I watched Exit Through The Gift Shop today, and it got me thinking about modern art. I don't pretend to understand, or even really appreciate visual art much at all. What makes one piece great, and another one crap? It's an argument for the ages. I like Warhol, but I don't like Pollock. I really can't justify that, or explain why one is appealing to me and the other is not. I wanted to take art appreciation classes in college, but I couldn't work it into my schedule. Even so, I'm not sure it would have given me any clear answers. I was an English major. I know with enough dwelling and scholarly justification, you can argue discarded tinfoil into an amazing work of artistic expression. I had to write many papers singing the praises of books and stories that in my heart I believe are complete garbage.
Exit Through The Gift Shop left me feeling troubled. I want to support the street art movement, but I'm not sure I do completely. Yes, there is an obvious proliferation of advertisement all around us, and many times it covers up what would have otherwise been beautiful architecture. But I'm not sure tagging a relatively meaningless symbol over the advertisement, or "decorating" a blank wall is really always justified, or a better alternative. It's illegal, plain and simple. I get that art is often times meant to challenge our view on, and acceptance of modern society, and in that respect, cool. Go out and express yourself. But at the same time, it's dangerous, it's distracting, and evil or not, those companies paid money for those billboards and advertisement spaces. Those traffic signs are there for a reason. That's a place of business that may or may not support your artwork. A legitimate advertisement campaign for Aqua Teen Hunger Force nearly lead to public panic over a suspected terrorist threat. All they did was create traffic lights with characters from the show and place them strategically around town. But people thought it was a cultist symbol. Yes, some people are just stupid and paranoid, but it still caused a panic, and I don't believe art should cause panic. It should elicit an emotion, no doubt, but I'm not sure panic is the goal.
But Exit Through the Gift Shop really made me think about the "point" of art. Is it to express, or to profit? The story is of a former vintage clothing store owner who flipped $50 tee shirts for $5,000, then became a not-even-amateur filmmaker who decided to follow around street artists; a movement in modern art involving guerrilla-style graffiti painting and poster and billboard hanging. He earned the trust of the most famous street artists, including the ever elusive Banksy, and soon learned how to do the same things they were doing. Then he hired artists to produce works for himself, under the name "Mister Brain Wash," which he then sold for millions of dollars at an auction. I don't know what's more troubling, that he made millions essentially stealing, or at the very least profiting from other people's artwork, or that people lined up en mass to buy his "art." Even more troubling was that I actually liked the artwork... But much of it consisted of literally taking pre-existing images created by others, and using Photoshop to alter the images slightly. The other street artists do this as well, to some extent, and even Warhol took a Campbell's soup can and just painted the logo on things, and sold it as his artwork. I'm just troubled by the idea of taking something that another person created, and just adding splotches of color, or cutting it up and calling it your own work.
And yet, I didn't really feel all that sorry for the other artists. They seemed to hold a bit of a grudge against "Mister Brainwash" because he took their craft, which they feel passionately about, and mass produced it, got other artists to copy the style, and then rose to instant fame and fortune. I can see their point, but at the same time, people will buy what they like. If someone wants to pay $30,000 for one of his prints, so be it. The other artists can't control what people like, or are willing to spend. It could have very easily ended up that nobody attended his exhibit, and nobody bought a single thing, leaving him penniless, as he spent all of his earnings and savings on the exhibit. At the same time, it troubles me that people spent thousands of dollars on his artwork. Not because he doesn't deserve it, that's arguable, but because the idea of the wealthy buying artistic expressions that are meant to be anti-establishment in nature, doesn't sit well with me. Why should it be that only the wealthy can afford artwork? In that sense, I support the street artist movement, because at least those who enjoy and support the artwork can do so for free. And then if they want a print for themselves, they can go through the proper channels to buy it.
That begs to question, is it better to essentially force art upon people by vandalising billboards, abandoned buildings and advertisements, or to reserve art for the wealthy? I don't know. Good art is good art, and if people are willing to buy it, they should, and the artists should profit from their hard work. And really, guerrilla-style art is a sure fire way to drudge up interest and notoriety. It's brilliant marketing, even if it is illegal and arguably a public nuisance. If they didn't resort to illegal papering and graffiti, they would still be unknown, and their art would probably not sell. But good artists built their reputations without resorting to illegal actions. They suffered and struggled, but for many of them it eventually paid off. Then again, many now beloved artists died penniless, selling one of a kind original sketches and prints for a sandwich. Is art for everyone, or those who can afford it?
