It was an interesting film; I wouldn't call it great, but it was certainly thought-provoking. It was at least worth the free showing I saw.
It's really more about the absurdity of the value that people place on art, rather than about street art per se. If you go in expecting people to talk about street art, how they do it, why they do it, and the like, you'll be disappointed (it has a bit of that, but that's not the point).
Edit: For people outside of England, Tesco is one of the bigger or biggest convenience store chains, similar to 7-11. The kids are wearing traditional school uniforms. So it'd be similar to graffiti of American kids in conservative, traditional dress saluting the 7-11 logo.
It was released in London in March so is no longer on in most cinemas. That said, the Prince Charles in Soho is showing it on Monday and Wednesday lunchtime: http://bit.ly/9AqEZ7
Interesting artifact: Amnesia is one of the hippest live venues / bars in the area, kind of ground zero for Mission hipsterdom. That it now has the art of Banksy really only elevates it to new echelons of cool never before seen this side of Valencia.
Having just spent about $20,000 that I can't afford replacing the exterior stucco on a downtown building, only to have it defaced by someone's idea of "street art" (if that's what you call scribbling your name with a spray can) count me less than enthusiastic about a film that glorifies this movement.
It's not about street art, it's about a guy who is trying to make a documentary about Banksy. Definitely worth seeing though, it will really make you think.
Right, I didn't want to add any spoilers. It's still not really clear to me whether it's actually a hoax or not. If it is then there's no clear moral, and either way it's realistic enough that it doesn't really matter.
I think that there was a certain kind of moral; I think that he was making a statement about how absurd people's valuation of art is. That it doesn't even have to be about whether it is good, or original, or even who created it; a nobody could come out, make some shoddy knockoff artwork, and with enough promotion and buzz, create a market for his artwork and start selling it.
I think it's a reaction to the people buying and selling Banksy's own art; art that he created for free, in public, on the street, possibly on someone else's property or on public property, with no expectation of remuneration. Then, once it gets trendy and popular, people start buying it up just because other people are interested in it; they don't even necessarily care about the art itself, nor the artist, they just care that it's popular. By creating an artist out of thin air, peddling derivative, repetitive art with no particular meaning, and then ensuring that the hype increases the value of his art, Banksy is showing how disconnected the art market is from the art itself.
I don't see why that's worth a downvote but I agree, all I see it being useful for is having friends leave notes so that if I'm somewhere new, someone might have left a suggestion as to what I should do/eat/see there
It's really more about the absurdity of the value that people place on art, rather than about street art per se. If you go in expecting people to talk about street art, how they do it, why they do it, and the like, you'll be disappointed (it has a bit of that, but that's not the point).