4 ms·

I can't find the original article (I thought it was LA Times), but a major news publication put some serious resources into fact checking as much of this as pos

I can't find the original article (I thought it was LA Times), but a major news publication put some serious resources into fact checking as much of this as possible. They came to the conclusion that Mr. Brainwash's background is all legit from as far as they can tell and they couldn't find any reason to doubt the authenticity of the film. Maybe someone knows the article I'm thinking of?

guynamedloren 15y ago
I'm not sure, but the best counter argument I've heard is that while Guetta is 100% real, as is his background, personality, and his street art footage, he is not actually the famous street artist "Mr Brainwash". Instead, Mr Brainwash is a fictional character designed to be a front for a collaborative effort between Banksy and Shepard Fairey, and Guetta happens to play the role of Mr Brainwash for the sake of the film. As a result, all of the art claimed to be produced by Mr Brainwash (and the art shows) is actually part of a very elaborate prank. That's a tough one to prove or disprove, but I wouldn't be the least be surprised if it were a prank.
- gbhn 15y ago
  Definitely a prank. But the whole point of Banksy's career is to blur the lines between art and prank. And really, a found urinal that Duchamp autographed with someone else's name? That isn't even original at this point? That's not a prank? :-) The movie definitely grows in value when you realize there's a huge real-life prank going on, and that no-one is quite sure exactly what it is. Kind of like not being sure if you're on a seedy street or in an art gallery. But that's a big part of the feeling that street art is supposed to give you, as nearly as I can tell, and Banksy and Fairey are at the top of the game at it. For me, one of the big mysteries is who actually made the movie. You mean to tell me that Banksy and Shepard Fairey made that? It's a very well-done movie. It sets off new and old footage really well. It's engaging and provocative. So they do street art very well, and are really good at making films? Seems to much to hope for, but it certainly could be true. That's part of the fun, I think. :-)
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

guynamedloren 15y ago

I'm not sure, but the best counter argument I've heard is that while Guetta is 100% real, as is his background, personality, and his street art footage, he is not actually the famous street artist "Mr Brainwash". Instead, Mr Brainwash is a fictional character designed to be a front for a collaborative effort between Banksy and Shepard Fairey, and Guetta happens to play the role of Mr Brainwash for the sake of the film. As a result, all of the art claimed to be produced by Mr Brainwash (and the art shows) is actually part of a very elaborate prank. That's a tough one to prove or disprove, but I wouldn't be the least be surprised if it were a prank.

gbhn 15y ago
Definitely a prank. But the whole point of Banksy's career is to blur the lines between art and prank. And really, a found urinal that Duchamp autographed with someone else's name? That isn't even original at this point? That's not a prank? :-) The movie definitely grows in value when you realize there's a huge real-life prank going on, and that no-one is quite sure exactly what it is. Kind of like not being sure if you're on a seedy street or in an art gallery. But that's a big part of the feeling that street art is supposed to give you, as nearly as I can tell, and Banksy and Fairey are at the top of the game at it. For me, one of the big mysteries is who actually made the movie. You mean to tell me that Banksy and Shepard Fairey made that? It's a very well-done movie. It sets off new and old footage really well. It's engaging and provocative. So they do street art very well, and are really good at making films? Seems to much to hope for, but it certainly could be true. That's part of the fun, I think. :-)
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]