Exit through the Gift Shop: Response

Which elements are believable?

The existence of Theirry Guetta, or MBW, the presence of street art and their artists, such as Banksy and Shepard Fairey, and of course the classification of fictional documentary film. With a feature film that focuses on the uprise of an artist, or figure rather, such as MBW, it chronicles the events as evident with film and validates these occurrences. The movement of street art becoming commercialized with follow ups in galleries and auctions, is believable as it is documented along with the rise of MBW. The fact that there were so many who valued and supported the artwork of street artists, was not only apparent but also believable.

Which elements are unbelievable?

Many aspects of the film seemed like an exaggeration but could or could not be argued to be believable. For example, MBW introduction to Banksy, and Banksy's willingness to include him as a filmmaker, and not a fellow street artist, surprised me. I feel that there should have been more to that story that would provide a more logical explanation of MBW's entry into this world of art. From there, MBW forms a bond with Banksy and when Banksy suggests that he plunges into his art, he takes it to an almost absurd level. His investment into this art project, his tendency to become absorbed by his passion to a degree that his family is fighting for priority, and the reaction that is seen to his show all hinge upon a sense of ridiculousness.


What is the purpose of this fictional documentary film?
Towards the end, when Banksy talks about making art after meeting Theirry Guetta he says: "I always used encourage everyone I met to make art, I used to think everyone should do it...I don't really do that so much anymore" and I think in this quote there is so much to be said about what the film is trying to send to the audience as its message. Fairey mentioned that it was an anthropological study the popularity and fame that MBW gained after his show. Personally I think its a great big question on art, how we conceive of legitimacy in our art, whether there is a concept of legitimacy in art, if there should be one if there isn't, standardizing our measurements of art, popular public perceptions of what constitutes art, and discrepancies between artists and audiences about their answers to these questions. Is there a joke? Who is the joke on? Steve Lazarides answered with: "I don't know who the joke's on, really." So perhaps the purpose of this was to simply offer the need of rethinking art in the position of our society, and our society's position on art. In other words, a lot of learning.