DEFINITIVE PROOF - Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010) Discussion

[–] nasdaq311 13 years ago

they are still having you on mate, and you are buying every minute of it, hilarious. The producer and the editor are totally in on the joke man....

reply

[–] jivetalkinhonkey 13 years ago

Oh Banksy, you're not fooling anyone. We all know you want people to think you're such a genius so badly that you're bullying everyone on this forum under the alias nasdaq311 to make them believe that none of what we saw in the movie was real and that you invented Thierry Guetta, Mr. Brainwash, his *beep* show and the entire history of street art just so you can give the middle finger to oblivious art snobs everywhere. Well, I'm on to you, mate...

reply

[–] drei85 9 years ago

It seemed to me the film was about how easy it is to give a finger to artists. That if this guy exists, he kind of didn't get it, but at the same time, he completely got something. Mr. Brainwash connected art, brainwashing, consumerism (barcodes, soup, popart), and celebrity culture. And the hype seemed to work. In a way, even if he was a real person *and* a fraud, he somehow stumbled into having a message. Does he know his own message? That's another layer.

But if this guy is a real person, his art show was totally at least two art shows at once. The first is Life is Beautiful for the art snob crowd, and the second is the same exact thing plus the art snob crowd. And it was for the artists he thinks of as friends.

He either purposely or accidentally gave them a massive street art installation that was telling them that their mainstream success is kind of a joke that can be done by anyone, and that their notion that they do it for art's sake is also not true because they're probably offended by what's just happened.

All the people that bought their art and bought Thierry's as well, now you wonder if they really did know what they were doing or they don't understand you either. All the nice things that have been said about their art, the huge crowds, that is diminished too. And all they're left with is their own original pure artistic intentions, and they're left wondering if that's enough. And they probably don't like that.

Whether or not Mr. Brainwash exists, or whether or not he intended to or didn't intend to send whatever message, or whether or not the artists really don't know what's going on (they probably do), Mr. Brainwash totally succeeded in showing that art may be just about "brainwashing".

And then you find yourself *beep* things about a piece of art, this movie, and you realize you've just thought lowly of other people making things up about something and why it either sucked or was the best thing, and you've been doing the exact same thing. It's layers of truth, lies, irony, and cognitive dissonance. It's good and bad, it's true and untrue, it's made up and not made up, it's straightforward and facetious, it's shallow and deep. It's art. Probably. Maybe it's not.

reply

[–] jonathancaltman 13 years ago

I'll watch the vid later, but thanks for the post.

It is completely amazing to me that so many people need to feel ahead of the curve that they're tossing themselves off the cliff entirely.

I can't imagine what the movie means to them if they think it's staged somehow. Like, why? It's as if their faint knowledge of Banksy means the same to them as their knowledge of Paul Bunyan. Not knowing any facts makes him a figure of myth, with unlimited resources and time to spend "pranking."

If you think the dude's motivated artistically by "pranks," you haven't understood a single work of his. Not to claim any broad knowledge myself, but the dude uses unconventional space for art to augment the message. Like, using the footage from a failed documentary to build a really compelling one. He's not *beep* Ashton.

Sorry, that's me soapboxing on your fine thread:-P I just came from an AICN post with Massawyrm doing the "whether you think it's real or not." Indulging that knee-jerk reaction hot off "I'm Not Here" is irresponsible. Then finding statements here about how it's a mockumentary.

Again, no clue what the movie meant to them. If it wasn't a tragic portrait of a man desperate to make his mark in history with no creative means to do so, then what the *beep*'s the take-away? "Banksy did it as a prank cuz he's a prankster."

Christ.

reply

[–] craig-623 13 years ago

That's not really proof. Of course they're going to say its all real. They'd say it was real if it all actually happened... and they would say it's real if it was all fake! (because then the whole point would be that it's... a hoax, and ummm they made it... so they'd be the last people to admit that was the case) But a great interview!

reply

[–] nasdaq311 13 years ago

Of course they're going to say its all real - their job is to promote this movie

reply

[–] Felonious-Punk 13 years ago

The interview linked to in the OP deserves to be seen by anybody who comments on this board, so, bump!

The closest movies to my heart: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=46910443

reply

[–] csenoner 13 years ago

Dont you guys find it weird that the producer and editor of the film have never made a film before. they are these guys being interviewed speaking nonsense, basically trying to reinforce that guetta is real and trying to sound professional. are we supposed to believe them because they have nice british accents? (heres the link: http://www.woostercollective.com/2010/10/one_to_watch_david_polands_dp30_on_exit.html)

Who are these guys. why are we to believe them. how is this proof of anything. this prank is dynamic, still alive and they are further reinforcing it by continuing to put effort making it look like it wasnt a hoax.

i mean are these guys in this interview actors? are they the real editor and producer? are they in on it? probably. im not buying any of it.

its even mentioned that they werent around to give interviews during sundance. they are there to promote their film but werent available to speak? i wonder why???????

this explains nothing. sorry.

all i know is there is no reason for anyone to start filming this guy and putting so much energy into watching him and following him around and putting resources into these filmmakers watching thousands of hours of bs footage that theyve all agreed is crap. if its crap why are u watching it? why would u pay people to watch useless crap. they keep saying hes such a bad filmmaker etc.

why would they do all of that before thierry ever got big? there was no story. there was nothing worth watching or spending time on. the only way i would make sense to film all of that is if you know the way the story is going to end which is to know that this idiot would become a huge artist.

the only way to know that is to plan it out and put your resources towards making that happen, meaning fairey and banksy hyping him up and making this all go according to plan. im glad some people are admitting that they were fooled and now after reading stuff on the internet and watching it again they see whats really going on. theres nothing wrong with that. he tried to fool you. at least you are being real.

reply

[–] Felonious-Punk 13 years ago

Remember how Banksy in the movie says "That's when I began to trust Thierry. This is a movie about trust"? Something like that? Well, I have always liked taking people at face value until they show me dishonesty, especially where there is little to lose. Sometimes I get labeled "gullible", but somehow I'm happy to have that as the trade-off to feeling happy and free. The obvious answer doesn't seem like poison to me. I think that's why I'm willing to believe Banksy and the movie. I think the producer and editor looked through the footage because Banksy said this would make for a cool movie about street art, and a little bit of a human story about an outsider who is passionate about it.

Have you ever looked at the movie from the angle of love and acceptance? Banksy is this secretive unknown guy, who finally lets someone in. Another artist talks about painting out of love for a deceased family member. Thierry has lost family and can't put down the camera for fear of losing a moment. They all paint on public property as if to call attention to themselves. And Thierry comes and shows that a lot of it boils down to a need to be accepted. It ends with Thierry crawling back out of the deep dark spiral of his ego, and painting on a wall, "life is beautiful".

It can all be very simple.

The closest movies to my heart: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=46910443

reply

[–] gnome-5 13 years ago

"Dont you guys find it weird that the producer and editor of the film have never made a film before."

Where do people get these ideas? The editor has been in the business for 20 years. You're on IMDB -- why don't you use it? The producer has a credit for one documentary before this one. Are you saying that Chris King is the most serious method actor of all time, that he's worked as a editor for 20 years just to prepare for this role?

"why would they do all of that before thierry ever got big? there was no story."

There was a treasure trove of footage of some of the biggest names in street art at work. Actually going through it all, mostly unlabeled, is a nightmare. But that's what editors do. It's not a movie where you have to have a script to proceed, they found the story in the process, as often happens with documentaries.

"all i know is there is no reason for anyone to start filming this guy"

After they went through the footage, they realized that Thierry was the story, and they started filming him to fill in the details.

"the only way to know that is to plan it out and put your resources towards making that happen,"

So you're saying that these guys found Thierry, got him to document street artists over the course of a decade, all with the idea of one day presenting him as the next Big Thing in Art? And how could they guarantee that it would work? What if, after several years, Thierry's big art show was a bust? Does any of that actually make sense to you?

reply

[–] Felonious-Punk 13 years ago

Amen, gnome5. You stated your points clearly, and for me your points get to the heart of the doubt and shatter it.

The closest movies to my heart: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=46910443

reply

[–] csenoner 13 years ago

here's jaime d'cruz, the producer's imdb profile.

He has 2 credits:

Chickens, Hugh and Tesco Too (TV documentary)

and

exit through the gift shop.

is that supposed to convince me that hes a real film producer and that im supposed to trust that in that interview he isnt just putting on a performance.

i wouldnt put that beynd banksy. to throw out some guys and tell them to pretend that they made the movie. to put a face out there aside from banksys that could be used to accomplish the deceit.

and chris king? a guy who makes tv documentaries for british tv. (his profile shows hs been invloved in19 titles over 11 years. not 20 years as you suggest. none of it is notable.)

hes an editor. obviously the movie was going to be professionally made and they needed quality editing to give it a wide release, and so they got a guy with some experience editing doumentaries for tv. what does that mean? that means that thierry is real and the whole story is legitimized? of course not.

this is part of the deception. convince you this is a serious documentary film. here look at these guys with english accents wearing suits. theyll even tell you that thierry is real. you can trust them, theyre english. english people are too polite to lie to your face.

jeez. you really are gullible if thats enough to convince you.

reply

[–] gnome-5 13 years ago

"here's jaime d'cruz, the producer's imdb profile. He has 2 credits:"

Oh, I thought you said he had never done anything before. The point is, he's made a documentary before but isn't a big shot. Who does Banksy go to? Some Hollywood big wig? No, a local guy who's on his way up.

"and chris king? a guy who makes tv documentaries for british tv. (his profile shows hs been invloved in19 titles over 11 years. not 20 years as you suggest. none of it is notable.)"

Oops, I mistook 1999 for 1991. And what difference does it make if it's 11 years or 20, he's a flipping editor by trade, not an actor. And who are you to decide if any of his work is "notable" or not?

reply

[–] DobertReNiro 13 years ago

csenoner, i'll let your grammatical/english abilities speak for me AND you.... you are a total moron. END of story. NO debate at ALL. ANY point you make that may appear to be valid is completely void of credibility due to your ignorance. END of story. No, but really.... seriously.... you are dumb.

Really people?? 2-3 uneducated "artists" came up with a 10-15 year hoax to fool you all with NO intention of making money? Their intention was to (while fooling you and making ONE film) take away any credibility from their own craft? You realize this film devalues their own work 100% Are you people REALLY this *beep* retarded????

irony: The same people here that are convinced this film is a hoax, are the EXACT same breed/level of intellect of people BUYING MRB art. Understand??? That's right... reading TOO far into a mundane piece, so far infact they call it brilliance and throw themselves off a cliff with abolsute assurance that it's justified. "This film is a hoax, i'm SO sure!!" - "This art is REAL, i'm So sure!!" LOL - just *beep* lol at you.

I mean WTF people, you "hoax" believers are as ignorant as they come. Call pluto a planet all you like, but guess what?... It's exactly what it is, a giant ball of ice. NOTHING more. To say "Pluto is too advanced and deliberate to NOT be a planet" is your logic, and it doesn't hold a drop.

Bottom line: You are convinced a few people that are too lazy/DUMB to make it in the real world (and accidentally made MILLIONS BEFORE THIS HOAX, accidentally morons... accidental "art" made MONEY for banksy and co.) were intelligent enough to fool NOT YOU, but ME. "I'm WAY too smart to fall for this hoax, but i'm a rare breed that's smarter than you and i understand that YOU fell for it".

No morons. It's simply NOT a hoax. Do your homework and move on. 10-30 minutes of digging SHOULD convince you this is NO hoax but a entertaining story that proves art is not what buyers/speculators think/hope it is. It's 90% hype, 10% talent. That 10% talent is VERY generous, as even classic highly-respected artists are copycats. EVEN BANKSY is a self-proclaimed copycat.

- Good artists copy, GREAT artists steal. - Pablo Picasso
- Good artists copy, GREAT artists steal. - BANKSY

Banksy has the ability to, FROM SCRATCH, reproduce famous works and add his own spice/flavor to make it personal. He will recreate an entire painting FROM SCRATCH and THEN add his own taste.

MRB can only copy. Literally. Photocopy, Photoshop, etc. Adding splatted paint or colors to a SCANNED or REPRODUCED work is simply copying.

reply

[–] Nearvana 12 years ago

great posts by you, felonious punk, & gnome5.
something i would like to add, but some may disagree with me on, but your comment about how the people who believe it is a hoax are the same kind of people who would purchase mbw's work reminds me of a conversation a friend & i had not long ago. we were talking about how we feel andy warhol is one of the most overrated artists to date. again, i know many would disagree with me on this, but i don't see how mbw & andy warhol really differ.

one could argue whether their work is genius or simple obvious ripoffs of others work, not to say this devalues their work, as you state all artists steal or are 'inspired' by others. however, to some it is trivial exploitative (narcissist) crap. you can actually google my last adjectives with warhol & see many who agree, not that my opinion or anyone else's needs validating, particularly when discussing art, but it does make me feel a little more confident when debating this, since i am obviously not an expert.

however, this is where one has to step back when discussing this documentary or the artists in it. art is meant to be subjective, not to imply it means nothing, but it means different things to different people, even pop art, even art designed to fool to the viewer, which is where this documentary seems to be annoying people.

this couldn't have been a hoax. as you stated, anyone who thinks it is, is looking far to into it as to justify their theory. i just don't see how anyone with any sense of logic would believe that a group of people, underground graffiti artists (remember this was what they were when this started) would dedicate a decade+ of their lives to create a documentary, whose only goal would be to give the proverbial finger to the art world. this would mean they all had the gift of foresight in knowing that a decade later their art would even be widely accepted in the art world. i do not think any of them had a clue that they would have achieved the success that they have. i mean ffs proper art shows with celebrity buyers, auctions at the worlds most famous galleries, obsessive news articles/blogs in attempting to reveal who they are, making millions from recreating aforementioned graffiti, granted not typical graffiti, but graffiti (properly termed street art) nonetheless...

oh yes, definitely a hoax. cue eye roll.

reply

[–] jaiteee 13 years ago

I've already said this in another thread - but Csenoner ( yet again ) you seem to be the only person getting this. Why???? Let's meet up for a coffee sometime.

reply

[–] csenoner 13 years ago

gnom-5, you said:

"So you're saying that these guys found Thierry, got him to document street artists over the course of a decade, all with the idea of one day presenting him as the next Big Thing in Art? And how could they guarantee that it would work? What if, after several years, Thierry's big art show was a bust? Does any of that actually make sense to you?"

That is exactly what nI think happened. I can't believe its so hard for you to fathom.

They wanted to play an elaborate hoax on the art world. they devised a plan.

We have no proof that thierry actually has ten years worth of street art footage. this is a character they created. he didnt even exist for 10 years. All they had to do to convince you of that was to show you a room full of video tapes. write some bs on the label. organize em into shoeboxes etc and suddenly it look slike hes ben filming years worht of footage. we actually ony see, what 20-30 minutes of street art footage in the movie BEFORE thierry starts doing art. they could have shot all of that footage in a couple of days. these guys are connected with many big time grafiti artists. you think it would be that hard to get 2 or 3 of them out to bomb some buildings and let them film it?

thats what happened. they either took archived footage that wasnt shot by theirry, or they took thierry out with these guys just to shoot enough footage to to show us a bit and then shw us a room full of all of thierrys video footage hes supposedly been shooting for years. suddenly it looks like he really has been shooting for years mission accomplished.

they know the kind of clout they have (banksy and fairy). they know that all they need to do is come out and say mr. brainwash is awesome and his show is going to be awesome. with them backing him and a world full of non critical fakers/followers they knew theyd be able to pull it off. thats the whole point. they couldnt guarantee it would work. they thought it was a stunt worth trying to pull off. if it didnt work, they wouldnt have released the documentary and the whole thing would have been nothing other than a blip on the radar, but because it did work they realy got to milk it and are still ding so.

and if thierrys big art show was a bust?? who cares. if the show wasnt a huge event with thousands f people that would mean that few people ven knew about it, and that would jusr make it go unnoticed, extremely quietly. hes a fictitious character that can just disappear, no one would notice if they never made the documentary.

dont you get it? i cant believe how hard it is t understand what happened here. you got duped. just recognize it. it just makes the film more brilliant. you just dont want to admit to being duped. you want to believe this garbage cinderella stry they told you. its not even supposed to be inspiring its supposed to be a joke, to show they could take a talentless *beep* and make him famous by saying they thought his work was good. to expose the art world. its what theyve done and theyve exposed you too. ha.

reply

[–] gnome-5 13 years ago

"We have no proof that thierry actually has ten years worth of street art footage. this is a character they created. he didnt even exist for 10 years."

Oh, and how long did you research to make that bold statement? You have no proof because you don't know anything and you don't want to know anything.

You can tell from the footage that some of it is very old. Others have noted that when Thierry meets Shepard, you can see outside the window of the copy shop. In recent years a building was put up, but in the footage that building isn't there. So you can date parts of the footage if you know the city. Others have tracked down the clothing store that he used to own. I've lived in LA since 1991 and I can tell that it's not all from 2008. The photos of promotional posters for Remote Control I think date to 2006. So the "shoot for a few days" doesn't wash. And Thierry is in enough of it, setting the camera down and helping out, that the "cobbled together" footage idea doesn't wash.

"and if thierrys big art show was a bust?? who cares."

Except they would have had to invest a lot of their own money in renting the space -- the old TV station is huge and commercial rents in LA aren't cheap -- and hire all those people to create Mister Brainwash's art -- and for what?

To thumb their noses at the people who buy their art? To damage their own earning potential?

Don't you get it? This story is too weird to be made up!

reply

[–] Nearvana 12 years ago

i guess they think thierry went on christian bale's mechanic diet or donned a fat suit for 'later' footage. ha. i would hate to be these people, imagine how terrible it must when they feel their fragile egos have been challenged, never able to just simply admit they are wrong. the horror!

reply

[–] bgdc 13 years ago

If the video footage is faked they did a bang up job. You'd get further with the hoax angle if you accepted some things had to have been taped within the timeframe they're discussing. Quite a few of the early videos of Thierry following people and celebs shows him at younger stages. Is that faked? Well if it's faked, that's really elaborate.

In the end, it's an entertaining film and that's the best you can hope for.

reply

[–] yehaww 13 years ago

"So you're saying that these guys found Thierry, got him to document street artists over the course of a decade, all with the idea of one day presenting him as the next Big Thing in Art? And how could they guarantee that it would work? What if, after several years, Thierry's big art show was a bust? Does any of that actually make sense to you?"
-----------------------------------------------------------

I don't know about that. I think what MOST "hoax" people are saying is that everything is real, up until Thierry gets his assignment from Banksy. Banksy makes it sound like he never imagined MBW would take off like he did. I find it perfectly believable that Banksy and Thierry knowingly tried to scam the art world. I'm not sure either way, but I think it's possible that Thierry had Banksy's advice and help all the way through his LA show.

What better prank than to make people pay thousands of dollars for something scanned and photoshopped by some guy in Thierry's studio?

reply

[–] dicepants 13 years ago

Okay, now here is a sound argument for the HOAX people. While I like to believe that its all real (its more fun that way) I will say I can see why people think that once Thierry got the assignment its a fake. I dont agree, but it makes more sense than "They posed that back footage" because thats *beep*

reply

[–] bs-2010 13 years ago

I find it hard to believe that Thierry's story was staged by Banksy. If you watch interviews that have Shepard Fairey in them post movie, he still expresses bitterness and resent towards Thierry as shown in the film. I feel like it would be a waste of their time to continue a joke this long.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nearvana 12 years ago

something to add to your data:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jun/08/banksy-thierry-guetta-lawsuit

reply

[–] the-devil-boy 12 years ago

It was kind of you to offer, Nearvana, but that article is already citation #16 on my list. It's good to see someone who's willing to do their own research *before* jumping to wild conclusions though!

The observer is the observed. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply

[–] Nearvana 12 years ago

next time i should check out a list before adding to it. so for that, my apologies. it's really nice that you made the effort to compile one regarding this... :)

reply

[–] tyrexden 10 years ago

Watch THIS IS SPINAL TAP, or those mermaid documentaries on the History Channel. Its quite easy to spot someone trying to act real life, no matter how good an actor they are, when they are actually just playing a fake part.

I believe this doc is real... Surely, as with any good doc, there might be some truth bending or misrepresentation used in order to back up the narrative... all good docs have a story and a slant...

But Mr. Brainwash conducted himself exactly as i'd expect someone in his shoes to be. People of the youtube generation think EVERYthing is fake, but if you ask me, this movie is one example of reality being interesting enough. real.

reply

[–] babstoyfish 10 years ago

Is there another link to this video? The one posted here is dead..
Thanks

reply

[–] JellyFish19 9 years ago

So is the haox thing still going on? I don't buy it, it's too good and weird to be fake.

reply

[–] the-devil-boy 9 years ago

I’ve seen people online still writing about this film in the context of being some outlandishly elaborate and impossibly well-crafted “hoax.” None of them have a single shred of evidence to support their allegations of course, because the only hoax or parody here is the art world itself. But the meme was so infectious that for decades people will probably think that there’s an actual debate about this film’s authenticity.

It still freaks me out and crushes my faith in mankind that so many people saw this film, and –hoaxed themselves- into thinking it was all an elaborate prank. It seems that an alarming percentage of humans are hard-wired to turn every truth into ignorance.

The observer is the observed. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

reply