Mike Nichols, in his book about documentaries, An Introdution to Documentary, states that a fundamental difference between a fiction film and a documentary is that a fiction film is a 'reproduction' of reality while a documentary is a 'representation' of reality. This might not mean much but the significance of such a description, which I agree with, is poignantly subtle. What a documentary is grounded in and much motivation that propels such a film is an ability to represent a certain perspective of the reality, and this perspective is critical in the way in which a documentary expresses itself or sells its argument, if it indeed has one. Moreover, the expectations that arise when viewing a documentary are formed largely on the basis that we will be seeing something real, not constructed by screenplays and storyboards, a characteristic that mockumentaries use in their form of expression. It is a little difficult to state more unless I want to write a full essay on it, but there is never really a sense of escapism with a documentary that a fiction film always seems to hold, even if that fiction film is based off a true story; it is the fact that it isn't real reality in which the story took place that gives it an inherent escapist feel. Much of these notions go unsaid because they are intrinsic. In this day in age, after the popularity of This is Spinal Tap and the success of The Office, mockumentaries are falling more in line with more conventional fiction films in terms of audience expectations due to the familiarization with the technique. Nonetheless, when someone knows they are seeing a documentary, it is almost as if they want to learn about a particular juncture of reality or a particular point of view directly related to some real world situation, metaphors are cast aside (not to say documentaries don't carry metaphors).
Now, what if I told you to forget all that I have just told in the previous paragraph in order to talk about Banksy's fascinating film, Exit Through the Gift Shop?
I guess I must explain myself a little further, but I believe this film is a prank; not in a bad sense or careless sense, but one that brings about the characteristics of street art and its perception by the general public. Before I go into some of the big reasons for this assumption I will state that this is an essay that will not try to prove it is a prank film but use this assumption as a basis for analysis. Anyways, I think you might have to ask one question to yourself after seeing the film: If you were to make a film on street art why make it like this? Take note that there are two titanic mechanisms at play here to determine the construction of this story of film, the characteristics and perception of street art and the persona and anonymity of Banksy. We learn that street art only lasts maybe a night or two as opposed to other, more traditional, forms of art. Also, the act of making the street art is an adventure of its own, one that must be done swift, secretly, and in a fashion where the piece made can be seen by many. Banksy has a knack of creating his pieces in focal places (the West Bank wall, for example) and doing so in a timely manner.
Now lets look at Banksy, himself. He is (in)famous for his intense thematic elements, ironic humor, and total obscurity; his stature as an artist is tremendous. His mysteriousness allows him a unique mobility; no one knows his face except for his close friends which means he could go anywhere without drawing attention. His credentials are colorfully rebellious and intense in theme and humor. I will safely say that if anyone were to make a prank film with significance it would be Banksy, using much of his 'Scarlet Pimpernel' mobility and attitude as an advantage to capture audiences unaware while making a statement in this film, which is what street art is all about and certainly what Banksy is all about.
This film could be considered a pseudo-doc-mock fiction documentary film if it is true to be a hoax. In that it is a fake documentary of Guetta that is a mockumentary since it is a prank and thus it is fiction but it is still essentially a documentary of street art with real events and facts about artists and the art.
So, what is Banksy trying to say? A lot of things, actually, not just about his craft but of art in general. We are shown almost the whole process of street art originating from its rough and clandestine beginnings to the showcasing of famous street artist's work in exhibitions and galleries, including Banksy (though he finds his own space and takes full control of, which I'll get to later). We also see an individual, Guetta, witness such a transformation as well as act upon it in what thinks is the 'right' way to approach such an art, which turns into an artistic cacophony of over-saturation and lack of any personal guidance. It is an observation of an evolution of an art, from how artists approach it to how it is perceived by others. I recall the origins of film as being just a showcase of attraction rather than a tool for storytelling and thought provocation, then from silent film to sound, a whole new dynamic of artist approach and audience expectation, which all art forms have to deal with, and Banksy is well aware of and wants us to see the worst-case scenario, Guetta. He dies this in a way that is coated in his own sly humor and double meanings that, if proved to be a hoax, goes hand in hand with his persona.
The idea of Mr. Brainwash is the complete sell-out of an artist who forgoes any practice of artistic thought and work and runs dries ideas that have already come and gone. As Banksy said about MBW in relation to Andy Warhol, Warhol made many iterations of the same thing to render it meaningless. MBW is doing the same thing but he is making them, well, really meaningless. He rushes into the commercialization of the art without any direction and only a list in memory of all the works he had seen from people like Invader, Fairey, and Banksy. His name, Mr. Brainwash, is strangely indicative of this notion; it is both reflexive to his own character but may even be a hint at the people who perceived his show as glamorous. There is a hilarious scene where MBW is trying to figure out the prices for his pieces. Well, trying may not be the right word, he essentially throws ridiculous prices at his recycled pieces. Yet, he apparently made around one million dollars from the show. Banksy said it worked, but is it really art?
Of course, perception of art is said to be 'in the eye of the beholder'. Sure, but remember the characteristics that make street art unique and look at how MBW practiced this medium. Also note the extreme marketing campaign of the event and the hype it spawned; the frenzy of it all is enough to make people salivate over pieces of art that really have already been done and have no meaning except heir existence. It also almost forces people to try to find meaning in the totality of the show, though the meaning may be what I am saying here, with the help from Banksy (though I will say, on the other hand, we got to know Guetta before he was MBW and knew of his eccentricities and obsessions while the attendees of the show had no privilege). Street art is stripped of its unique and otherwise inherent qualities and made into a forceful public display in order to try and present the work as more important than it really is. The art lacks nuance and context, something that Fairey and Banksy take into account in their work and what makes their's have substance.
When I watched this for the third time with a friend (who was seeing it for the first time), I told him about how I thought this film wasn't real in the sense that this film was a project for Banksy to express his concerns for his art. He said that he could believe that and caught something in the film that I haven't even caught before. Banksy's exhibition in LA, 'Barely Legal', had a live elephant painted in the style of the wallpaper in the room, standing in the middle of the space. Playing off the the notion that we may ignore the bigger issues that are right in front of us. I may or may not be saying that this sort of pun is connected with the artificiality of the film, but it makes sense, since we are to believe in MBW and his work but the bigger problem people may miss, and certainly the attendees of the event (well, most), is that that isn't street art and MBW is not a street artistic but only a calculating summation of experience from other artists. Essentially, the 'fake-ness' of MBW may be attributed not just to his ignorance to his incompetence but his whole persona.
Though, it is not a very graspable reason, but I think this film is a hoax because it falls so closely in line with Banksy's persona. I could get into all the technical, chronological, and narrative subtitles, which you could probably pick out after watching the film enough, but I'll settle with explaining its significance. It is Banksy's way of making fun of the commercialization and monetization of art. Once you uderstand how Banksy is motivated when creating a work of art you realize this film, as a whole, is a very Banksy work of art (if you believe it is a hoax). Street art, again, is to catch people off guard, unaware, and this film does so in such an elaborate manner.
Nevertheless, hoax or no hoax, what we see is not necessarily a film about street art but a street art film. It plasters itself all over the traditional notions of art, its value, and evolution. It is allowed to do this because street art challenges those notions all the time. Street art is about the act of making it just as much as it is about the art (or maybe the act of making it is the 'street' part), Banksy shows us that perception and motivation becomes distorted when you detach those two elements. If my assumption is correct, he would be laughing at all the people who bought into a phantom artist, or, to get philosophical, a tabula rasa exhibiting a gallery of tabula rasa; it is work so banal and desolate that anyone can approach it and construct their own extravagant meaning (MBW has a funny scene when describing a picture of Elvis with a toy gun instead of a guitar, Banksy could easily have directed that to help drive the point home). It also shows us the Banksy is an intelligent filmmaker, one who knows where he comes from and where he is going and create a story that fulfills what he wishes to express, and Exit Through the Gift Shop is not only one of the best documentaries in recent memory but one of the most fascinating films I have seen about art, as the famous street artist tries to divert our attention to that large elephant standing in the middle of the room.
If you want a more extensive look at how ETTGS is a hoax go to this article http://www.fastcompany.com/1616365/banksy-movie-prankumentary You can read the article which is a good one but search for the name John Shorney, who makes a great claim to this notion, not only by relating the film to Banksy's persona, as I do, but going further and equating the antics to what Andy Warhol did with his career. Fascinating stuff.
No comments:
Post a Comment