Posted: April 13th, 2010 | Author:
ayoung | Category:
Guest Posts,
Random | Tags:
banksy,
exit through the gift shop |
No Comments » Note from RJ: The following post by Alison Young was originally published on her blog, Images to Live By. We at Vandalog would like to thank Alison for kindly allowing us to republish it here, along with part I of the review (posted yesterday).
Since the previous post, about expectations of what Exit Through the Gift Shop is about, turned out to be a long one, I thought I’d write a separate one dealing with what it’s not about.
So let’s go back to the second response that a lot of people seemed to have after seeing the movie – a feeling of surprise that it’s not ‘about’ Banksy, or at least not as much as they had expected.
It’s worth looking at this closely. Is the film ‘about’ Banksy? Well, the film is made by him, and thus it provides us with a text which tells us something about the artists and his concerns, just as his artworks, books and exhibitions do.
And then again, Banksy is in the movie: we see him in his studio; we see him stencilling; we see him with his crew of helpers creating the famous ‘vandalized telephone box’ in London (which goes on to sell for an extraordinary sum at auction); we see him installing a blow-up doll, hooded, shackled, and wearing an orange jumpsuit, at Disneyland, in a direct juxtaposition of American mass entertainment culture with the torture of detainees at Guantanamo. (All of these occurrences are filmed by Guetta.)
But of course, while all of these events are taking place, Banksy still withholds himself from any kind of identifying gaze – he wears the hood of his sweatshirt pulled over his head, his face is blanked by pixillation, his voice distorted (and his assistants’ identities are similarly masked).
So Banksy’s certainly in the movie, but he’s simultaneously on display and hidden from our view. But what we do see in plain sight are his stencils and his hands: as Banksy himself states in the film, ‘I told Thierry he could film my hands but only from behind’.
As he says these words in voice-over, the film shows us Banksy at work, cutting stencils (for one of his signature rats, to be put up on a wall in LA). And for me, that was one of the highlights of the film – watching those hands, whether at work on the stencil or gesturing along with the words spoken by Banksy’s distorted voice.
They’re slender hands, with long fingers. They’re the hands of an artist. What does the face matter, or the voice? Watch the film – and watch out for the scene of Banksy cutting stencils, with speed, and with great skill. That moment might not be central to the film, but it’s certainly what street art is all about.
Posted: April 12th, 2010 | Author:
ayoung | Category:
Guest Posts,
Random | Tags:
banksy,
exit through the gift shop |
No Comments » Note from RJ: The following post by Alison Young was originally published on her blog, Images to Live By. We at Vandalog would like to thank Alison for kindly allowing us to republish it here, along with part II of the review (coming tomorrow).
I’m in New York City right now, and last night I attended a preview screening of Banksy’s film, Exit Through the Gift Shop. The film is being released in a number of US cities from April 16th and if you click here you can find a list of release dates, cities and theaters. (If you’re reading this in Britain, the film’s been out for a few weeks; if you’re reading this in Australia, be patient a little longer because the film will be released there in early June.)
Given the intense interest in Banksy as an artist and in the mystery of his identity, it’s inevitable that this film will attract a lot of attention. What’s as interesting as the movie itself is the range of responses that people are having to the film. Among those who’ve seen it so far, people speak positively of the film (as they should, since it’s a highly enjoyable documentary), but they also seem, first of all, surprised that it is more about Mr Brainwash (aka MBW aka Thierry Guetta) than it is about Banksy; and, second, disappointed that, because the film is more about Mr Brainwash, Banksy doesn’t reveal much of himself in the movie.
Let’s start with the first of those reactions, that the film’s not ‘about’ Banksy, which certainly raises the question of what the film is about. Well, the film operates on many different levels, and one of its main ones is the story of how street art took off, from being something with an intense local significance which was shared through the networks of the global street art community for the enjoyment of those who practice or appreciate street art, to became an entrenched part of the mainstream art world, whereby paintings (and artists) are commodified for profit.
To tell that story, the film focuses on Thierry Guetta’s transformation from amateur film-maker into artworld succes du jour, as a means of demonstrating both the possibilities open to anyone with the will to put up art and the (slightly frightening) logical consequences of those possibilities (for example, having people queueing for hours to get into your art show, simply because they’ve been told by the media that your art is important).
The film treads a clever and careful line between condoning and critiquing the commercialization of street art, as its embodied in Guetta’s transformation: it really is left up to the viewer to work out where you stand on the issue. In some ways, the film seems to be criticizing the people who have bought Mr Brainwash’s work for vast sums of money and who have contributed to his art world stardom, but, then again, isn’t this the same art world that has made stars of Shepard Fairey and Banksy and Blek le Rat? If we want to critique the art world, it must be a critique that can specify why Mr Brainwash’s stardom is problematic when that of the others is not.
So: how do we think through that problem? Is it because Mr Brainwash doesn’t make all of his art himself? Neither does Shepard Fairey nowadays, nor Banksy (both of whom have assistants – and we see some of Banksy’s assistants at work in the film), and neither does Jeff Koons, for that matter. Is it because Mr Brainwash’s work is derivative (his work repeats many of the devices used by Andy Warhol, Banksy, Fairey, Nick Walker, Blek…)? Well, that might be a better founded criticism, but it still requires us to think through its implications: each of those artists borrow from other artists and art movements, re-presenting certain tropes in order to create a new art idiom. Perhaps Mr Brainwash’s endless borrowing (what some would even call plagiarism) from the borrowers lacks aesthetic merit because it does nothing new – no new idiom emerges from his pillaging of pop culture and street art.
At any rate, I think these issues form the heart of what the film is about – and I’d back this up by referring you to the movie’s title. By calling his film ‘Exit Through the Gift Shop‘, Banksy is both having a sly dig at museum culture, which often cynically seeks to extract more money from visitors after they have viewed an exhibit, but he is also pointing out to us the direction that street art may be heading in, now that its commercialization is so advanced – the only ‘exit’ is to find a way through the endless consumption offered to us as a poor substitute for the art itself.
Posted: March 5th, 2010 | Author:
RJ | Category:
Art News,
Featured Posts,
Guest Posts | Tags:
banksy,
exit through the gift shop |
5 Comments » Note from RJ: The following is a guest post by Jordan Seiler of Pubic Ad Campaign. The opinions are entirely his own, but I did ask him to write this post. I was asking myself the same questions that Jordan has considered, and I knew that he could provide a more intelligent analysis of the situation than I’m able.
Is this new Banksy Street Art or advertising, and does it even matter when it manipulates the public and negatively affects people’s relationships to the streets that surround them?
It is my contention that Street Art’s positive affect on the viewer and therefore the public in general is directly related to the producer’s intent to manipulate for self-interest. For pedestrians, the appropriation of public space by advertisers and artists is an interruption to the normal architecture of the city. When that interruption has no clear expectation of the viewer, the work becomes a point of dialogue and conversation between two unknown parties. It is as if a gift has been left behind to be appreciated or forgotten according to the viewer’s discretion. When that interruption is motivated by self-promotion, as in the case of advertising, this dialogue becomes a monologue that demands the viewer recognize a specific person, product, or thing. It would seem the intention of the imagery put in our public spaces can create two very different reactions in the viewer to the space itself.
Photo by caruba
Banksy is a hard nut to crack. His work very successfully uses the street to do what good Street Art always does, create moments of interaction and dialogue between public individuals where once a barren emptiness stood. And yet I often find myself wanting give him shit for some of the stunts he pulls (for example the above rat painted by Colossal Media) because they ride a thin line between being good street art and the work of someone with money to burn and a staff to pull off his antics. For me, having someone else do your work for you seems too close to advertising and therefore a manipulative abuse of public space. But this is clearly my personal opinion. As the Banksy machine grows in size and scope, the line he walks becomes ever more treacherous as possibilities to taint his street credibility multiply. The upcoming release of Exit Through the Gift Shop, and its subsequent promotion on Portabello Road in London, is a good example of this thin line we expect Banksy to carefully navigate. More importantly, it provides us with some insight into when street art has abandoned its initial interest in creating dialogue in favor of an outright promotion of the artist, and how that affects the public.
Photo by RomanyWG
I was recently made aware of the above “advertisement” on Portabello Road in Notting Hill. It seems to be the work of Banksy, or his PR firm, and promotes the upcoming release of his new documentary film. What stood in this location before the infamous vandal got his hands on it was a more traditional advertisement. To me this reinforces the notion that indeed Banksy has started advertising for himself. If so, this is an interesting juxtaposition to earlier works attributed to Banksy, which include this YouTube anti-advertising piece done over a blank advertising frame. Although Banksy may not be at work in this video, writing “The joy of not being sold anything” on a billboard is something we could expect out of an artist who describes his relationship to outdoor advertising like this:
Any advertisement in public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It belongs to you. It’s yours to take, re-arrange, and re-use. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
- Banksy in his book “Cut It Out”
This advertisement makes me want to get up there and buff it, a reaction against this piece and how it uses public space. One could argue that Banksy has crossed a line here by using public space for outright promotion instead of artistic practices and that this should affect how people see his work. Some would say that this line is dependent on whether or not Banksy has paid for this space or not. If he has rented the billboard, then he is simply promoting his personal agenda by buying public space, which seems counter intuitive to Banksy’s interests. If he has not rented the space and this appropriation of advertising real estate was done without permission in typical street art fashion, then is he simply continuing a long history of public appropriation?
Whether or not this Banksy piece is good or bad, art or advertising, tainted by the hypocrisy of advertising for himself using street art, or bettered by his wholesale appropriation of the public for his own means, is open for debate. To me the answer to the argument lies in the larger question of how we utilize public space productively so that our artwork creates more interactions and public relationships, instead of separations and points of friction.
The notion of intention as it is applied to artists and advertisers’ self interest when appropriating the public environment might reveal how the public receives the work and what benefits the work might have for the public at large. As I said before, both of these visual forms in public are interruptions, and maybe even distractions, so they have a serious affect on the way the public experiences its space. That said there are four examples of intention that create reactions with varying degrees of animosity or endearment for the viewer. These examples apply directly to advertising and art and I believe explain how visual works can affect the public’s feelings of separation or connectedness to public spaces.
- If someone intends to distract you for their own purposes, they are manipulating you and your relationship is one of conflict.
- If someone distracts you for their own purposes without intending to do so, you are upset but will generally not hold them responsible in the same way.
- If someone interrupts your day for the sake of pure communication without intending to do so, you might appreciate their action but not commend them for it.
- If someone intends to interrupt your day for the sake of pure communication it may endear you to them, developing a relationship through your appreciation.
So Advertisement, intending to distract you for its own purposes, creates a conflicted interaction where the viewer recoils from an environment that is manipulative. Good Street Art, with an interest in dialogue and two way communication, builds relationships by integrating the viewer into his or her experience of public space. Banksy’s traditional street work, intending to interrupt your day for the sake of communication is therefore experienced as a positive use of public space and leaves the viewer happy about his or her serendipitous run in. Alternatively, Banksy’s use of public space to promote his upcoming movie, whether intending to or not, is a use of public space for self-interest and therefore manipulative to the viewer. Whether or not this is advertising or Street Art is really not the question so much as is this a poor use of the public environment by an artist whose long history or work should have taught him better? To someone who greatly appreciates Banksy’s Street Art this image tarnishes the shine on much of his work. For someone who is unfamiliar with the artist it is just another image on the wall repeating a self-interested meme.
Photos by caruba and RomanyWG
Posted: August 1st, 2009 | Author:
Gaia | Category:
Guest Posts,
Photos | Tags:
booker |
No Comments » Recently there has been a slew of fire extinguisher tags New York. Reader is back in the city so he has definitely made his mark as of late with this scourge of graffiti.
Deeker
Boans
Reader completing Katsu's unfinished business
Politically incorrect
Amen??
Some oldies but still worthy of mention
Avoid ADHD
Curtis
- Gaia
Posted: July 22nd, 2009 | Author:
RJ | Category:
Featured Posts,
Guest Posts,
Random | Tags:
banksy |
No Comments » Last night I came across a post of Art of The State which sums up a major problem in street art in such a way that I just have to share the entire post. You can read the post, titled “Stop Thief! / the other Banksy show,” over at Art of The State, but for the benefit of Vandalog’s email subscribers who might not want to bother clicking on a link outside of their email client or are reading this on a phone or something, I’ve also reposted the entire article below. Thanks to Steve for letting me repost it (and going to the Banksy show in Covent Garden so that none of the rest of us have to).
Stop Thief! / the other Banksy show
One problem thats come out of the rise in the popularity of street art is that work that used to be left to survive on its own (either ending up being removed by the property owner or gone over with other graffiti – both of which are fine by me) is now having to die a slow, undignified death above someones fireplace. Street art is meant to be on the streets (the clues in the title). ‘Street art’ removed from the streets becomes, well, just ‘art’. I’m not talking about copies of street pieces that are meant to be sold and displayed. I’m talking about the peel off carefully, chisel out of the wall brigade. Case in point this was the scene in Brick Lane this afternoon. Walking around a corner I stumbled on this not too stereotypical street art ‘liberator’ carefully peeling off a fresh paste up. She then proceeded to roll it up, stuff it in a bag and then made her (slightly shaky) getaway in the direction of the 24 hour bagel shop (the best place in London for all your Bagel needs). It’s not exactly a crime but it would be much better if it was left there for others to enjoy.
A bit later on in the afternoon and against my better judgement I had a look at the totally unofficial show of ‘reclaimed’ Banksy work in Covent Garden. Walking up to it and even walking around it you’d be hard pressed to determine that Banksy would have had nothing to do with this show (his verification agency ‘Pest Control’ famously always refuses to authenticate street pieces). Most of the work on display has been lifted off the streets over recent years. Large sections of walls, doors and plaster are amongst the pieces that make up the exhibition. It’s a very soulless look at some of his work with a totally different vibe to the Bristol exhibition. In fact it has no vibe at all. Simple labels next to pieces tell you nothing, not even the city the works have been taken from. Banksy’s street pieces are all about the context of where they are placed and in this empty whitewashed hall they lose an important part of their reasons for existence. I actually thought that Andipa Modern’s recent Banksy show was better than this – it was an unofficial show too but at least the work they had on display at the last one was pretty much exclusively never placed on the street. That’s not meant as an endorsement of Andipa in case you were wondering.
This sign summed up the whole seedy enterprise for me…my advice is don’t buy anything here – it’ll only encourage them to do it again. Don’t bother with this sorry show and get yourself down to Bristol if you can….
Via Art of The State
Posted: July 13th, 2009 | Author:
tan | Category:
Featured Posts,
Guest Posts,
Photos,
Videos |
No Comments » 
ABOVE (interviewed) continues his trip throughout Europe with a stop in Berlin, Germany, making his mark on the Berlin Wall a little over 20 years after Ronald Regan made his historic speech at Brandenburg Gate stating, “Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Here are some detailed photos ABOVE’s massive word/play piece and how he marked the anniversary of the bridge to this divide.
Check out the rest of the pics and see the video here.
Cheers, Tan
Posted: July 13th, 2009 | Author:
elisa carmichael | Category:
Auctions,
Guest Posts | Tags:
artnet,
banksy,
barry mcgee,
basquiat,
date farmers,
dondi,
doze green,
keith haring,
margaret kilgallen,
mr.,
nick walker |
1 Comment »
Artnet.com is having an online urban art auction, which began July 7
th and runs through July 23
rd. The catalogue contains works by many of the major names in the scene, from the 80s through today, such as Dondi, Crash, Haring, Basquiat, Barry McGee, Banksy, Nick Walker, Faile and Shepard Fairey. There are also some strange, albeit nice, inclusions such as Mr. and Jim Houser, as well as some weaker urban choices, but on the whole this auction is definitely worth checking out as there is a good range of pieces in it.
It is also quite well-presented and easy to use; you can either scroll the catalogue page by page or search by artist. The biographical information is nice to have and I like the inclusion of sales results for comparable work – this is particularly handy if you are considering placing a bid.
I have highlighted a few of my personal favorites. Clicking on the image will take you to the lot.
Dondi White "Style Maneuver" 1983
Dondi White "Reflections", 1983
Keith Haring "Luna, Luna, a poetic extravaganza!" 1986
Keith Haring "Untitled (DOG) Oil on Wood" 1983
Mr. "Untitled (Yellow Hair)" 1996
Banksy "Have A Nice Day" 2004
Nick Walker "Sweet Revenge" 2008
Jean-Michel Basquiat "Anti-Baseball Card Product" circa 1979
Doze Green "Ancestros Totemic Series: Cuba" 2008
Date Farmers "Untitled" 2006
Barry McGee "Untitled" 1999
Margaret Kilgallen "Kingpin" 1997
Elisa x
Posted: July 13th, 2009 | Author:
Gaia | Category:
Art News,
Guest Posts,
Photos |
No Comments » You know you’ve seen it around, I mean the message is practically ubiquitous in the most quiet way possible. But apparently this is an anonymous group that has been disseminating this simple message. You Are Beautiful has released a website with an overview of murals and work dedicated to those three words. Thanks to Porous Walker for the tip.
Also, I’ve crossed over to the dark side so check out my blog on Juxtapoz
Posted: July 12th, 2009 | Author:
elisa carmichael | Category:
Art News,
Guest Posts |
No Comments » He apparently painted these pieces months ago, but only recently have images begun to circulate the internet. According to the Banksy flickr group, they are located in Mali. If you visited the Banksy vs. Bristol Museum Show, you may have noticed studies and photographs of them in the recreation of Banksy’s studio. I think they’re some of his strongest pieces in a while.
Thanks to Unurth for the tip.
Elisa x
Get new posts by Email