“Nowadays I don't do that so much anymore”

Towards the end of the movie “Exit Through the Gift Shop”, the producer of the movie and one of its main characters, the street-artist Banksy comments on his experiences with the other main character in the film, Thierry Guetta alias Mr Brainwash. According to the film, Bansky has first given Guetta, who obssessively documents many things, including street-art, access to his work and studio, and encouraged Guetta to do street-art of his own, leading to an exhibition, the execution of which is also underwritten by Banksy. But now, after the exhibition and its success, Banksy has this to say: “”.

Like the whole “documentary” or “mocumentary”, the comment itself is first of all ironical, taking in the many twists and turns of the plot. In the beginning, we are told, that the plan was that Guetta makes a documentary about Banksy, but as it turned out, the roles were reversed. As nn has commented, the film, itself has a classic stucture well-executed: . This time there is an added twist, as the two charcters of Guetta and Banksy reveal sides of each other in the double-helix structure of the narrative. Guetta begins as a symphatetic and down-to-earth character with whom it is easy to identify, goes through trials, finally wins the trust of Banksy and through that an ultimately unexpected vindication of a unforeseen passion: becoming a practising and succesful artist. However, this classic plotline is undermined by the representation of the other street-artists in the film, and especially by the character of Banksy. The enigmatic hero of street-art starts looming large from the early stages of the film, is portrayed as a nice enough and approachable person, even letting Guetta to film in his studio with Banksy revealing his cache of fake money and all.

A crucial turn is the moment when Guetta shows the planned documentary “Life Remote Control”, which Banksy claims is unwatchable and, in consequence, asks for the raw material so he can himself work on it, while at the same time suggesting that Guetta do some art of his own. Now the tables are turned: Guetta's ostensive success story is increasingly ironised; how he has no skills in putting on the show, how he rips other artists work without care or involvement, how he is involved with public relations while his helpers build the exhibition. The final nail in the coffin is precisely Banksy's comment, that completely undermines the “success” of Mr.Brainwash, and instead suggests, that the spotlight was on the skills of Banksy all along. At the end of the documentary, there is a double win for Banksy: he gets the final say on the quality of MrBrainwash's art and he gets to do this in his own work of art, the film itself. Whatever illumination we gather from the film, it rains in Banksy's locker.

So the crucial question becomes: is there a “good” way on interpreting the comment “”.

ironical, of course, but then what?

- is the comment exclusive?
Only some people should do art?

The problem can not be money, or success, as Banksy's LA show with the elephant is diplayed in a semi-positive light, at least

The problem can not be be recycling images, as B and streert art does precisely that

is the prob Skillful recycling
is the prob Critical recycling


Banksy is now famous and rich, reappropriated by capitalism and art markets
images in the semio-capitalist circulation
so what could the exclusivity be? From what “position of enunciation” can the exclusion be done?

B has the reosurces to make the movie, the Wikipedia article
several levels of conspiracies, counter-conspirasies, disinformation, black flag ops etc.

Why has nothing been said of “Life Remote Control”

- the old dilemma:
capitalist reappropriation