS aired a documentary on graffiti in the early 80s that is a must watch: Style Wars. A personal favorite is Piece By Piece, a documentary on San Francisco graffiti (simply well put together). Another movie is Infamy, that covers the major players from the last 15 years, it’s decent.

  6. Klaw,

    Couple of links for you as follow ups on the movie.

    Banksy ended up giving a painting to a UK cover band for appropriating their band name for his movie. That painting is estimated to be worth £200k. Pretty nice present: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/7639413/Banksy-gives-band-200k-painting-in-apology-for-stealing-their-name.html

    This write-up I put together gives some great background on the movie, including its first appearance (unannounced) at Sundance, and how Banksy traveled along with the movie premier, spreading graffiti in different cities during its premier: http://www.sportshui.com/2010/04/how-to-sell-sht-to-cts-alternate-title.html

    Finally, the Simpsons, as seen through the eyes of Banksy: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xf5obj_generique-de-simpsons-par-banksy_shortfilms

  7. I questioned the authenticity of Mr Brainwash as well during that final third where we see him doing no more than wheeling around on a scooter ‘directing traffic’. But in talking to my wife about the film afterward, she talked about the many different artists over the years that employed many assistants, who were known to do a lot (if not most) of the work that was later credited to the master artist. Rembrandt is a chief example.

    While I wrestled with that, the fact that most of what Mr Brainwash produces is blatant rip-off of not just these assistants, but of other artists that are well-established and he’s pretty much stolen their signature images and tried to make it his own. Andy Warhol is the most blatant example. In my mind, Mr Brainwash is the equivalent to Charlie Morton- he may have adopted Roy Halladay’s mechanics, but he still is no Halladay.

  8. to frame the film or question(s) as a matter of whether mbw is either a hoax or authentic is a common mistake. to use a fancy-shmancy GRE word, it is undecidability which is what is at stake. that just means that the film asks (or even requires) a deferal of an asnwer. i would suggest this is one of the messages we should take from the film: a movement beyond either/or, to more views that are both/and.

    in my view, mbw is *BOTH* REAL *AND* FAKE at the same time. how? because where that line is drawn is constantly being renegotiated by not just mbw, or banksy, or the people that buy their work – but all of us as consumers of the film/works etc. the film is about the viewer’s expectations (and the people who buy mbw or banksy, or whomever’s art) as much as anything else.

    if mbw is accepted as an artist, what does it mean to be “an artist”?

    at present, it seems clear that people are willing to pay for mbw’s work. if nothing else, this should indicate that people are invested (both in terms of time and money) in, not necessarily the answers, but the question(s).

    some, on the other hand, have bracketed the questions as unanswerable and focused elsewhere…as keith has done here.

    anyway, that’s how i read the film.

  9. If you love the first two thirds of Exit through the Gift Shop you will love Bomb It.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1002535/

  10. @Kirk: Rodin oversaw many of his largest works as well, as have many sculptors. And of course there’s the debate around how much of Dumas’ work was written by him and how much by his staff.

    “My wife would have divorced me after a tenth of what Debora Guetta tolerated.”

    Clearly your wife doesn’t love you enough, Keith. New wife!