
'The Simpsons' Explains Its Provocative Banksy Opening - davewiner
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/the-simpsons-explains-its-button-pushing-banksy-opening/
======
bradly
It must have been weird for the workers in Korea to produce this opening.

~~~
mechanical_fish
I wouldn't know, but I would imagine that they might find it hilarious.

It's always nice to make a cameo appearance, even in extreme caricature.
(Which is generally the only way one gets to make a cameo appearance on _The
Simpsons_.)

~~~
sliverstorm
I imagine they would only find it hilarious assuming it IS an extreme
caricature ;)

------
ojbyrne
The embedded video has been taken down because of a copyright claim (at least
for me). Not sure what to think about that, except that it seems misguided.

~~~
skymt
This other NYT post has a working embedded video from Hulu:
[http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/with-a-
provocat...](http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/with-a-provocative-
couch-gag-banksy-tags-up-on-the-simpsons/)

~~~
jonasvp
Not for us outside the US...

~~~
barrkel
This kind of stuff - not just Hulu, but occasionally even Youtube, and other
random failures - prompted me to rent a cheap US-hosted VPS (36 USD/year) just
so I could ssh -D into it.

~~~
maximilian
How do you get flash to proxy properly? I've had trouble previously with flash
not respecting the OS and browser proxy settings.

~~~
barrkel
Firefox with FoxyProxy, using ssh -D as a SOCKS5 proxy, and with DNS lookups
remoted through the proxy rather than done locally (this is a setting in
Firefox which I don't think is exposed in the normal UI, but is exposed by
FoxyProxy). Flash in Firefox seems to respect the browser's settings just
fine.

I run the ssh on a general purpose server I have here at home, in a loop,
using ssh-agent for passwordless logins, in a loop, and connecting to a screen
session, so that things reconnect relatively seamlessly when the VPS provider
terminates TCP connections, as it does at exactly 10am my time every morning.
I'm also using the relevant TCPKeepAlive on the server and ServerAliveInterval
on the client.

------
chris_l
I think the opening is a statement about how the art is taken out of the
modern simpsons by the way they are produced. The links in the opening are the
asian workers and the sadness in their depiction. This fits with banksys
regular theme about the value of art and its opposition to commerce. Subtle
enough?

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
I'd be more bought into Banksy's opposition to commerce if he wasn't regularly
selling work for five and six figures, not to mention the five books he's
published.

Fight the system yeah?

~~~
chris_l
He doesn't stoop down to such slogans.

I'd venture it's not commerce but commercialisation he's opposed to.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
You don't think five books of your work commercialises it? That's not exactly
being in it for the love of it is it?

~~~
steveklabnik
Having anarchist sympathies, this is something I've given a lot of thought to.
But basically, there's a difference between 'surviving' and 'selling out.'
Banksy's gotta live, too. As long as he doesn't feel that he's had to
compromise on his vision to release them, then I don't see any particular
clash between being anti-commercial and selling some work.

There's always a tension between the purity of the message and how many people
actually hear it. Banksy could stay totally anti-commercial, do no shows,
publish no works... and just stay on the streets of London. Or, he could sell
some works for 5 figures, do his art around the world, and have a larger
number of people hear his message.

~~~
TheAmazingIdiot
In a way, his message is satrically funny.

The hollywood machine will pay for the noose that hangs themselves, as long as
they make money in the next 6 months.

~~~
steveklabnik
They haven't hung themselves yet.

------
jonursenbach
It kills that after immediately showing this they go right back to the blaring
trumpet, thus making the viewing even more awkward.

~~~
risotto
At least that part made me laugh...

------
swombat
Is there a version of the video viewable from the other 95% of the world?

~~~
Bootvis
You can watch it here:

[http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/1151381/d293ebcd/simpsons_ba...](http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/1151381/d293ebcd/simpsons_bankgrap.html)

------
Sukotto
Wow... 5 commercials, just to watch that clip. :-(

------
pavel_lishin
Provocative, but not very subtle.

~~~
joeld42
I think it's more subtle than it lets on. The message wasn't "the simpsons is
produced by sweatshop labor" which of course isn't true. Because if it was,
this intro never would have aired. By joking openly, "we use sweatshop labor",
they're really reiterating that they don't.

The real message is "think about where your consumer goods come from". Which
of course isn't the most original or controversial statement in the world, but
the context makes you pay attention, much more so than if it had been direct,
like a documentary. I thought it was a clever, self-deprecating way to bring
up the subject, and a great use of context.

~~~
Jun8
Exactly! The more you think about it the more brilliant it gets. Like the
Babel Fish argument against the existence of God in the Hitchhiker's Guide:

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says
God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says
Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by
chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you
don't. QED" "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly
vanishes in a puff of logic.

------
joshbert
As a very old fan of The Simpsons (including the newer seasons) I couldn't be
more pleased. The recent Zuckerberg cameo was brilliant as well:

[http://www.thedailybeast.com/video/item/mark-zuckerberg-
on-t...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/video/item/mark-zuckerberg-on-the-
simpsons)

------
nutjob123
Its kind of crazy how big Banksy has gotten

------
lotusleaf1987
I thought the this was an awesome opening (couch gag) I am surprised that it
made it past Fox though.

I recommend seeing 'Exit Through the Gift Shop' to anyone who is even slightly
interested in Banksy, street art, art in general, or documentaries.

~~~
adulau
'Exit Through the Gift Shop' is indeed an interesting piece of art work from
Banksy. The video is not really about him but just a way to divert the media
attention to a "creation of his own". In the video, he created a fake/pseudo
artist (Thierry Guetta) to show the "media" or the art market or even to see
us being lost in his maze.

~~~
27182818284
Has it even been settled who Banksy is at this point? I hope not. I very much
enjoyed the idea that was thrown around that Banksy was never a single person.

~~~
lotusleaf1987
There are pictures of a person who is possibly Banksy, but nothing concrete. I
think the mystery/anonymity makes him even more intriguing and mysterious
because you're left speculating without any definitive answers.

~~~
ilovecomputers
I won't be surprised if he turns out to be the Chav that he is described here:
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2003/jul/17/art.artsf...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2003/jul/17/art.artsfeatures)

------
gaius
Good to see Banksy going legit, maybe he can contribute to cleaning up the
vandalism now.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
You are kidding right? The average Banksy piece can be sold for way more than
the clean up costs (and have been sold in the past on the stipulation that the
buyer "removes" it).

Moaning about a Banksy piece on the side of your building would be like
moaning about someone coming up and sticking gold to it.

~~~
doyoulikeworms
You're right and all, and I more or less agree, but it's still private
property we're talking about, isn't it? If I don't want someone to stick gold
onto my property, I shouldn't have to put up with it. It just so happens that
most people are OK with free money, though.

That said, I was under the impression that he asked permission first, at least
recently?

~~~
hugh3
Even if he does ask for permission, the whole cult-of-some-guy-who-sprays-
crap-on-other-people's-property is only serving to encourage other vandals who
consider themselves "artists".

If he gets permission before each and every one of his "artworks" then he
should come out and be explicit about it so that copycats don't get inspired.
And if he doesn't, he should be thrown in prison, and the various city
governments and other property owners who have been "blessed" by his work
should subpoena (or whatever) the Simpsons producers in order to find out who
exactly this asshole is.

edit: I wonder how many of the people who defend this guy are not property-
owners themselves.

~~~
justsee
You've demonstrated perfectly the old-grandpa 'get off my lawn position'.
However dismissing him as just some guy who sprays crap on other people's
property probably just indicates you aren't aware of the social / political
messaging he engages in.

"Any advert in public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not
is yours…You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like
asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head…They have re-arranged
the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your
permission, don’t even start asking for theirs." - Banksy in Wall And Piece

He certainly doesn't ask for permission. Look at his "One nation under CCTV"
piece: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-559547/Graffiti-
arti...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-559547/Graffiti-artist-
Banksy-pulls-audacious-stunt-date--despite-watched-CCTV.html)

~~~
dkarl
_However dismissing him as just some guy who sprays crap on other people's
property probably just indicates you aren't aware of the social / political
messaging he engages in._

It's easy to say that the law should not be enforced against Banksy because he
is engaged in worthy social/political messaging, but consider: what _if_ the
government can't be trusted to decide what is politically legitimate and
artistically worthy? I know, I know, crazy talk, but it's an interesting
thought experiment, right?

You and I might think Banksy is great and different, but it's a legitimate
point that "some guy who sprays crap on other people's property" doesn't
recognize that he is, in fact, different from Banksy. He thinks he's Banksy,
just like every gay-bashing, church-bombing white power thug thinks he's
Batman, cleaning up scum off the streets. And who are we to say they're wrong?
Even worse, who are the cops that we trust them to make the distinction? The
difference between Batman and a white power vigilante is politics; the
difference between Banksy and a paint-huffing teenage dipshit is political and
artistic understanding, as well as aesthetics. Tolerating Banksy means
selective law enforcement based on someone's political and artistic
sensibility. In the United States we have a long history of the cops being on
the wrong side of these kinds of distinctions, and I hope every other country
recognizes the same thing in their history.

Personally, I hope Banksy stays ahead of the cops, but I also hope they're
trying in earnest to bust him when he does something illegal.

~~~
justsee
The quote you snipped there was just making the point that throwing Banksy in
to the same category as your pedestrian vandal is a mischaracterization.

You make some good points. The artistic / social / political value of an act
is subjective - yes. However I never actually said the law shouldn't be
enforced against Banksy. Like you I'd expect the police to take on people
wilfully damaging private property.

It's a filter that ensures only the very committed will produce works as bold
as Banksy, and whether I like or loathe their messages, I expect they're
worthy of a pause for thought by society. Which is what Banksy is trying to
achieve.

Keep in mind graffiti has been a problem since forever (didn't Herodotus
record some citizen outrage in Athens?), and is mostly banal. So admitting
that in our times there is a very interesting character who is engaged in
something a little more high-minded than tagging or 'spraying crap' isn't a
cause for too much philosophical hand-wringing.

