Reviews on movie Exit Through the Gift Shop (29)

“Exit Through The Gift Shop” (2010) is a 2010 documentary film made NOT by the director, Frenchman Thierry Guetta, who once took up a video camera and no longer managed to part with it, filming all the fragments of his existence. The film touches on the ten years of Thierry’s life, his acquaintance with street art culture and the main mastodon of street art – Banksy, who turned Guetta’s life upside down. The tape is an hour-long video-monument of the birth of the popular trend - street arts, which have proven over the past twenty years their right to claim something broader and more meaningful than the usual vandalism, which initially perceived the direction of the majority of people.

Curious conspiracy theories, which the film has acquired in huge quantities: questioned documentary “clutter”, popular theory about the staged artistic nature of the tape from beginning to end, for the sake of a large-scale PR stunt and monetization of the works of street artists. As popular as the main character, Thierry, does not exist as a person. It is likely that Guetta is a fictional character invented by the artist Banksy, whose purpose is to ridicule society for the commercialization of art and prick society, and how it can be fooled by competent advertising, instilling cheap values, like the art of Thierry Guetta copying Banksy, but unlike a real street artist, in the paintings of Thierry you can see an extremely empty reflection of our pop culture, which people readily mistake for deep art.
“Everything is true in the film except that it is fiction.” – Banksy
All the street artists presented to the viewer by “Exit” illustrate a curious phenomenon: we can see nonsense every day, but if there is too much of it, we become interested in its meaning. Shapard Fairey, the Space Invader, Swoon – all the artists whose creative process captured the film, pasted the cities with complete nonsense for everyone around them, and sometimes even for themselves, but the works of many of them now adorn the most iconic museums of modern art. The meaning in such works over time appeared at the expense of the viewer.
Even if you are not a fan of documentary films and have nothing to do with the culture of street art, nevertheless “Exit through the souvenir shop” is definitely recommended for viewing, conquering its ease of storytelling and pleasant irony.

I want to start from my point of view about street art, graffiti. For me, not every drawing is a work of art. Not everything makes sense.

Now for the movie. Exit Through the Gift Shop is a documentary film created by graffiti artist Banksy. The film is really more about Terry than about Banksy, as the artist noted at the beginning of the film. It consists of two parts, and just the second part seemed to me most curious, and it is the second part – the story of success, in fact, ineptitude – creates the mood of touching real creativity, which may not be everyone, but it is possible. It all comes down to always trying to do something. Fear, but try to figure out if you needed it or not. No other way.

The film is perfectly tailored, and completely unlike the classic documentary. I would now like to insert a quote from the review of Vasily Kooretsky. He very well noticed the sharp rise and demand for Mr. Brainman and his works: “The fact is that in fact “Exit...” is not a movie about the birth, but about the death of street art. His gravedigger is Guetta himself, who at one point imagined himself as an artist and turned the strategy of street artists inside out. Instead of risky creative vandalism on the streets, he immediately began to insert his prints, similar to Banksy’s bad stories, into the frames, and the people fell down! Sales, gallerists, success - and no more criticism, provocation and risk. Yes, I want to believe that all this is fake, a possible but optional scenario. But, alas, artist Mister Brainwash does sell his shit for $25,000. I kind of agree with him. I agree that the works are similar to the works of Banksy, I agree that cinema is, to some extent, about the death of street art. It seems to me that pseudo-artists like Thierry have served this purpose. Every third person saw the potential in himself and began to “create”, copying the style somewhere, finding something already ready. Perhaps there is something about Thierry, and the above is purely my subjective opinion. I only want to protect Thierry because he took a chance. The main thing is that he is comfortable in what he is in. He earns a living for himself and his family, doing with pleasure the favorite thing.
In the end, I became Banksy’s most outstanding work. – Thierry Guetta

Graffiti is an important element of activism and art. In the city where you live every day, you don’t really own anything. Then who is it around the wall, the poles, the banners? You are left with no choice whether to look at posters or not – they are stuffed everywhere and induce you to buy a particular product or service, in a word – it is all commerce (by the way, like many arts), which is a good reason for the state and its slaves to continue to exist. And when it comes to graffiti, they all say “it’s illegal” and continue to sell ads without doing anything about it. Everyone should understand that he has the right to do anything with this advertising, because it is unlawfully imposed on us, and we remake it for ourselves.
Graffiti opens the eyes of those lost in a system of wrong views and positions, imposed patterns and false ideals. Is it possible to trust patterns completely and live according to the prescribed pattern? Nope. For the world is not yet perfect, society is far from perfect. There are many problems that you need to pay attention to expressive methods, getting people out of forced sleep. Even if a particular drawing doesn’t focus on a highly social topic, it gives a little hope to those who have something to say. The hope is that a lot can be changed, that someone just goes out and paints. This means that in our nation under surveillance cameras there are loopholes for us to cease to be controlled, so that we ourselves can influence the world and make it better.
“If graffiti changes something, it will be illegal,” Banksy said.
And now the movie itself. He really turned out more about Terry than about Banksy, but he managed to show the essence of Banksy’s work from a more understandable side and reveal a piece of his mysterious personality, which, if not for Terry, would have remained in the shadows.
The film is a cult, because we will not get the second one, no matter how hard we try, because time cannot be reversed. These are not actors and not a production, this is reality, so time taken under the sight of a video camera, and in the midst of street art. This is more than a movie.

Although Terry made money from art, quite unexpected for many ways, he still spent 10 years shooting street artists, after which he became one of them. The ironic name, of course, hints at the fact that even such an important art, the purpose of which (at least Banksy) is to look at things differently and give food for thought, will be sold at auction for a collection of rich people who, most likely, will not think about anything more that stands even above the cult of the material world and consumerism.
10 out of 10

This is a movie that everyone should watch!

Nah, guys, the level of cunning and the ability to trick us all would make Banksy Ocean's 14th friend. Judge for yourself - very detailed drawings appear in the shortest possible time, various sculptures and installations appear in inaccessible places. I'm sure you'll remember that shredder story in The Girl with the Ball. “Exit through the souvenir shop”, which is considered the only film about Banksy, is not dedicated specifically to this artist, but delves into the genre of street art in general and tells the story of a completely different person.
Give a person a camera in his hands, and if he manages to make a movie (family shooting does not count), then it will turn out some pseudo-documentary, where the emphasis is on history, and with the technical component you can not bother. Our story tells about a French amateur photographer named Thierry Guetta. He earned a living by buying clothes in second-hand and selling them exorbitantly. But one day he filmes his cousin, better known as the Space Invader, doing street art. And immediately Thierry had a desire to shoot certain things, given that before that he just dragged around with the camera, accumulated hundreds of tapes of video footage and just threw them into the box, forgetting about their existence.

Communication with the Space Invader gradually leads him to a meeting with Banksy. After filming some of his actions (including at Disneyland), the artist asked to show the mounted material. Remaining in complete shock from what he saw, Banksy said that Guetta himself needs to know what it is like to make art, and then it will make a normal film. And from this moment, Mr. Brainprav is born - a street art artist, known for the exhibition "Life is beautiful" and selling his paintings.
The most Banksy in this film for half an hour. All his time, he in the form of a Dementor with the voice of Darth Vader, who had laryngitis, tells how he met Thierry, what they were doing, and how they gradually separated. But when you watch a movie, the question is, "How is that possible?" Well, it was based on the Ghetta materials, where the graphittists were filmed risking being caught every night. Although this also raises questions that among the kilometers of film so successfully clogged the necessary material. You can assume that filmed almost without a budget, but who would be allowed to edit? How many times have you been reshooted if at least Banksy’s eye was glowing in the frame (all the timekeeping we see that the face is smeared not with NTV-style squares, but rather darkened due to good work with the light)? How did it turn out so well that frames from the background of various exhibitions turned up?

I believe that some of the chronicles were actually filmed in the right place and at the right time, but the stage for the exhibition “Life is beautiful” smells like a recreation. Shooting in a mess is not difficult. Dialing extras to pretend to be visitors is not difficult. But the process of creating paintings of the brain is already difficult. He is not Banksy, his paintings are not directly 100% original, using stencils, the Frenchman combines famous paintings and photos with various elements. To some extent, Andy Warhol is not an innovator. Andy drew cans of soup, Thierry erected a two-meter layout of this can. Art is a relative concept.

Exit through the souvenir shop is a kind of Frankenstein monster, where a good documentary and competent theatrical production are combined. And this is probably the first time I will not regret that the painting did not receive a gold statuette. You see, street art is remarkable because it stays out of the system. Don't turn it into a mainstream.

Nah, guys, the level of cunning and the ability to trick us all would make Banksy Ocean's 14th friend. Judge for yourself - very detailed drawings appear in the shortest possible time, various sculptures and installations appear in inaccessible places. I'm sure you'll remember that shredder story in Girl with the Ball. That’s ‘Exit through the souvenir shop’, which is considered the only film about Banksy, is not dedicated specifically to this artist, but delves into the genre of street art in general and tells the story of a completely different person.
Give a person a camera in his hands, and if he manages to make a movie (family shooting does not count), then it will turn out some pseudo-documentary, where the emphasis is on history, and with the technical component you can not bother. Our story tells about a French amateur to shoot by the name Tierry Guetta. He earned a living by buying clothes in second-hand and selling them exorbitantly. But one day he filmes his cousin, better known as the Space Invader, doing street art. And immediately Thierry had a desire to shoot certain things, given that before that he just dragged around with the camera, accumulated hundreds of tapes of video footage and just threw them into the box, forgetting about their existence.

Communication with the Space Invader gradually leads him to a meeting with Banksy. After filming some of his actions (including at Disneyland), the artist asked to show the mounted material. Remaining in complete shock from what he saw, Banksy said that Guetta himself needs to know what it is like to make art, and then it will make a normal film. And from this moment, Mr. Brainprav is born - a street art artist, known for the exhibition "Life is beautiful" and selling his paintings.
Banksy himself in this film is half an hour. All his time, he in the form of a Dementor with the voice of Darth Vader, who had laryngitis, tells how he met Thierry, what they were doing, and how they gradually separated. However, you watch the movie and you always have the question 'i'. How is that possible? Well, it was based on the Ghetta materials, where the graphittists were filmed risking being caught every night. Although this also raises questions that among the kilometers of film so successfully clogged the necessary material. You can assume that filmed almost without a budget, but who would be allowed to edit? How many times have you been reshooted if at least Banksy’s eye was glowing in the frame (all the timekeeping we see that the face is smeared not with NTV-style squares, but rather darkened due to good work with the light)? How was it so successful that frames from the background of various exhibitions turned up?

I believe that some of the chronicles were actually filmed in the right place and at the right time, but the 'Life is Beautiful' scene reeks of re-creation. Shooting in a mess is not difficult. Dialing extras to pretend to be visitors is not difficult. But the process of creating paintings of the brain - it is already difficult. He is not Banksy, his paintings are not directly 100% original, using stencils, the Frenchman combines famous paintings and photos with various elements. To some extent, Andy Warhol is not an innovator. Andy drew cans of soup, Thierry erected a two-meter layout of this can. Art is a relative concept.

“Exit through the souvenir shop” is a kind of Frankenstein monster, where a good documentary and competent theatrical production are combined. And this is probably the first time I will not regret that the painting did not receive a gold statuette. You see, street art is remarkable because it stays out of the system. Don't turn it into a mainstream.

Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010)
I started watching this film, a little wary of its documentary nature - often such films are just a kind of recording of interviews of different people without any sense. But I was pleasantly surprised - the documentary about street art paradoxically turned out to be a wonderful work of fiction in my opinion. And the credit here, apparently, is Banksy. Although he says that the film turned out not about him, but about a maniac cameraman who has not detached himself from the camera lens for ten years. The film may be about the operator, but the message in it is clearly from Banksy himself.
The film consists of two parts, and just the second part seemed to me most curious, and it is the second part - a success story, in fact, incompetence - creates an elusive mood of touching real creativity. Banksy very deftly conveyed the idea of the value of street art - demonstrating clearly how it can be ' devalued ' turning into an industry, with - having no inclinations other than entrepreneurial vein. And this depreciation, in an amazing way, gives you a contrast of just how subtle creativity is, coupled with some final quotes from Banksy himself and other street artists. I'm not going to talk about it, look for yourself. I really liked the film, it’s not just a unique documentary chronicle (although this one too!) – it’s also a powerful artistic message created with fantastic grace. And you know that Banksy is successful for a reason, that he really is a very smart guy.
9 out of 10

What did Banksy have to say with this movie? There are a lot of open questions, and debates, whether this is really a documentary, or another daring production from Banksy. My opinion is the truth somewhere.

The most interesting thing in 'Exit through the souvenir shop' is a look at contemporary art and its representatives. The film is perfectly tailored, and does not look like a classic documentary film - the plot of the film is built like in a feature film, with a twist, climax and denouement. And watching what is happening is extremely interesting. But everyone will do it for themselves.

Art is subjective in principle - and Banksy hints at this in his dialogues - making Terry a simple stencil. But I think there's more to Banksy's words than envy of the man who put street art on the assembly line -- and that's a big one -- an allusion to all modern art and a great deal of self-irony -- made in the form of an Oscar-nominated documentary. Well, if this film is really a production, then this is the most brilliant performance in art of all time.
8 out of 10

There is no less controversy about this film than around the author himself. No one expects to know who Banksy is, whether it’s a person, a collective, or just a brand to make money. At least there are theories.

It is probably questionable to try to analyze and dig into this film, because it is not clear whether it is true or not, it is hardly a biographical tape, and even in the final message there is ambiguity (Maybe what is opposed to modern art is also just commercial tinsel?).
A certain Terry replaces his unhealthy enthusiasm for shooting (mostly household) with a real obsession, climbing everywhere behind the columbs of street art. They share a passion for their work: representatives of the underground strive for self-expression, and Terry wants to capture this ephemeral phenomenon. After getting acquainted with the brightest and most secretive personality of this movement (Banksy) and their joint work (synthesis of passions), a turning point comes.
In Disneyland: I changed clothes, went out and went to 'Indiana Jones' and then tried to call Terry, did not call and went to 'Pirates of the Caribbean'.

Heroes change roles. Now Banksy is busy with the film, and the Frenchman is burning with the idea of organizing his exhibitions. But if Banksy concludes that money and fame do not interest him, the main thing is creativity (and here it would be reckless to take this as a truth in the last resort), then Terry, on the contrary, is more willing to improve his financial situation. And his creative beginning is best described by Banksy himself:
Most artists have been improving for years, looking for their own style, manner. Terry seems to have skipped that stage.

Maybe he was an unrecognized genius all the way ... or he was lucky ... or maybe it means that art can not be taken seriously at all.
Terry won, not through an idea or talent, but through the advertising and mentality of people who are unable to deal with the herd feeling, and also unable to explain the nonsense that they came to see.
What about American Gothic? - Gothic.

' Exit through the souvenir shop' is a chicly decorated, comedic-ironic mocumentary that gives answers to questions (of course, many for whom these are rhetorical questions, and for them the film is hardly a revelation), but also leaves some open. Anyway, it's definitely worth watching.

At first, I didn't understand why Terry was being paid such attention. Is it about Banksy or not? Nope. In the middle of the film, I read that it was a pseudo-documentary, although I might not have noticed. And that's even better. Why? So you can go into the flow of the plot, feel everything for real and already start to be disappointed in street art. Terry is really crazy, his psychological portrait is very talented. Banksy managed to portray a man who lost his own identity and sense of life. The need to capture everything on camera, ingratiating with artists, lying about the project chronicles street art. And as a consequence, the madness of multiple ideas concocted by other authors. The beginning of the market, meaningless delusional reasoning about yourself, praise from “lochs” (trend-driven dummy), the apotheosis of the ego. Begins to vomit from the film, from its heroes, from the plot. And that's the point! Nausea is probably what Banksy wanted. Why talk about what you see? Feelings are the surest sign. Through them you can clearly see what could be endlessly discussed. And, of course, in Terry you can find a reflection of yourself, turned inside out. This is not all for nothing.

10 out of 10

Yes, about the middle of this picture (someone, perhaps before) there is no doubt about the “truth” of what is happening: before us another prank, buffoonery. Moreover, in the context of the very topic of street art, this could well look natural and holistic.
Could.

But the author(s) is either too transparent - and then there are questions about the choice of genre, or simply talentlessly and amateurishly continue the obvious narrative.
Undoubtedly, the idea of a film about Banksy, told by him himself - in the first person, and at the same time, formally narrating about another character, i.e., as if diverting the light of the spotlights from the already hidden face of the main character - is interesting. A very beautiful hoax move fits the context perfectly: to really bring to the fore little-known characters - whether it's Andre the Giant, a smiling and winking cartoon or pixelated alien invaders - and to do it on a scale and consistently, ensuring that the image is rethought, recognized and believed in its importance - quite in the spirit of street art. And the world cinema is ready to offer examples of this approach: one recalls immediately “F as a fake” or, for example, “The Blair Witch Project”. In this case, one can only wonder what went wrong - why so many "deliberate carelessness", when not only the character of Thierry Guetta is perceived as a hypertrophied-farce image, but he himself - as a talentless actor.
If the desire of the creator was another statement of how unpredictably ironic modern art and how gullible and driven at the same time its consumers can be, that is, in fact to create a cinematic social experiment, then it was necessary either to go to the end, create a new creator and make the whole world believe it, or at the end of the film to admit that Mr. Brainwash existed and will exist only for 87 minutes of screen time.
As we know, neither happened. The reasons for this do not want to look for banal limits and limitations – in talentlessness, fear or creative laziness of the creators. It remains to assume that this picture was conceived – “as it were” hoax; i.e., it seems obvious to everyone that what is shown on the screen has no value in view of the lack of truthfulness – and at the same time it turns out that this is obviously not for everyone. And then the authors of “in the company” of more astute viewers can heartily mock and mock those who believed in all this.
In this case, it becomes disgusting and disgusting from such goals - whether it is the sale of a piece of canvas with paint spilled on it for fabulous amounts or the desire to give the lack of meaning for a meaning with a double bottom - and at the same time to insure yourself from all sides: like, it was intended.
The art of creating and the art of making people believe what you do are different things, and the line between them is often very arbitrary. The creators of this picture, unfortunately or not very, failed either of them.
And I don't say that in a good way

Before watching this documentary, all I knew about street art was the work of London-based artist Banksy. He is the director of this film.

But all the material was shot by Terry Gueto. Then Banksy made a finished film out of it. Terry is a native of France, living in Los Angeles, where he owns a small clothing store. Since childhood, he became interested in filming and began to shoot constantly. One day, after arriving in France and seeing his cousin doing street art, Terry immediately became imbued with this culture. He began to constantly shoot the activities of street artists.

Over time, he had the opportunity to meet Banksy, who had come to Los Angeles to do an exhibition of his own work. I love Banksy's work. They are incredibly beautiful, interesting, while some are fun, and some expose the vices of modern society. That’s what art should be.

At one point, Terry, prompted by Banksy, decides to also start doing street art and make his own exhibition. The funny thing is that he manages to go from an ordinary street artist to his own exhibition very quickly. In the film, we were shown different artists who have been doing this art for many years, and Terry took it all the way to a minimum. People came in droves to the exhibition, Terry made a few million dollars, so this art has a right to exist, because people like it. But his work doesn’t impress me much. In fact, he uses Photoshop and famous photos of stars or art paintings, adds to them various things, effects and everything. This proves once again that a work of art can be created from anything. By the way, Terry took the pseudonym “Brainwasher”, which exactly corresponds to his work.

I’m still much more interested in the work of Banksy, who created something unique and unusual.

The documentary, directed by the great Banksy himself, is unique.
Unique in characters, unique in events, as well as oddities and paradoxes.

It’s hard to say whether it’s a film or a documentary.

All that hodgepodge of documentary chronicles, consistently filmed by a schizophrenic, driven by an obsession to shoot everything around, falls into the hands of a talented creator. This creator is Banksy. Putting the pieces together, he puts his idea into action.

What is this painting about?

On the surface is the history of street art straight from the scene, including an acquaintance with Banksy itself. Everything is logical and understandable.

A little deeper - the story of an unusual man with strange things.

And finally, a story about how easily genius ideas can be turned into vulgarity and absurdity. And the reason for this admiration, the desire to imitate without their own ideas plus cheap posturing.
When everything is mixed up, it is difficult to understand where real art is and where it is just a stamp. Nevertheless, the peeple is floppy, and so the author pushes us to think about the essence of fashion and trends.

In any case, much more than just a documentary, about anything, shot by a mysterious and very talented person. Not mind food.

Street art is the greatest countercultural phenomenon since punk, and it is not about anyone, but about Banksy! This makes this documentary a must-see. Starting to watch, we can not come off, because from the first shots in front of us are brave, young, talented and beautiful guys and girls who do something daring and cool.

As befits a good movie (as well as any ambiguous conceptual phenomenon subject to gradual reflection and rethinking), "Escape through the gift shop" does not quite tell what seems to be stated and implied. There is street art – a new movement that is gaining popularity: its art objects are doomed to exist for a short time, and its actors – to remain out of sight of cameras, because their activities, as a rule, are illegal. How do you tell everyone about it? But what really happens is that when a movement grows, it doesn't fit into the predicted framework, and there's a chaotic movement -- thousands of people interacting, giving rise to unforeseen factors. And one of these factors is the appearance of a certain obsessed person who is destined to voluntarily or involuntarily very seriously influence what is happening. Such a person in the history of street art was Terry Guetta – not quite an ordinary clothing dealer, who once picked up a video camera and could not put it down!
Obsessed with imprinting (“after all, nothing will be like a second ago”), he began to shoot everything, and hundreds or thousands of cassettes just put in boxes (“sometimes I signed them, sometimes not”). By chance, he met one of the street artists – the Space Invader (!), got carried away and began to shoot his works. Then – more and more, began to help directly with the actions, and then someone to the question “Why are you filming us?”, said, they say, I make a film about street art. And so it stretched, and then Banksy came along.
Retell further, without issuing the most interesting, it will not work – so unexpected development gets the film, so you need to watch and be surprised further. As Isaac Babel said, “A well-made story has no need to resemble real life; life struggles to resemble a well-made story.” And this is exactly what it is! “It’s like pulling something out into the light, and it used to only be seen in the dark,” Terry said, and that’s what the whole story is about. The wonderful “final” graffiti of the film – the inscription on the wall fragment “Life is beautiful” – is proved by the film: life is amazing, beautiful and quite unpredictable!

To begin with, I don’t like documentaries other than science or history (but there are many exceptions). I enjoyed watching the creative process. Interesting movie. As far as art is concerned, this is all debatable. Something is definitely art, and something is vulgar and stupid caricature. But they paint well anyway. Risky guys. I don’t understand why this is all a matter of law. Like a guy who paints shadows of objects. No hints of power, no mockery of society, no violence, nothing, just beautiful. The installations are interesting. But a lot of things are too extravagant for me. And in many ways just kitsch, especially with the crazy "Mr. Brain Prayer." Everything is empty. And taking masterpieces of art and remaking them cheap is definitely a crime. I’ve been to several contemporary art galleries. What can I say? Such nonsense can be done by anyone . But to sculpt a sculpture of Michelangelo or at least to repeat the painting of Titian can not nobody. It seems that after the Renaissance, art either reached its peak, or even began to die out. And the stupid public considers themselves true collectors and connoisseurs of beauty, collecting a bunch of, in fact, garbage. Ha, naive. Who else is brainwashing? Pop culture ... I think that word should leave only "pop." It's ambiguous, isn't it? That's what it's designed for.

The narrator had fun, so simple, so good! But as an artist... I repeat the line of Banksy: “*pause* em *pause*...Only then did I realize that Terry is no director, but just crazy” and this one remembered “I always encouraged my friends to do art ... I will not do this anymore.”
I liked the movie, but there’s no art in general.

Thierry Guetta is one of those people who will never let you out of their house until you review all their photo and video archives. And because they don't let the camera out of their hands day and night, there's a myriad of materials in these very archives. And by watching them, you risk getting old or dying of boredom. So in the third hour of this sophisticated torture, you still drop politeness and send your tormentor in the very direction that novice graffitiists love. But for another week you will be tormented by nightmares, just as boring and inexpressive, in which children’s excrement and a stripper invited to the wake of your beloved grandmother, emotionally will look about the same.
And all because these grief-operators have only one interest in life. How to emphasize your unique, marked by higher forces, “individuality” and remarkable “talent”. Filming everything in a row, they do not want to tell us about street art, or a garbage can, in which a cat with an unusual color settled. Not at all. They didn’t care about street art and cats and the people who would watch it. Wherever the video begins, or the commentary to it, it all comes down to the story of the operator.
Here it is worth noting that you can also tell about yourself very interestingly and tastefully, but the trouble is that this very taste is nowhere to take. That is why such people do not care what their popularity is earned. Have you heard the “most fashionable couturier”, selling the same inhabitants who dream to differ from the “gray crowd”, second-hand clothes under the guise of stylish clothes. Or he glorified himself as a “great artist” by exhibiting similar secondhand ideas. I don't care. The demand for second-hand has always existed. There is no need to do anything personally. You do not need to master sewing, special graphics programs, learn to draw, come up with stylish clothing models, ideas for graffiti or installations. Take advantage of the professionals. And so that people do not have any doubts about who the “genius” is, you need to come up with a stylish pseudonym. Something like, you know, with brains... brainwash, no... brainwash...and no shrink! So solid.

Well, the fact that the video allegedly about street art turned out not to be about street art and came out so unbearably boring that from that. In any case, there will be people who will find a lot of secret meanings in it. And you won't have to do anything again.

I just clicked Mr. Brainman's Instagram. It is updated regularly, the last photo was uploaded two days ago. The photos show that work is underway, art objects are being created. If they do, there is a demand. But does Mr. Brainman himself exist? Or is it just Banksy's project? This question does not bother me anymore.

The most mysterious hooligan of our time, who opened his way from the street to expensive galleries, Banksy does not cease to amaze. Before I saw it, I thought it would be about the artist himself, and in some ways it turned out to be, but not the way I imagined it would be. The story told in the film is a vivid illustration of questions about contemporary art. The artistic value of objects is determined by the market price, Banksy demonstrates this to the viewer, creating a simulacrum in the person of Terry Guetta. For several years, the mad Frenchman followed the street artists everywhere, armed with a handheld camera, not burdened with a specific purpose, simply gave in to his passion to capture everything on video. But when the shooting ended, instead of editing the film, Terry decided to become an artist himself, because now he knows the whole kitchen. And he did it, easy and simple. Mixing a cocktail of street art and pop art without any reflection, he will be able to please both critics and viewers. Now he is a well-known artist in demand in the art world under the nickname Mr. Brainpravda!
When Umberto Eco wrote The Name of the Rose, he put the entire artistic world with its values and mysteries to the wall. Now art can be created according to a recipe, just carefully study the subject. Postmodernism gives everyone the opportunity to become a creator, it is only a matter of pressure. For the layman, it is simply impossible to distinguish art from dummy in the modern world. The only criterion is the price. In this regard, Mr. Brainman can be considered fully realized.

And questions, questions, questions... And no answer. The whole story told in the film has evidence, the work of Mr. Brainpravda exists, exhibitions are held, Instagram works again. Did this really happen? Or did Banksy create man, determine his destiny as an artist, the same way he creates his street canvases, hard and topical, made a career of a bad but popular artist for Terry Guetta? Or maybe Terry Guetta is Banksy? That would be great...

I'll be waiting for an incisive documentary filmmaker who will be interested in this topic and bring all these crooks to the surface.

With each new day, the interests of the public become more discerning, and its tastes and desires become more pretentious. Any super-idea that appears in the chaos of human culture, claiming to be original, must certainly develop and, therefore, be carefully guarded from outsiders. Idealists, that is, those who gratuitously collect gyruses on the smooth brain surface of an increasingly blunting mass culture, a unit. The current generation of people with unique abilities, often become hostage to their own gift, turning privacy into an object of much more attention than creativity itself. And therefore, it is sincerely surprising that Banksy still remains an unsolved mystery for contemporaries. At the same time, it is extremely naive to believe that the ability of this person to remain elusive, including for the special services, is solely his merit.
Not only are genres mixed in this strange film, but dreams of something truly great are mixed here. The nameless values of the unique street art culture are visibly acquiring unattractive bourgeois shades, reducing to zero the already shaky principles of “street art”, a priori striving for public secrecy. Art is also a kind of living organism. The more open it becomes, the faster it loses its uniqueness and purely intimate significance.

The title of the film is allegorical, but behind it lie more than serious questions, putting a huge question mark on the future of not only art, but all those who are even slightly connected with it. It has been eagerly versed in souvenirs since the time of the esteemed Andy Warhol, but it was a favorable trend then, and now it is not. And soon he risks turning into a sham of public life. Once again, the Materialists will rejoice in the victory over the Idealists, the same will again have to regret their trust in people with a capital shine in their eyes, but the fools will not be them, but mere mortals, for the most part far from the idea of the other side of the popularization of creative ideas. There is only one way to cut this Gordian knot of contradictions – to stop loving art in every sense, but this is hardly possible. Even if it ever happens, there will certainly be those who have the art of making you love art.
Still, it is more convenient for this film to believe and accept it as the story of people who have found their place in life, whose real names, as in Zamyatin’s novel “We”, are replaced by conventional designations. Despite all the differences, everyone is talented and successful. Had it not been for their chance meeting in Los Angeles, there would not have been this picture together, and all the controversy surrounding it. The latest art, utterly blurred and slandered, still unites people. And that's beautiful.

This world isn't far away. I got up at night to the refrigerator, threw a look out the window - and here he is in front of us, the world of the night metropolis. At night, the city becomes an empty canvas, waiting for its masterpiece. And street artists leave messages on empty walls to those who see the works in the light of day - an exquisite way to write "I was here" on the gates of Eternity.
Funny and charming Frenchman from Los Angeles Thierry Guetta in an embrace with an unchanged video camera makes a tour of this world in the company of street art artists.

Thierry’s video camera is his way to leave the memory of his life, not to disappear into oblivion. And street artists take Thierry into their company, they also do not want to disappear from memory along with the work of cleaners, washing away their works in the morning. Thierry meets the famous street artist Banksy, chronicles his adventures, and later becomes a friend. For some reason, the eternal anonymous Banksy does not mind Thierry filming his escapades, urging people to think about the problems of society and political systems.
Thierry shoots a pile of material, but when his artist friends push him to cry out of the film, the result is depressing. Then Banksy, to get rid of the talentless operator for a while, offers him to make an exhibition. Following the laws that over the years of night travel Thierry learned from other street art workers, he is called “Mr. Brainwash”, with the help of a hired team makes stencils, rivets mountains of “masterpieces” and sells all the goods for two million dollars. Banksy and Co. cry loudly for contributing to Thierry's success.
Everyone's happy. Thierry is a millionaire and hyped brand, cunning PR Banksy got his share of fame on the comparison, the audience, who adores when morals are read to her, joyfully chanting: "We want a scourge." But Banksy is not only a skilled seller of his own talent, his artistic taste allowed him to make the film so versatile that you can endlessly find new meanings.

On the surface lies a satirical parable: Thierry is incompetent, the public loves advertising and you can sell it, anything, it would be more cynicism from the seller. But shift the accents a bit. We know that Thierry is not the greatest artist, just from the words of Banksy, who is the same mass figure as Thierry. And it is no longer connoisseurs of beauty that cry that Thierry has become popular, and envious complain that someone from their midst has received the success they deserve more, if not talent, at least many years of diligence. Hard-working salieres can't survive the ease with which Mozart breaks the ovation.

Thierry is the flesh of street art and in terms of creativity he does not go far from the “teachers”. So contemporary art is such a vague concept that anyone can become an iconic figure there? But the meaning goes even deeper. “Maybe that means art can’t be taken seriously at all.” – Banksy Any art. Including the so-called classic. Under the guise of a parable about the omnivorousness of the public, Banksy asked a significant question: what is art in general?
If advertising were the only secret, then promotion of any person would be idle business. People don’t buy things, they buy mood. Labels, brands, advertising - they sell people the state of mind, status, symbol, opportunity. Art in this case is different that its mood is slightly thinner, more delicate: catharsis, empathy, finding meaning.
But at the time of the information boom, when a person has already learned to hang big locks on the door of his soul, tactical classical art began to lose ground, and then aggressive modern art rushed into the soul, giving such feelings as strong disgust, admiration and even the desire to imitate. It did not enter respectfully through the door, but climbed through the windows, flew into the fireplace, seeped through the cracks in the floor.
The view that anyone can become a representative of contemporary art is true not because contemporary art has no artistic value, but only because we have not yet learned to resist this aggression. Rules are only developed, lines are not invented. Not because we can be fed recyclables, but because so far any original technique causes us a strong reaction - imitation of Warhol, thrash pink elephant or at least a charming Frenchman, as if he came straight from the 70s and as if he did not understand what boom he managed to arrange.

It has long been rumored that the whole movie is a joke. That Thierry put up an exhibition with Banksy, or maybe he is. I think one day Banksy will say that Thierry’s work was actually his own. And those who are now being brainwashed again and again, saying how bad Thierry's work is compared to Banksy's, will get another break in the pattern. But this is the goal of the artist - to give mood. Strong mood.

What I expected to see: I was familiar with Banksy’s work (although it’s kind of strange to call what he does “creativity,” in my opinion, it needs a slightly different definition) for a long time, but Exit Through the Gift Shop caught my eye only now. I didn’t have any specific expectations, I was rather curious what Banksy would do this time.
What I Saw: Well, Banksy remained true to itself: such a chic farce, moreover, on the topic of modern art, I have not seen for a long time!
This is a rather complicated topic, because modern art is in many ways already a farce, buffoonery, kitsch... call it what you want. And this is quite natural, because art has already passed almost all stages of development from the primitive image, through classicism, Renaissance, impressionism, cubism and abstraction, regardless of the form it took, remaining a reflection of the artist’s reality, or rather his perception of reality. Pop art was not a perception of reality; it was reality itself. Proof of this can serve as the work of Andy Warhol, take at least his Campbell soup or Brillo powder and it immediately becomes clear that fine art simply has nowhere to develop. As the American art critic and philosopher Arthur Danto wrote, art became post-historical, reached its limits and became ... philosophy. And since philosophy was never easily accessible to a mass audience, kitsch came to replace real art, for starters, in the form of Pop Art, which many regarded as stupidity, pseudo-art not worthy of being taken seriously. However, later it was kitsch that became the favorite direction of the modern layman.

But back to the movie: I honestly didn’t know what was going on until I saw Mr. Brainwash. Through this whole Thierry Guetta story, Banksy once again laughed (as I put it mildly, eh?) at the mass audience, taking advantage of their love of empty extravagance, the foundational principle of kitsch.
In general, I sometimes think that Banksy got into a very strange situation: frankly ridiculing with his graffiti the mediocrity of the modern consumer society, he became an idol of this society. Consequently, it is not surprising that Banksy has moved on to more intricate and complex provocations, one of which is the pseudo-documentary “Exit Through the Gift Shop.”

Do not be deceived that you will see the famous Banksy throughout the film, he plays a cameo role here, besides carefully observing his anonymity. The film is about a dude, Terry Guetta, who due to a childhood injury could not part with the camera and filmed everyone in a row. Later, he was hooked by street art and the people who create this art, risking their own skin.

The film turned out to be a lot, but the talent was zero, so the planned film about street artists came out in form nonsense. To save the idea, Banksy decided to make the film himself and tactfully advised Terry to go home to the States and not shoot yet, but just relax and paste a couple of posters.
Everything would be fine, but Terry, having watched the recognized street celebrities, imagined himself an artist and began to kick his sleeping genius. Genius isn't even there, by the way. But attention! It is at this moment that we can see the enormous impact that advertising has on our society, even though everyone in their heart believes that they will never give in to it.

So, Terry hires a team of artists, sculptors and installers who work in his place to free up time for the boss to give birth to "ideas." However, “ideas” are complete nonsense, simply a slightly reworked plagiarism, the stolen and reproduced creativity of others. If before that Guetta seems just a harmless guy with his oddities, then by the end of the film he caused me contempt and disgust.
But what I gave the film a nine because of was the thousands of people who came to the publicized exhibition of an unknown copypastor. No one has heard of him, but they are already impressed, they already know what will be cool, and they call him the modern Andy Warhol. Laughter and only: I think it's a great example of smart marketing, where a dude made a lot of money. And no one even thought that he and his exhibition - a soap bubble.
Banksy is like the moon. The first has a message, has a meaning, has a subtext. His work is therefore a social art. And Guetta, sadly enough, saw in all this only a wrapper of popularity.

The movie is worth watching. For me, everything in the world needs to be questioned, especially things with big names like modern art, because it's getting harder to tell the difference between gold and counterfeits every day.

9 out of 10

When you watch the first half of the film, it seems that we are talking about street art through the prism of a video documentaryist of this work. Thierry Guetta lives in Los Angeles and sells second-hand. He says, “I always bring my camera with me.” Thierry captures everything on camera: himself, family, business, passers-by, police officers, etc., until in 1999, during a trip to France, he gets acquainted with the activities of his cousin. The brother, known under the pseudonym Space Insider, is one of the pioneers of world street art. He collects from a mosaic the characters of computer games - space invaders - and hangs them on the streets of cities around the world. Thierry, with his video camera, accompanies his brother everywhere, shoots people’s reactions, fights with police officers, etc. His brother gradually introduces him to other street artists from different countries, including Shepard Fairy, who later introduces him to Banksy, goes with these artists “at night”, shoots their work. Gradually he accumulates a unique video material. Living legends of modern street art at work were captured by his camera: Seizer, Zevs, Neckface, Sweet Toof and Cyclops, Ron English, Dotmasters, Swoon, the same Shepard Fairy and Banksy. The material accumulates, but nothing happens to it further - Thierry does not just mount it, does not even view and does not always sign those kilotons of filmed tapes that he accumulates.

In 2006, Banksy came to L.A. with a solo exhibition. The exhibition gathers stars of show business, collectors who are ready to buy his works for a lot of money. “The Death of a Phone Box” has sold for half a million dollars. In the minds of people there was a revolution: if before street artists were outlawed and forced to hide their real names and appearance, now serious collectors around the world are ready to buy their works along with the creations of Dali, Picasso, etc.
And from this moment begins the second part of the film – about the moment when there is a substitution of concepts, and people begin to cease to distinguish art from cheap PR.

After the exhibition, Banksy goes to Thierry and asks him to edit the footage and show people the world of street art from the other side, from the inside. Street art has started to commercialize, but people behind the money don't see the idea of street art. This idea had to be shown in a future film. Thierry takes up business and six months later comes to England to show the idol the fruit of his hard work. “It’s a bad situation when you’re shown your work and it’s so shitty you don’t even know what to say. It was an hour and a half trailer, unfit to watch. – Banksy When it became clear that Thierry is not a director, but an urban madman, Banksy decided to try to review the footage and edit it. And to get access to the tapes, Thierry said something like, "Go to yourself, do your creativity, I'll look at it myself," in other words, leave and don't get in the way. And Thierry, with his immediacy, took the words as an order: to put down the camera and become an artist himself. Moreover, by that time, Thierry himself began to “street”: he photographed himself with a camera, ordered a rendering of this photo, the resulting image was increased on different scales (including an area of 30 square meters) and hung all over LA.
And from that moment Thierry started a PR project to promote himself to the masses as a modern artist. While most artists have been improving over the years, looking for their own style and manner, Thierry has skipped this stage. I must say that he began to build the promotion competently, according to all the rules of Kotler and Mann:

1. He began with naming, and from the first minute he christened himself “Mr. Brain Prayer”, deciding that his mission is neither more nor less – to brainwash people.
2. While most artists start modestly, Thierry was inclined to make the birth of Mr. Brainplow with maximum fanfare: pasting posters with his own image around the city now took on a special meaning.
3. Hired artists, illustrators, sculptors who have to do all the dirty work and generate basic ideas, he only intervenes in the creative process and says what to add or remove. In other words, gathered around him art slaves, not wanting to do the dirty work.
4. He called all the legends of street art, especially since he knew many people personally, and asked everyone to post information about his upcoming personal exhibition on their websites, pages in social networks and newsletters. And also give a quote for a press release. Nobody really wanted to do this, but since the public is mostly intelligent, no one dared to refuse. Etc.

The result of the stormy activity:

1. On the first day the exhibition was visited by 4000 people.

2. By the end of the first week, Thierry traded “art” for almost a million dollars.
3. Initially, the exhibition was planned for 5 days, as a result, lasted 2 months.
4. His work began to appear in galleries and exhibitions around the world from New York to Beijing.
5. The name of Thierry Guetta, a very ordinary artist (although the concept of “artist” in this case is poorly applicable), suddenly gained some weight in the art world.
Anyway, the peeple was down. He scooped up primitive techniques that can not even be called ideas: raw, unideal imitation of the popularized works of cult artists. Andy Warhol’s slimmed-down techniques were embodied in an insane number of repetitions and color choices: Warhol repeated iconic images until they lost all meaning, however, in the way he did it, he retained their significance. And Thierry has completely deprived them of any meaning. – Banksy, quote from the film.
Los Angeles lochs called these techniques Thierry mix of street art and pop art, a new word in art. On the other hand, perhaps the specificity of the city is such that any boiling just in case is perceived as a landmark event that you need to attend.

And then the legends of street art come to the fore, clearly confused and shocked by the fact that Thierry not only distorted the very idea of street art, he also successfully sold it! That's what hurts most. The fact that people in their mass are not led to an idea, not to a concept, not to art, but to cheap PR and dubious advertising.
I think Thierry's phenomenon, his fascination with street art, his transformation into an artist... And the way all these suckers fell on him, that he traded “art” for huge money in a short time... From an anthropological, sociological point of view, this is an amazing event, after studying which, perhaps, we will learn a lot of new things.
I have always encouraged all my friends to engage in art. I thought everyone should be doing it... I'm not going to do that anymore. - Banksy
By the way, the Space Invader and his cousin stopped communicating.

The concept of L'art pour l'art or 'art for the sake of art' turns from an aesthetic concept of the XIX century into a funny oxymoron of the XXI century. Commercialization, like the tentacles of the octopus, is spreading more widely than ever and covers more and more decisively the main spheres of life of modern man, including cultural. Of course, ' mortal metal' at all times and eras played a key role in the relationship between the Artist and the Customer. It is impossible to argue that the process of artistic creation - although creative, but still work, so there is nothing reprehensible in the fact that a qualitatively executed work was paid for. The problem of modification ' art for the sake of art' in ' art for the sake of money' is precisely in the ordinary stamping of tasteless and low-grade ' masterpieces' to please the public. What can we say about any kind of ideology?

In this situation, it is not surprising that almost the only most honest form of art was the work of street artists. Of course, we are not talking about defining inscriptions on fences or drawings of obscene outline, but about works that draw attention to their originality, fit appropriately into the environment and enter into a dialogue with a passing observer. The idea is the main purpose and purpose of graffiti.
The director of the film ' Exit through the souvenir shop', famous for his creative wit, the artist Benxi, expresses his attitude to the problems of street art, being both a participant and a spectator. The main character, the fussy and annoying photographer Mr. Brainvosher, who revolves due to his obsession with the most influential graffiti artists, and himself is infected with the idea of becoming great and famous, which is why he turns for help, not to anyone, but directly to Banksy. What this leads to, with bitterness in voice summarizes the director himself at the end of his film.
In addition to questions related to the pressing problems of motivating contemporary artists, cinema, with a sufficient degree of irony, demonstrates the lack of awareness of the crowd in matters of art, its orientation to mass consumerism and the enthusiastic willingness of this very crowd to be left in the fools.

Exit Through the Gift Shop is the story of Thierry Guetta, a Frenchman living in Los Angeles who is trying to make a film about Banksy. And that's a fact. The film really captures documentary chronicles and interviews with the world’s most famous anonymous contemporary artist (or just a graphic artist – as you like). The man next to whom the Banksy credit appears continues to hide his face and voice, but not his thoughts. However, the camera of the Frenchman, obsessed with filming his whole life and fixing the work of street art artists, suddenly turns on him, and now we are watching Banksy’s film about Thierry – “Mr. Brain Practor” and his “artistic rise”.
The film inside the film and the film-turner is officially defined as documentary, but this is only before viewing. Banksy (or his team) created an amazing movie, according to all the laws of drama, while mixing reality and fiction and preserving the intrigue until the very end. Insinuations to the unreality of the Brainmaker, the professional shooting of Thierry at the moment when he shoots the Space Invader on his camera in the early 2000s, Banksy’s small lines (“Part of Thierry’s charm is in his improbability”) deliver great pleasure and make up the puzzle. The authors are playing with us, but they also give us clues, thank you. After watching it, you’ll call it anything—mocumentaries, prancumentaries, hoaxes, provocation, manipulation, feature documentaries, and more—but it won’t matter. What's important? Probably, as in the case of the elephant at the Banksy exhibition in New York (when the public and critics saw any symbols in this image, except for the elephant itself), the answers lie before the nose.
“Not quite a normal person with a camera” turns into a modern artist, and with the filing of Banksy. The artist and director change places – a great move. "I'm nobody. It was as if I had gone to bed and woke up as an artist, said Thierry. And we're with him. After all, we already sympathize with him - we were shown his life, placed in his family, shared the secret (my mother died, and he missed this moment and since then he has been recording his whole life on film). How are masterpieces created by Mr. Brainman? He copies photos, photoshops them, sprays paint. All this is equivalent to a vintage Thierry clothing store - you buy a second-hand, add a couple of details (or even just words, a little mythology) - and put the price tag many times higher than the original. And it works. Moreover, at different levels, and not only within the framework of cool Hollywood hangouts, where masterpieces of Elvis with a machine gun instead of a guitar diverge for a tidy sum to the homes of collectors. Here you are visiting a contemporary art gallery (in any city where they are). Your emotions? Though no, wait, you're done watching and just walking through the gift shop. Don't pass by. Everything you saw on the walls of the museum – here, in the format you need, on the necessary material – from wallpaper to T-shirts. Yeah, that's the art of today. “It’s kind of like ... a revolution,” Banksy ironically puts it through the mouth of a think tank. Irony does not permeate the whole film. It is light and airy - in Thierry's naivety, loud criticism of his works by the "mammoths" of street art, in peremptory statements of Banksy ("I always advised all my friends to do art ..." I won't do it again.

And you know what? All viewings of this film in different environments ended with similar reflections and discussions (like most reviews on the account of “Exit through the souvenir shop”) – about what is considered art, what motivates the artist, who at present can be considered an artist at all, what are the criteria for art, and so on depending on the mood. Self-expression, creativity, audience response to your values that you express in the work, communication itself? As Vonnegut wrote in Timequake about his physicist brother, who suddenly became an artist: He will not tell anyone at all who authored these works and how they were made. He just wants the inflated critics to break their brains and shit at all, trying to answer his Jesuit-innocent question: “Is this art or not?”
And these thoughts and conversations are useful and beautiful in any case, until you begin to understand that Banksy has also diluted us. He got the audience into his art, he created the Thinker – and once again got the audience (and it’s not just about money), he made a film and told us that this film is not about him, he made us talk about these deep topics after watching the movie! And that's not bad. We just don't see this elephant. Not immediately. "Life is beautiful" calls Banksy a crazy exhibition of the Mind-Government. “Life is beautiful,” he writes graffiti with Thierry’s hands on an old brick wall and immediately destroys it with an excavator. Life is beautiful and short. That's the message. Be Banksy, be a brainteacher, do what you want and do what you like, get involved in the process, be obsessed, make money - lots of money, play with reality, make a movie - live. Here, Thierry’s wife took a camera abandoned by her husband and began filming her life. Banksy, of course, will never help anyone make a documentary about street art.
10 out of 10

“At first he wanted to make a film about me, but then somehow it happened, or maybe he’s more epic, but decided to shoot about him,” – but here Banksy clearly sly.
In fact, not quite an ordinary documentary, about street art in the general sense of the word, and not about Banksy, as many people think. The background of ungrateful craft opens, you can see people creating a street, and most importantly, what they came to.
The first ten minutes after the end, I was furiously annoyed that I did not see all the inside that the creator of the picture could show me. And only then did I realize that this was not the purpose of the film.
This is not the story of one artist, it is something more, describing the whole art. I won’t open all the maps, but I’d advise you to pay attention to why in the end you let a brief note about each character. Even if you don’t understand it, welcome to a regular street movie. Even if you look at it that way, it’s not bad.

The more I think about the painting, the more I understand its genius.

Through such a complex plot to express such a simple thought: "Exit through the souvenir shop"Nobody reinvented the wheel, just reminded us once again about it.

It is very pleasant to watch a film that directly concerns you in such an intimate area for many as self-expression.
We all once wanted to leave a mark in history, still often inexplicably take up paints, pencils, canisters, guitars, cameras, typewriters - from vanity, the desire to taste immortality or change something in this world.
The same goes for our friends, who can take great pleasure in the incomprehensible smear created by them on sleepless nights in the garage. .

For me, the film is about the fact that real art is created by people who enjoy the process, not the result ... but not everything done with pleasure can be considered a cultural heritage of mankind.

But the beauty and power of the film itself lies in its ambiguity, in its irresistible desire to debate long and heatedly, to discuss with friends “what it was”, “what it means” and “whether Banksy is really cool”. Everyone has their own answer.

8 out of 10

(If measured purely as a documentary, 10 out of 10)

The best documentary of 2011, "Getting Out Through the Gift Shop," evokes very controversial feelings. In general, it is quite difficult to evaluate him. On the story of street art as a phenomenon, he does not pull, because the action revolves around the personality of the protagonist and his random video recordings. It would probably be more correct to compare “Exit...” with a description of the kitchen of street art, its underside.

Formally, in the foreground of the film is the story of Thierry Guetta, that part of it that was closely associated with street art. By historical standards - a short period, but standard for the life of any underground current, the development of which we observe through the camera lens of a native of France. At first, street art exists as a strange hobby of marginalized individuals, after a while it gains popularity, becoming a source of enrichment of the main character.

The whole film can be divided into three parts. The first one lasts just over half the time, talking about street art as another way of expressing young people, a real underground. At this stage, the anonymity of artists prevails over publicity, because their art is teetering on the edge of the law. To declare oneself openly is to confess an offence. To remain incognito is to lose the audience, if not at all, then most of it. This dilemma the creators of street art solve each in their own way, defining such images their place in the classification of artists, but about it later.
In the second part of the film, street art is shown noticeably matured, not limited to simple stickers on vertical surfaces and amateur smear on the walls. Here we are shown installations in the style of so-called modern art with the involvement of special equipment and people, as well as the first stage of monetization of Banksy’s creative potential in the form of an exhibition of his works and a subsequent auction. Greater publicity and obliges more, motivating street art to grow from hooligan pants to something more sane.

The third phase of the film tells about the arrival of big money in art and the transformation of street art into an industry with all the ensuing. The works of artists themselves are separated from their authors, and the author does not actually have to have talent - even to be able to draw is no longer necessary! Money and commercial vein - that's what now runs the street art.
Thus, "Exit Through the Gift Shop" shows us three types of artists:
1) drawing purely for the sake of self-expression, for themselves - a type of Space Invader.

2) Ambitious, talented and large-scale guys like Banksy.
(3) And finally, natural dealers with their business model, making art for a living, like Mr. Brainwash.
Banksy’s desire to simply talk about street art thanks to Thierry, who filmed everything, materialized into a mini-art history in which all three types consistently appear before us in accordance with how street art matures.
“Our art is extremely short-lived, so a person like Thierry — a person with a camera — we needed,” Banksy says, explaining the indulgence of popular artists to the passion of the protagonist. However, in part he is cunning - Thierry was needed primarily by those who had little self-expression for the sake of self-expression, who needed access to a larger audience, who needed popularity, recognition and fame, finally. And now Banksy is the first among artists to organize an exhibition of his works, starting a new stage in the history of street art, opening a new look at street art - making it an entire industry.
And the first bright representative is Mr. Brainwash. Banksy seems somewhat confused, as if justifying himself to the audience: well, so it happened, who knew – never again and no one would advise to do art. But he's cunning again - I think it's just jealous, because Banksy himself gave birth to MBW. His popularity, his exhibition - in general, his example, he shifted the bridge from art to business. And then in street art came artisans, who seriously pushed the creators. After all, success for the former means primarily a commercial component. You do not need to painfully search for yourself, you do not need to go through a thorny creative path, even talent is no longer needed - be able to sell yourself and that's it!
It looks very easy: until the end of viewing it is not clear whether he or the guys are just kidding. Looking at MBW’s “industrial” masquerade, made hastily by the opening day of his first exhibition, a sane person thinks about his imminent ruin – and unpredictably mistaken! The world has gone crazy - people are willing to pay unimaginable money for a piece of painted cardboard just because it's fashionable now. Mass psychosis gives rise to the idea that the film is a qualitative hoax. However... it's all true.

Craftsman Thierry, an enterprising businessman who accidentally got on the crest of the wave, ended up getting more than his brother, the Space Invader, and even more than Banksy. Not fair? From the point of view of assessing his capacity as a creator, yes, because the road to the American dream is not broken by the talent of an emigrant. For humanity, however, this is a common story. Artisans have always fed on art, and the creators created it. You can be offended by this, but it is due - it has always been and will be so. There is no moral in the film, no assessment of what is happening. Perhaps Banksy himself realizes that it is pointless to judge Mr. Brainwash. Especially since Banksy himself and that has long been a member of the business party.
P.S. Mr. Brainwash is not Mr. Brainwash, but Mr. Brainwasher.

I was expecting to see a movie about Banksy, about a street artist with worldwide popularity. His work is truly admirable. They have a thought, a moral, a call to action. They're inspiring. Perhaps this is what art should be, and that is why it became popular all over the world.
But the film is not about him, but about a guy named Terry Guetta. Compared to Banksy, he is incompetent (my personal opinion). But he succeeded because of his faith, his mad faith. And a lot of work. And also by using the name Banksy. Today, art has a huge number of directions, and each person has his own taste, but I did not appreciate Terry’s work. I fully understand Banksy’s closing words.
The film contains a large number of materials about street art, as well as the artists themselves and their work. It should be seen by everyone who is engaged in art, design, and in general any creativity. It perfectly shows the current situation in the world of artists and art fans.

8 out of 10

This is probably the best documentary I’ve ever seen. It's not about the artist, the band or the time. His hero is a mirage. Well, first of all, he talked about street art, but the question is, how? Turns everything into a movie. Since Thierry Guetta wanted to make a film about street art and about Banksy, it turned out that Banksy made a film about street art. And ending with the fact that the documentary becomes artistic. We can certainly assume that the brain-teacher in the form we see it in the film does not exist, because it is unlikely that Banksy would put it down, given that he has a lot of videos and information about Banksy.
So, this film becomes another brilliant project of a street artist who again fooled everyone by saying very loud words.
After all, everyone probably immediately got on the Internet and began to actively try to find something and Thierry Guette, the film made him famous, made him a mirage star.

Well, even if we discard the assumptions about the pseudo-documentality of this film, it is the essence of modern art ... it is secondary-tertiary-and so on to infinity. All this modern art is an art of a very different kind than Raphael and let’s say Goya, but still it contains a thought, a message, and this is valuable, that it is everywhere, on the street, around us, wants to capture every moment, every second of life, just like Thierry’s camera. And the art that made the Brainmaker is not even his work, it is just meaningless, just a beautiful, untwisted candy, which accurately guessed the wishes of the time, gained incredible fame and stood in line with such artists as Lichtenstein and Andy Warhol, although in fact only once again said the same thing.
Well, that's it. In general, in my opinion, this film is striking in its ambiguity and complexity, and at the same time the clarity of messages, and many and different.