Mr. Brainwash, Banksy's protege?, by raiden on May 11, 2009 7:24:25 GMT 1, First, snausages... thanks for the pretty insightful response to my post. I always appreciate well thought out responses. Consequently, I'll delve a little further into artistic criticism of MBW and cite works...

Second, my numbered responses were less critique of his art and more why I go after MBW as an artist - which was a question Cadeallaw raised. There are plenty of artists I think are total crap but I wouldn't spend effort calling them out. With MBW, its those reasons stated that I particularly dislike him as an artist as opposed to merely disliking his art.

I'd disagree that MBW:

biting' is conceptually driven and done with more panache and or humour than most of the artists in this scene who are guilty of the same thing.

Conceptually driven, perhaps. Done with panache??? I don't think Thierry poses the creative intelligence to pull off panache. When half the people are erroneously saying he's "Banksy's Tony Clifton" or an elaborate "emperor has no clothes" ruse on urban art, and half are saying he's imbuing his work with a cross cultural pastiche of references meant as commentary --- I believe neither. Based on interviews I've seen, talking with him, and things I've been told, Thierry is more the Art World's Chance Gardener and once this initial hype dissipates, its going to be more apparent that his work is prima facie what it is: rehashing of tired artistic tropes repackaged with a suffocating hype machine thanks to his personal wealth.

Few pieces he's produced have any depth of commentary, and when they do, you wonder with his extremely prolific and prodigious production of work, whether it might be happy accidents. Out of the literally 1000s of pieces at "Life Is Beautiful," I will grant that the "Urban" Duchamp Urinal was brilliant, but even then, the questions of autuership over the entire collection of works that emerged when it was revealed how it produced the show, makes you wonder if even his greatest artistic triumphs are fully attributable to Thierry - and I've heard way to much to say case closed yes.

Meanwhile, 99% of the work was barely reworked, tired ideas, many of whom were Flea Market outsider art staples. Broken record pictures? Warhol reworkings? It all reminds me of revenge of the bad park art fairs.

It all makes you wonder, how did Thierry get to where he is? Clearly many a message board has thought the most plausible explanation was something wholly outlandish. That idiot art such as Thierry's could only rise to the levels of recognition it has if someone bigger and better were pulling the strings. While Thierry, using the ruse of Documentary filmmaking, has benefited from worming his way into a art world associations way beyond those ever deserved, particularly by someone who by that point, had produced practically zero in terms of gallery art or major street works - the sad truth is that what you see is in fact what you get.

Snausages, my point of labeling Thierry a rich kid, trust fund, hipster has nothing to do with my critique of his work, and everything to do with dispelling the mystique surrounding his work. Though this fact invites a critique, namely that in a very real sense, embracing MBW is tantamount to embracing the "Paris Hiltonification" of art. Sure, economic factors advance or retard many a young art career, but MBW is particularly unique in that economics and connections are the reason for his art career - and what is more, his success seems founded on many of the same principles launching Paris, and so many seem willing to be apologist for it.

Much like Paris, MBW has reached this level of recognition thanks to spectacle and less on substance, thanks to wealth and connections and less on the aesthetics and message. Similarly, the subject matter suffers from the same vapidity as the celebrities counted amongst his buyers - Carson Daily and Britney Spears - the later of whom was a subject matter herself and owner of the work.

Some try to make the case that this is in fact Thierry's very brilliance, that he is holding up a mirror to our vacuous, transparently celebrity obsessed culture - but this assessment is far too generous - and misses that the mirror has no glass. Thierry merely IS vacuous and transparent - and rather than reflecting some brilliant commentary on culture, only reflects his own thirst for urban art fame by churning out work that he thinks is brilliant, for as he says "taking things and turning it in a way that is positive." While there is something quaint in a philosophy of art and manifesto dumbed down to the point its fully comprehendible by a preschool finger painting classes, the work equally reflects this simplicity, both in form, function, composition, etc.

Proven brands like Kayne West are barely manipulated in photoshop, silkscreened by assistants, and in a flourish that goes along with his "preschool finger painting" philosophy on art, Thierry smears a little bit of paint on the black and white image to color it a bit, and then sells the cleverly titled "Kayne West 2009" at an exorbitant price. www.guyhepner.com/pieces/mr-brainwash-new-works-2009-kanye-west-2009

And this becomes his modus operandi. Taking well loved brands, whether Hendrix, Madonna, Jackson Pollack, or Warhol himself, and adding artist flourishes to them that at best qualify them as omages to previous works (In the case of his Warhol Marilyn series) or at worst qualify them merely as crude painting scribbles - the cynic in me is hopeful that perhaps even these works are omages -- to the pachyderm produced paintings of the Asian Elephant Art and Conservation Project.

You might make the case:

He's feeding off the scene he mocks. It's a new spin on pop art. Who cares about ripping off Warhol any more, it's been done so many times. It's funny that he's ripping on our cultures fascination with ripping on Warhol. It's funny that he's ripping on the currently popular scene.

Yet Thierry so desperately tries to be in this scene. It would be convenient to think he's mocking art, if the fact of his desperate desire to be an artist didn't stand in the way of the truth. He set out to be accepted, and his work far from hoping to challenge, hopes to be easily digested so he can obtain this goal of stardom - in a sense carrying the modern MTV values of wanting to acquire "fame for the sake of fame" into the art world.

His work might be interpreted as going so far in copying Warhol and to a lesser extent Banksy conventions as to be rendered a joke, but the problem is that Thierry isn't in on this joke. He truly believes he's creating the best art in the world. Just as Chance Gardner talked about tending gardens and everyone interpreted as economic policy brilliance, Thierry produces "knock off" level art, and everyone interprets it as brilliant mocking.

But there are serious questions raised by Thierry's assault on art - namely in merely being an assault on art, is he (however wittingly or unwittingly) carrying the torch of pop art in the nebulous Urban Art movement and, for that matter, acting as a de facto continuation of Warhol? In terms of furthering the pop art aesthetic, NO, as nothing he's produced can be termed "revolutionary" (granted not much nowadays can be termed revolutionary in art) but I do think Thierry is embodying the Warhol quote of "In the future, everyone will be world famous for 15-minutes," as he's been given so much attention for producing nothing particularly revolutionary or extraordinary in terms of singular works.

Fans might contend that the scope and size of his "Life Is Beautiful" show in and of itself distinguished MBW as an artist, in a sense making the case the sum is greater than any of his parts - but this in essence applies the modern litmus test for celebrity to art. Just as the question "Well what is Paris / Kim Kardashian / Agnes Deyn famous for" can be met with "Well for being famous," much of the justification of MBW's inflated stature on the art scene ranges from citing his prolific pasting campaigns, individual affinity for his work (that is generally followed by a statement like "sure its not great art, but I like it" or "I own it, its not incredible, but it looks good on my wall and reminds me of Warhol"), and, the worst justification of all, pure and simple hype - with adherents even making the case "the art world is all hype anyways" ergo the hype justifies the stature.

Thierry is becoming a famous artist for simply the fact he's becoming a famous artist - and even in critiquing it in hopes of tapping down on this trend, in a very real way, you only fuel his unmerited ascent. The only contextual commentary involved in his work comes from those who chose to buy it - and in doing so, they affirm that lowering of the cultural bar is condoned. That work consisting of a photoshop screen print of 'Pollack' with some splattered blue acrylic (http://www.guyhepner.com/pieces/mr-brainwash-new-works-2009-pollock) is less art than packaged hype. While the same could be said about much of Warhol, the difference is largely that he did it first, and to draw comparison only serves to distort Warhol's very significant role as the originator for screen print serigraph art.

"Being There" ends with Chance Gardner still in a state of blissful ignorance (brainwashed perhaps), his adherents considering running him for the Presidency as we hear the final quote "Life Is A State of Mind." I can't help realize, this isn't far off from "Life Is Beautiful."