Is it a fraud or art?
When someone asks me is it art or not, "Yes!" I would say it to Leonardo Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, "Hmm.. maybe?" to Duchamp's Fountain, "I don't know..." to Damien Hurst's For the Love of God.
So, I once again meditate the meaning of art. My doodle scribbled on my notebook without any meaning can be an ART. This is what happening in post-modernism era, when every standards have collapsed. Thus, art is what being thought art, so art is a fraud, as Mr.Baek had said.
Banksy, the most famous street artist of 21st century, criticizes this attribute of modern art through this documentary. By filming rapid success of Mr.Brainwash, Banksy shows how invalid the modern art is and how exaggerated value of the modern art is. What Mr.Brainwash has painted and made is basically the combination of Andy Warhol, Shepard Fairey and Banksy. Mr.Brainwash does not have any idea about his art works, or configuration of them either. Surprisingly, Mr.Brainwash's artworks are evaluated highly and sold with extremely expensive money. To Banksy, Mr.Brainwash's art is fake, made by mass media and vanity of people. It seems legit because no one would believe exhibition of man who had never painted before succeeds.
However, I want to criticize Banksy by the part that he is criticizing art. The essence of his art is street art, or the vandalism, denying and mocking what other arts had done before. And "that" Banksy is trying to make another standard, dividing what a real art is and not. Hilarious, isn't it? His viewpoint clearly displays what existing artists could have thought about street art, or Banksy. He himself is showing the process which an Icon of vandalism becoming an icon of conservatism.
An idea just have come to my mind that maybe Banksy has made this film to reveal how ridiculous his fans are, who absorb Banksy's idea thoughtlessly. He just wanted to laugh at people writing reviews about Banksy's greatness and MBW's vulgarness, which is exactly converse to Banksy spirit. One thing is sure regardless of his purpose of filming. That the effort to define art would be a mockery.
A good intro and conclusion - and everything that's in between fits. But the weight given to things is a bit unbalanced. I think more discussion about the film is needed, and at 422 words we are short of the 500 word ballpark. I actually think the length works in this case, as short and sweet is good in many cases - especially for a film review. But, again, a little more about the film and just a bit less about the legitimacy of art.
답글삭제As for the content - I like the angle you take, and you are daring enough to suppose that the film actually is a fake. Is it? I think it is, but to what extent, I don't know. I also am not sure who or what Banksy's target is. In any case, we end up with a fun and interesting film. On that note, I don't know from reading your review if you liked it or not, even if it clearly inspired some clever insights. Nice work.