Is there really no thread for Exit Through The Gift Shop?

[navkat]

Sounds like your every-day, run-of-the-mill stupidity and greed in government.

What if some punk paints shit on my house and I LIKE it? What then, huh? When do they start giving out tickets because they don't like my house color?

This example isn't a great one to prove your point. I know what you're trying to say: that it's costly to others and in some cases, creates victims. That's a good point. It's certainly something to consider before you start busting out the krylon.

The Seattle legislation is just stupidity that's dangerously close to tangling with the First.

No, it isn't even close to violating the 1st. It is causing others to be forced to pay for it's removal from private and public property. Taggers still have the right to say what they want, but they do not have a right to cause costs to taxpayers or private property owners.

Your freedom of expression does not include spray painting my house, and I have a Mossberg 500 12 gauge to prove it.

Well if I spray paint art on my own house... or like the art someone sprayed on my building... then the city requiring you to clean it up could be seen as a first amendment issue.

That's the motorcycle I was trying to ride but my starter went out.

[Adios]

Sounds like your every-day, run-of-the-mill stupidity and greed in government.

What if some punk paints shit on my house and I LIKE it? What then, huh? When do they start giving out tickets because they don't like my house color?

This example isn't a great one to prove your point. I know what you're trying to say: that it's costly to others and in some cases, creates victims. That's a good point. It's certainly something to consider before you start busting out the krylon.

The Seattle legislation is just stupidity that's dangerously close to tangling with the First.

No, it isn't even close to violating the 1st. It is causing others to be forced to pay for it's removal from private and public property. Taggers still have the right to say what they want, but they do not have a right to cause costs to taxpayers or private property owners.

Your freedom of expression does not include spray painting my house, and I have a Mossberg 500 12 gauge to prove it.

Well if I spray paint art on my own house... or like the art someone sprayed on my building... then the city requiring you to clean it up could be seen as a first amendment issue.

That's the motorcycle I was trying to ride but my starter went out.

So check with the building owner, have a sketch ready and get approval. Otherwise GTFO.

[Eater of Clowns]

I watched Exit Through the Gift Shop on a whim the other night.  Quite a bit of it seems like Banksy's fan film - to himself.  Its critique of art hype and the community through MBW is hilarious.  It's also funny to see the "legit" street artists so pissed that this guy they were cool with came onto the scene and puked his work all over an enormous building.

Not all graffiti is done on private property.  See the West Bank Wall for an example.  Places that sponsor it and encourage actual street art, not tagging, end up looking really awesome.  The Mission district of San Francisco had gorgeous murals everywhere, and was one of the better parts of the city I saw.

Sounds like your every-day, run-of-the-mill stupidity and greed in government.

What if some punk paints shit on my house and I LIKE it? What then, huh? When do they start giving out tickets because they don't like my house color?

This example isn't a great one to prove your point. I know what you're trying to say: that it's costly to others and in some cases, creates victims. That's a good point. It's certainly something to consider before you start busting out the krylon.

The Seattle legislation is just stupidity that's dangerously close to tangling with the First.

No, it isn't even close to violating the 1st. It is causing others to be forced to pay for it's removal from private and public property. Taggers still have the right to say what they want, but they do not have a right to cause costs to taxpayers or private property owners.

Your freedom of expression does not include spray painting my house, and I have a Mossberg 500 12 gauge to prove it.

Yeah!  And clearly the responsibility to use it, you know, with the deadly force you're protecting yourself from that those spray cans present.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Sounds like your every-day, run-of-the-mill stupidity and greed in government.

What if some punk paints shit on my house and I LIKE it? What then, huh? When do they start giving out tickets because they don't like my house color?

This example isn't a great one to prove your point. I know what you're trying to say: that it's costly to others and in some cases, creates victims. That's a good point. It's certainly something to consider before you start busting out the krylon.

The Seattle legislation is just stupidity that's dangerously close to tangling with the First.

No, it isn't even close to violating the 1st. It is causing others to be forced to pay for it's removal from private and public property. Taggers still have the right to say what they want, but they do not have a right to cause costs to taxpayers or private property owners.

Your freedom of expression does not include spray painting my house, and I have a Mossberg 500 12 gauge to prove it.

Well if I spray paint art on my own house... or like the art someone sprayed on my building... then the city requiring you to clean it up could be seen as a first amendment issue.

Either way, I approve of graffiti, if it is appreciated as art or if it pisses people off.

IF my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.

Or at least you'd have some pretty confused cousins.

That's the motorcycle I was trying to ride but my starter went out.

I'll give you a jump start anytime, nav

[Don Coyote]

I watched Exit Through the Gift Shop on a whim the other night.  Quite a bit of it seems like Banksy's fan film - to himself.  Its critique of art hype and the community through MBW is hilarious.  It's also funny to see the "legit" street artists so pissed that this guy they were cool with came onto the scene and puked his work all over an enormous building.

Not all graffiti is done on private property.  See the West Bank Wall for an example.  Places that sponsor it and encourage actual street art, not tagging, end up looking really awesome.  The Mission district of San Francisco had gorgeous murals everywhere, and was one of the better parts of the city I saw.

Sounds like your every-day, run-of-the-mill stupidity and greed in government.

What if some punk paints shit on my house and I LIKE it? What then, huh? When do they start giving out tickets because they don't like my house color?

This example isn't a great one to prove your point. I know what you're trying to say: that it's costly to others and in some cases, creates victims. That's a good point. It's certainly something to consider before you start busting out the krylon.

The Seattle legislation is just stupidity that's dangerously close to tangling with the First.

No, it isn't even close to violating the 1st. It is causing others to be forced to pay for it's removal from private and public property. Taggers still have the right to say what they want, but they do not have a right to cause costs to taxpayers or private property owners.

Your freedom of expression does not include spray painting my house, and I have a Mossberg 500 12 gauge to prove it.

Yeah!  And clearly the responsibility to use it, you know, with the deadly force you're protecting yourself from that those spray cans present.

Considering tagging is done to denote gang territory...

[Eater of Clowns]

Considering tagging is done to denote gang territory...

Exclusively, yes, of course.

Why, I can recall when the year 2000 came around and a friend and I wanted to light something on fire.  We took what we thought was a clear spray paint (I know, I know) and sprayed 2000 in the driveway, with the intention of lighting it on fire (I know, I know).  Well not two days later, the Crips had set up shop in my basement.

[Adios]

I watched Exit Through the Gift Shop on a whim the other night.  Quite a bit of it seems like Banksy's fan film - to himself.  Its critique of art hype and the community through MBW is hilarious.  It's also funny to see the "legit" street artists so pissed that this guy they were cool with came onto the scene and puked his work all over an enormous building.

Not all graffiti is done on private property.  See the West Bank Wall for an example.  Places that sponsor it and encourage actual street art, not tagging, end up looking really awesome.  The Mission district of San Francisco had gorgeous murals everywhere, and was one of the better parts of the city I saw.

Sounds like your every-day, run-of-the-mill stupidity and greed in government.

What if some punk paints shit on my house and I LIKE it? What then, huh? When do they start giving out tickets because they don't like my house color?

This example isn't a great one to prove your point. I know what you're trying to say: that it's costly to others and in some cases, creates victims. That's a good point. It's certainly something to consider before you start busting out the krylon.

The Seattle legislation is just stupidity that's dangerously close to tangling with the First.

No, it isn't even close to violating the 1st. It is causing others to be forced to pay for it's removal from private and public property. Taggers still have the right to say what they want, but they do not have a right to cause costs to taxpayers or private property owners.

Your freedom of expression does not include spray painting my house, and I have a Mossberg 500 12 gauge to prove it.

Yeah!  And clearly the responsibility to use it, you know, with the deadly force you're protecting yourself from that those spray cans present.

Way to miss the point. Unless invited you have no right to infringe on my property, much less to deface it. This includes any commercial buildings as well as my home.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Also, you damned kids get off the grass!!!

[Adios]

Also, you damned kids get off the grass!!!

Us old men don't fuck around. We break easier and heal more slowly that we used to.

[Eater of Clowns]

I watched Exit Through the Gift Shop on a whim the other night.  Quite a bit of it seems like Banksy's fan film - to himself.  Its critique of art hype and the community through MBW is hilarious.  It's also funny to see the "legit" street artists so pissed that this guy they were cool with came onto the scene and puked his work all over an enormous building.

Not all graffiti is done on private property.  See the West Bank Wall for an example.  Places that sponsor it and encourage actual street art, not tagging, end up looking really awesome.  The Mission district of San Francisco had gorgeous murals everywhere, and was one of the better parts of the city I saw.

Sounds like your every-day, run-of-the-mill stupidity and greed in government.

What if some punk paints shit on my house and I LIKE it? What then, huh? When do they start giving out tickets because they don't like my house color?

This example isn't a great one to prove your point. I know what you're trying to say: that it's costly to others and in some cases, creates victims. That's a good point. It's certainly something to consider before you start busting out the krylon.

The Seattle legislation is just stupidity that's dangerously close to tangling with the First.

No, it isn't even close to violating the 1st. It is causing others to be forced to pay for it's removal from private and public property. Taggers still have the right to say what they want, but they do not have a right to cause costs to taxpayers or private property owners.

Your freedom of expression does not include spray painting my house, and I have a Mossberg 500 12 gauge to prove it.

Yeah!  And clearly the responsibility to use it, you know, with the deadly force you're protecting yourself from that those spray cans present.

Way to miss the point. Unless invited you have no right to infringe on my property, much less to deface it. This includes any commercial buildings as well as my home.

Well I figured, since the thread was about a documentary of a street artist and it became about property rights that I could also turn it from property rights to responsible gun ownership.

[Adios]

I watched Exit Through the Gift Shop on a whim the other night.  Quite a bit of it seems like Banksy's fan film - to himself.  Its critique of art hype and the community through MBW is hilarious.  It's also funny to see the "legit" street artists so pissed that this guy they were cool with came onto the scene and puked his work all over an enormous building.

Not all graffiti is done on private property.  See the West Bank Wall for an example.  Places that sponsor it and encourage actual street art, not tagging, end up looking really awesome.  The Mission district of San Francisco had gorgeous murals everywhere, and was one of the better parts of the city I saw.

Sounds like your every-day, run-of-the-mill stupidity and greed in government.

What if some punk paints shit on my house and I LIKE it? What then, huh? When do they start giving out tickets because they don't like my house color?

This example isn't a great one to prove your point. I know what you're trying to say: that it's costly to others and in some cases, creates victims. That's a good point. It's certainly something to consider before you start busting out the krylon.

The Seattle legislation is just stupidity that's dangerously close to tangling with the First.

No, it isn't even close to violating the 1st. It is causing others to be forced to pay for it's removal from private and public property. Taggers still have the right to say what they want, but they do not have a right to cause costs to taxpayers or private property owners.

Your freedom of expression does not include spray painting my house, and I have a Mossberg 500 12 gauge to prove it.

Yeah!  And clearly the responsibility to use it, you know, with the deadly force you're protecting yourself from that those spray cans present.

Way to miss the point. Unless invited you have no right to infringe on my property, much less to deface it. This includes any commercial buildings as well as my home.

Well I figured, since the thread was about a documentary of a street artist and it became about property rights that I could also turn it from property rights to responsible gun ownership.

Yeah. Done here.

[navkat]

Considering tagging is done to denote gang territory...

Exclusively, yes, of course.

Why, I can recall when the year 2000 came around and a friend and I wanted to light something on fire.  We took what we thought was a clear spray paint (I know, I know) and sprayed 2000 in the driveway, with the intention of lighting it on fire (I know, I know).  Well not two days later, the Crips had set up shop in my basement.

I can't love this post enough.

EDIT: it reminds me of the time I was at a party and my shirt accidentally flew off (I know, I know).

[Eater of Clowns]

Fuck, alright, I came into the thread to talk about the documentary, not act like a dickhead.  Apologies for the latter.

I mostly tried to keep my last post about the movie itself vague, but this one will contain spoilers, to the extent that they can exist in this context.

Like I mentioned above, it felt like a fan film for Banksy by Banksy at points.  If I knew the project had been done by a third party, I could forgive the gushing over his work and the sole credit it gives him in getting street art legitimized.  I can't.  That said, I don't hate the attention it gave to an interesting and talented artist.  Banksy himself, when appearing, seemed genuinely funny (specifically his "oh shit I just counterfeited a million dollars" moment).

Clearly, though, and stated, the movie is about Thierry/Mr. Brainwash.  I think the best thing they did, and as a very subtle framing device, was to have Thierry outright state that he was basically a scam artist.  He said he owned a clothing store that took damaged or misthreaded clothes, labeled them "designer" and made hundreds of dollars in profit.  It's the same thing he did with his art, or at least the art of his they showed.  It was iconic stuff that he then stylized, often to the point of meaninglessness - and people bought it.  A million fucking dollars worth of it.

One of the most glorious parts was when the patrons were talking about MBW's show.  They dressed up a bunch of words to make themselves sound like they knew what they were talking about, they parroted, but they weren't confident in their words and it showed.  Every one of them looked so uneasy that someone would call them on their bullshit, but nobody said it, and thus the bullshit became legitimized.  Heh, then this movie comes along and calls the art world out on its bullshit.

That said, I don't trust the movie whatsoever.  I don't know enough about the art world to know if this is just the Fahrenheit 9/11 for Banksy.  Yeah, MBW is pretty well loathed by his former allies and basically shown as an obsessive fanboy with a touch of complete crazy thrown in.  But Banksy is a trickster, as is amply shown.  So we have a scenario where MBW's art might be considered "good."  Banksy creates a film to try to prove that MBW's art isn't "good", that people are buying into art world hype.  What the hell would we do if Banksy gets these accolades, then comes out and say "No, MBW's art is actually good, but you saw an argument that it was bullshit, and believed that instead."

I don't know art.  I can tell which pieces are evocative to me, and pleasing to me.  I know I saw a lot of MBW's stuff that I thought was crap, but what the fuck do I know?

[Eater of Clowns]

Suu, where is this one located?  I think it's awesome.

Fairey had a pretty significant role in the movie, by the way.

[Suu]

Behind AS220 between Washington and Westminster Street. Close to Cuban Revolution.