Write a short response arguing for whether or not Mister
Brainwash's work should be considered "art." I realize that the
term itself is fluid and open to various subjective interpretations. Indeed,
that's the point—in arguing for Thierry Guetta's (Mister Brainwash) inclusion
or exclusion from this category, you will bring into sharper focus your own
(admittedly subjective) definition of what constitutes art. As such, you cannot
opt out of the art/not-art binary for this response (though that is a perfectly
viable stance for your second essay).
Please base your evaluation upon the content contained in the final 30 minutes of Exit Through the Gift Shop, which focuses almost exclusively on the creation and execution of Guetta's "Life is Beautiful" show in 2008. In the section of the film, the people in the film are themselves wrestling with the same issue that I’m asking you to address in the bold-faced sentence above.
Please base your evaluation upon the content contained in the final 30 minutes of Exit Through the Gift Shop, which focuses almost exclusively on the creation and execution of Guetta's "Life is Beautiful" show in 2008. In the section of the film, the people in the film are themselves wrestling with the same issue that I’m asking you to address in the bold-faced sentence above.
Please finish responding to this post by 5pm on Monday. (Earlier is fine, too.)
Jesus Herrera
ReplyDeleteMr. Brainwash’s work should be considered art because he ultimately created (and continues to create) unique artworks even though many involved famous pieces of art that he did not initially create. His art, however, is “low” art because he bases it off of other artworks, so he does not really add enough “originality” to his works. For example, his Mona Lisa with a black eye patch image represents a different take on the Mona Lisa, but not enough for me (or others) to consider it an entirely new work of art. In essence, other artists like Shepard Fairey and Bansky sort of “dislike” Mr. Brainwash because he gained popularity through “copy-cat” art. According to Bansky, Mr. Brainwash “did not follow the rules, if any” and somehow gained popularity by using what he learned from other street artists to make him famous. Overall, he designed most of his “Life Is Beautiful” show and the works presented there, which is artistic. Even so, the impression many of us are left with is that Mr. Brainwash makes art for money and popularity, not so much for the sake of making art like Bansky. He has remained anonymous for so many years, knowing that people value and respect his work. In conclusion, Mr. Brainwash’s work is art, just not the type of art many of us would consider conventional or “authentic.”
I do not think that MBW is an artist. I think he is a publicist and a businessman. He commissions art to others by giving ideas based on preexisting pictures. These other people craft the images themselves. So while the "Life is Beautiful" exhibition was extremely successful financially and even critically, I can't consider Thierry specifically to be an artist. If Mr. Brainwash is the collective of the entire artist force behind him, then maybe. But regarding Thierry himself, I do not consider him to be an artist because he did not make the art that has made him so successful. At least in the documentary itself, we see him splattering paint on those "unique" prints and talking with LA Weekly. A large part of the exhibition was done by others, and that artwork done by them was based off of work done by others than them. MBW is essentially a copy of a copy of a copy. He saw what worked in exhibitions around the world and knew how to capture the best of them to make money, and for that I can applaud him as a businessman. But as Banksy said, he has no definition of who he, MBW, is an artist. As such, MBW cannot produce art.
ReplyDeleteMr. Brainwash’s work I feel should not be considered art I do not believe that Mr. Brainwash is an artist. I see art as something that is unique and unlike anything else that has been done before. All that Mr. Brainwash did was simply take pieces of art that have already been created by other artists and added his own “twist” to the pieces of art. As we learned in his “Life is Beautiful” exhibit, yes he did create pieces of art however the art that he produced I feel was all for money purposes and it wasn’t originally done, he just copied. Brainwash was just very successful at taking others ideas and tweaking them to make them seem like they were his own; that is not art. When we think of other famous artists we do not consider them to be famous because they made a copycat piece of artwork, they are famous because they creatively made their own piece of art that has become very popular in society. The art has meaning, its own meaning, the majority of Mr. Brainwash’s pieces were someone else’s ideas and then he just added a bit of his own idea to the piece of “art.” So yes, he did create a piece of art, however it shouldn’t be considered art but rather low art.
ReplyDeleteThe question is whether Mister Brainwash's work should be consider art but the question really should be who's art is it? I will not dispute whether it is actually art, because it has the artistic technique and skill, admittedly copied from a lot of other artists. In fact, I think Mister Brainwash is a very passionate person, but he is not an artist. Like the many more experienced street artists, that mock him, say, Thierry did not perfect his art or artistic style, he only borrowed from others. There is also the issue that he did not even create the art, it was the people he hired. Banksy and other street artists scoff at Thierry and mock him because he does not understand why they do art. He only saw the fame and prestige that they gained and wanted that right away. But the other street artists' goals were creative expression and sending social messages, or so the documentary says. Somehow the fact that Mister Brainwash desires fame and acknowledgement instead of quality in his work and self-satisfaction leaves a bitter taste in my mouth as well as Banksy and Shepard Fairy. Along the lines of the Fisher article, Mister Brainwash's art would be "lower" art because it is literally mass art, printed out in multiple sheets or copied from another work. The problem with his art is not really that he copied other's artwork but that he added no artistic qualities or his own style to it (paint splatters is not style). I could go on forever I dislike Thierry so much for how he abused artistic expression, but I think what sums up his mentality the best is when he says "I love art," at about 12 minutes from the end, instead of I love to make art or create art.
ReplyDeleteI believe Mr. Brainwash's work should be considered art. As said before, art is a matter of opinion, and in mine, i think Mr. Brainwash had to use creativity and some level of technical skill to create his works or art.
ReplyDeleteHis use of other people's art pieces and adding his own twist to them is a way of provoking a person's original thoughts about their piece, is truly artistic. He uses his works to change perception, to inspire change, and to lead a new artistic culture.
Yes, he did his works for the sake of money and popularity, but that does not make his works any less 'artistic'. His works, despite the money and popularity it generates, also provokes thought, and that is what makes his works 'art'.
I believe that his work should be considered art. I know he took others art work and added his own style and flavor to it, however it is still art. A lot of art has been duplicated and has been considered art so why not Mr. Brainwash' s. Many artist ideas stem from other artist work. Yes he did it for money purposes but so what, he still put his time and effort to reproduce someone else's art into his own. When we say he takes others artist work and does his a bit differently. That "difference" makes it his own art. Taking one's idea and and applying your own mix makes it yours. However, we are all writing about the same topic with the same ideas...is this work not our own? Are we copying Jesus ideas because he was the first one to respond? No, we aren't.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe Brainwash's work should be considered art due to the fact that what he did is a skill. And when someone has a skill and their skill inspires a person or has the ability to have an impact on someone this is when it can be considered art. This film does just that, by giving you the insight of the street art movement. Gives you a chance to see the art not only from the outside but inside as well. This to me give Brianwash's work the right to be called art.
ReplyDeleteI do not think Mr. Brainwash's work should be considered art, simply because it is not that artistically creative. Much of his art seems to be blatant ripoffs of Andy Warhol. Additionally when Mr. Brainwash has to make original prints for his attendants, he makes a half-hearted effort by spray painting a variety of prints in a row. I believe that Mr. Brainwash's work is more of a creative business move, rather than an artistic one. By getting Banksy and Shepard Ferry to to back his "Life is Beautiful" show not only caused the exhibit to be sold out, but it also allowed Mr. Brainwash to sell his work for lucrative amounts of money.
ReplyDeleteWilliam Hsu
ReplyDeleteI would argue that Mr. Brainwash’s work is not considered “art” based on three reasons”: time, motive, and hype. In terms of hype, I feel that MBW’s popularity was based on heavily on the hype that came from before his show. This is reflection of his marketing skills, not his artistic talents. I feel that since the street artist movement is somewhat recent, distinct characteristics that define an art movement is lacking. Though the work is good, we as viewers still do not know exactly what to look for in street art. Therefore, it is easy to fall into this trap of hype, thereby justifying his $1 million in sales.
The second factor is motive. I feel a huge part of an art is the artist’s intent. This explains why some would argue marketing material for commercial purposes are not considered art despite its excellent quality. Though the case of Thierry is not as evident as the marketing example, I would argue that his intent is not to create art for the sake of art, but simply to be identified as an artist. For so long, he followed and recorded street artists of all levels, because of his obsession with this culture. Though he was often entrenched in the process of the art’s creation, he never played a direct role in the creation of the work. Therefore, he wanted so badly to be identified as street artist, rather than the pursuit of creating a unique and contemporary form of art. Which ultimately puts into question. The validity of his work to be considered art or not.
As for the last factor, I would consider time. Though street art is a still somewhat of a recent movement, artists in this genre have gone through developing their skills and inspiration. However, Theirry lacked that crucial experience in what it takes to become an artist. In way, I would argue that he had not yet paid his dues and has almost perverted this very movement. In fact, toward the end of the film, Theirry had said countless times that he was still a novice who had so much more room to grow.
If we accept art as any form of creative expression, then MBW's work deserves to be considered art. Though his paintings were not completely original ideas, they still represented MBW's thought and displayed his creativity. Just because his show became a huge commercial success does not qualify his unique style as high or low art. MBW's version of street art reached out to a large audience based on the creative "twist" in his work. It was his genius that planted a "Fisher-Price" toy gun in Elvis' hand and called it "Don't be cruel." But somehow a work of art always shows glimpses of the personality of the artist that created it. Thierry Guetta's MBW did everything the way Banksy did, but added his vision to it; one that appealed to the art-loving audience in LA. Thierry found most of his inspiration in popular culture while Banksy chose to stay more original. Either way, both artists create what they feel is art.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Mr. Brainwash’s work should not be considered art. In my opinion for something to be considered art, at least high, then it should be something that is original. Mr. Brainwash’s art is anything but original. All he does is takes other peoples art and improvises them. I don’t think this is art at all, and that it is criminal for him to make profit off of doing this. He should be sued by someone. That’s like if burger king was to design their buildings the same as mcdonalds with the same red and white colors and the same double m arch, but was to call itself burger king. I think there would be a lawsuit filed.
ReplyDeleteA lot of words have been spilled about Exit Through the Gift shop my film bloggers, critics and internet commenters and frankly I’m not sure there’s a lot left to be said. What I can offer is my own definition of art, which is very inclusive. Some would argue too inclusive. Anyway I believe art is anything that strives for more than functionality. This leaves almost everything in as art, as long as it was crafted by humans and has some attempt at design, to be more than just what it is. The type of things I would generally leave out is stuff you find at Bed, Bath and Beyond, certain buildings, most can openers. What this large definition leaves is a lot of art in the world and possible a little too much room for interpretation. More importantly it leaves a lot of bad art in the world, but to me it’s more important to allow art to be everywhere to acknowledge that work was put in an attempt to make something nice or beautiful, even if it failed. That was a very long winded way of saying yes I think that Mr. Brainwash’s show is full of art. I don’t think it’s smart, interesting or fulfilling art, but a large part of art is what you bring to it. So Mr. Brainwash’s work may genuinely mean something to certain people. I find the lack of thought and effort put into his work to be a little disgusting and disturbing, but I don’t think that gives me the right to deem it not art.
ReplyDelete- Matt Feige
A lot of words have been spilled about Exit Through the Gift shop my film bloggers, critics and internet commenters and frankly I’m not sure there’s a lot left to be said. What I can offer is my own definition of art, which is very inclusive. Some would argue too inclusive. Anyway I believe art is anything that strives for more than functionality. This leaves almost everything in as art, as long as it was crafted by humans and has some attempt at design, to be more than just what it is. The type of things I would generally leave out is stuff you find at Bed, Bath and Beyond, certain buildings, most can openers. What this large definition leaves is a lot of art in the world and possible a little too much room for interpretation. More importantly it leaves a lot of bad art in the world, but to me it’s more important to allow art to be everywhere to acknowledge that work was put in an attempt to make something nice or beautiful, even if it failed. That was a very long winded way of saying yes I think that Mr. Brainwash’s show is full of art. I don’t think it’s smart, interesting or fulfilling art, but a large part of art is what you bring to it. So Mr. Brainwash’s work may genuinely mean something to certain people. I find the lack of thought and effort put into his work to be a little disgusting and disturbing, but I don’t think that gives me the right to deem it not art.
ReplyDelete- Matt Feige