Hacker News Reader

Comment by lotusleaf1987 | Hacker News Reader

lotusleaf1987

I thought the this was an awesome opening (couch gag) I am surprised that it made it past Fox though.

I recommend seeing 'Exit Through the Gift Shop' to anyone who is even slightly interested in Banksy, street art, art in general, or documentaries.

View on HN

The Simpsons has joked before about being made in Korean sweatshops.

But more importantly this is a big win for Fox. They get the cred for getting Banksy (whatever that is worth), and more importantly loads of talk & coverage for their show.

Whatever downside there is (which I think is pretty insignificant) is easily outweighed by the upside.

'The Simpsons' needs more coverage?

The episode in question finished 3rd (of 4) in the 18-49 demo and 4th (of 4) in Total Viewers so I'd say they could use some attention. I think a lot of people gave up on the Simpsons around Season 10 and have never bothered to look back.

Source: http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/10/11/tv-ratings-against-sund...

But just because you saw this on Hulu or Youtube, does that mean you'll go back to watching The Simpsons? Awareness marketing doesn't help The Simpsons because everyone's already aware of it. And this doesn't accomplish much more than that. If anything, it's awareness marketing for Banksy.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. If you think the Simpsons has become formulaic (which it had in some of those middle seasons) this might be enough to convince you they're taking risks again. Which MIGHT get you to tune in.

I'm not saying it's super effective but it's positive attention and that's worth something.

'Exit Through the Gift Shop' is indeed an interesting piece of art work from Banksy. The video is not really about him but just a way to divert the media attention to a "creation of his own". In the video, he created a fake/pseudo artist (Thierry Guetta) to show the "media" or the art market or even to see us being lost in his maze.

Has it even been settled who Banksy is at this point? I hope not. I very much enjoyed the idea that was thrown around that Banksy was never a single person.

There are pictures of a person who is possibly Banksy, but nothing concrete. I think the mystery/anonymity makes him even more intriguing and mysterious because you're left speculating without any definitive answers.

I won't be surprised if he turns out to be the Chav that he is described here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2003/jul/17/art.artsf...

i'm wouldn't be sure about this. banksy and thierry did _not_ comment this in public. all speculation. although if it's true it would be genious...

great movie btw.

To be fair, the jury is still out on whether or more accurately how much of the film is fake. The bigger issue is that the themes and ideas are not any more or less valid based on whether or not parts are fake.

I realize that seems really ambiguous, but seriously go see the film if this subject interests you.

The film is not staged or really fake per se, all the scenes are 'real' in that they happened but what I think is the point is that Thierry is not a true artist in the sense that he himself paints or illustrates--he has hired help, he's a business. I think the movie goes to great lengths to hint (its motif) and show how 'perceived power creates real power' think about the scene where Banksy shows the money he printed with Princess Diana is spent like real money, about Shepherd Fairey's quote that I just mentioned above, how Thierry talks about how he took ordinary clothes and called them vintage and bought piles of them for $50 and turned around and sold them for $5000. Then look at the scene where they are getting quotes from the people at the art shows, everyone is made to look like a lemming and an idiot. They say things that have zero meaning and think they are being so smart. Why did he show the quotes from people who would look smart or have something to say? It's the stuff that's left out that matters most.

Thierry is not a true artist in the sense that he himself paints or illustrates--he has hired help, he's a business

Most successful artists have hired help. Banksy didn't print the Diana banknotes, and he probably doesn't construct his installation pieces. He's not the one painting the elephants or putting the chicken nuggets in cages. He might be standing nearby with a can of lager and laughing, but it's safe to assume a lot of his work is around conceptualising the ideas that end up with his name on them.

Ooooh! Conceptual art!

(And that's not to diminish his work - I utterly love Banksy. I bought a print and some other bits and pieces of his at the first show he ever did. In ROI terms it's probably the best investment i'll ever make. And, no: i'm not willing to sell any of it.)

Someone can correct me if i'm wrong, but I don't think the Chapman Brothers consturcted Hell, or Damien Hurst glued the diamonds to the skull, etc., etc.

Even the masters had studios of apprentices doing the grunt work, right?

I think you're right that Thierry is not a genuine artist (hence him having a bunch of hired help) but I think the movie is about hype and as Shepherd Fairey says "perceived power creat[ing] real power." I think Banksy is playing a "prank" on the art world and showing how superficial they are. Thierry has lines about how he buys clothes for $50 and sells them for $5000, then Banksy makes the fake money that people spend as real money, there are other examples but basically the motif is that people easily fool themselves into thinking fashion/trends/art or anything that has no value, has value, and in doing so manages to create actual value.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com