Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I saw this the other day, and thought it was interesting... anyone have any thoughts on it? It's a "documentary" supposedly about the graffiti artist Banksy, but it ends up being more about the filmmaker, a frenchman who bizarrely becomes a graffiti artist himself and to this day is making serious money selling art(really, really bad art, all done by a team of underlings). It seems like the entire movie is an elaborate hoax designed to make the art collecting world look like idiots, but no one has come out and spilled the beans at this point.

It's been nominated for an academy award, but Banksy will not be admitted to the ceremony since he insists upon being anonymous. Very strange movie.

Wow! And I thought Thomas Kincaid had made the art collecting world look like idiots.

...quickly ducking behind the Behrens serigraphs to zip up flame suit...

I thought about this movie for days after I saw it. And I've decided that it's pretty brilliant, really. Not only entertaining to watch in every way, but it really appears that it's Banksy's biggest culture heist yet! I believe that everything depicted in the film is part of what might be called his new "art." Thierry Guetta, the Frenchman, and the other artists (Shephard Fairey, Space Invader, etc.) may have been the only ones in on the joke from the beginning and that Banksy has duped us all (including Brad Pitt, Jude Law, Angelina, etc).

Recommended.

I think the most shocking thing to me is that Thierry is most probably real, and that the whole story is true, not some creation of Banksy's. At first I thought it must be a hoax, but after looking into it, most people seem to confirm that Thierry is who he said he was, that he lived in LA, owned clothing stores, and loved to videotape everything.

BuddyDog wrote:Wow! And I thought Thomas Kincaid had made the art collecting world look like idiots.

...quickly ducking behind the Behrens serigraphs to zip up flame suit...

Y'know, you have to wonder why the snobs of the 'art world' look down their noses at Thomas Kincaid (and some others who do as he appears to be doing). It's nothing new... Michelangelo, da Vinci, Reubens and almost every other 'great' artist of the past with a large body of work employed apprentices- craftsmen who took smaller,detailled outlines by the "name" artist and created the larger works (Bernini, for instance, would still be working today if all the art attributed to -and claimed by- him was in fact completed by Bernini himself). While pretty much all the famous artists of the past were prodigious in their output, many also followed what Kincaid et al do as well... Sketch out a drawing (or create a small-scale clay model for a sculpture), then leave it to the apprentice to do the grunt work... But for some reason, Kincaid is villified, while Reubens is a hero.... Go figure.

Kincaid is not an artist--he's a promoter who believes every one of the adoring letters he receives from his blue-haired, almost exclusively septuagenarian female cult.

His use of outsourced labor to create his "masterpieces of light" has one motive--to minimize his own work while maximizing profit.

To compare him to any Renaissance artist is laughable.

Want to take the measure of the man?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/ma ... s.artsnews

http://pierretristam.com/Bobst/library/wf-108.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitsch

Well... okay. Perhaps in the final analysis Kinkade -spelling corrected- may be a poor example of what I was saying. And by many reports he does seem to be something less than a gentleman, a side of him I had no idea about until today. So perhaps my earlier comment picked up on a poorly-chosen name...

However, in my defence (Limited Capacity), I must point out that "Kincaid" is my wife's maiden name, and that she has researched a distant Scottish connection with the ancestors of this particular artist..... We just never knew much about the man, just about the art (which I agree is not to my own taste. In our home we have hung Bill Reid, Sue Coleman, Roy Henry Vickers and Robert Bateman.. a west coast theme)

However, the idea of using underlings (employees, apprentices, call 'em what you will) -up to and including actual creation of the finished piece- is hardly new to the art world, and that part of my earlier comment is what I will rest on... somewhat shaken, but not yet stirred.

(Serious attempt to fawn follows)

After all, is there anyone here who would deny that a well-done Ric is indeed a work of art?

End of humble apology