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.)
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.
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.
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.
http://www.lowendbox.com/ has a lot of listings, many cheaper than 36/year, depending on whether you prefer Xen or OpenVZ. I'm not hosting a site on it; I don't need much.
I'd be hard pressed to spend more than 3 hours a week watching TV content, but even an addict would find it hard to reach the limit. At 300G/month allowance, that's 20 "hours" a day at your suggested usage rate, double-counting for proxy purposes.
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?
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.
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.
I see your point but the total value of the work he's sold over the past 5 years is in excess of £500,000 and that's not including books, documentaries and so on. In a country where the national average salary is under £25,000 he's hardly at subsistence level is he?
In terms of the message, yes he gets a wider audience but he gets a wider audience for a weaker message. When you're wealthy and Brad Pitt is buying your stuff (I think I'm remembering that right) being counter-culture and anti-commercialism doesn't really ring true.
Not saying I disagree with the decisions he's made, just that inevitably success will undermine his artistic position.
oops, hit reply instead of paste - didn't mean for that to look like snark
Not mentioned in many of the articles - most of which breathlessly informed viewers that animation of The Simpsons is done in South Korea, in case they had never bothered to read the credits - is the fact that animation is one of North Korea's few successful exports (legal ones, anyway). Although The Simpsons isn't prepared under the watchful eye of the Dear Leader, the head of the SK studio that produces it is the prime mover behind NK's animation industry, which I understand was set up during a less frosty period of north-south economic cooperation.
Less well-known again is the fact that North Korea also exports development services, and Fox parent News Corporation recently came under scrutiny for its ownership (following a takeover) of a firm that has developed mobile game spinoffs of a few Fox movies using NK labor.
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.
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.
Unsubtle, agreed, but provocative? It's too unsubtle to be provocative.
You would have to be pretty humorless not to see the whole thing as a joke. And presumably the Simpsons writers stopped listening to the humorless people twenty seasons ago.
In a way it is. I'm not a regular Simpsons watcher, but at least in some episode there are multiple layers and meanings going on at the same time. It can be almost Shakespearean sometimes.
"For every season, Homer loses 5 IQ points. Right now he's as intelligent as a speaking dog." (Paraphrased, saw this on TVTropes. I'm not sure whether I agree.)
The Simpsons has joked before about being made in Korean sweatshops.
But more importantly this is a big win for Fox. They get the cred for getting Banksy (whatever that is worth), and more importantly loads of talk & coverage for their show.
Whatever downside there is (which I think is pretty insignificant) is easily outweighed by the upside.
The episode in question finished 3rd (of 4) in the 18-49 demo and 4th (of 4) in Total Viewers so I'd say they could use some attention. I think a lot of people gave up on the Simpsons around Season 10 and have never bothered to look back.
But just because you saw this on Hulu or Youtube, does that mean you'll go back to watching The Simpsons? Awareness marketing doesn't help The Simpsons because everyone's already aware of it. And this doesn't accomplish much more than that. If anything, it's awareness marketing for Banksy.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. If you think the Simpsons has become formulaic (which it had in some of those middle seasons) this might be enough to convince you they're taking risks again. Which MIGHT get you to tune in.
I'm not saying it's super effective but it's positive attention and that's worth something.
'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.
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.
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.
To be fair, the jury is still out on whether or more accurately how much of the film is fake. The bigger issue is that the themes and ideas are not any more or less valid based on whether or not parts are fake.
I realize that seems really ambiguous, but seriously go see the film if this subject interests you.
The film is not staged or really fake per se, all the scenes are 'real' in that they happened but what I think is the point is that Thierry is not a true artist in the sense that he himself paints or illustrates--he has hired help, he's a business. I think the movie goes to great lengths to hint (its motif) and show how 'perceived power creates real power' think about the scene where Banksy shows the money he printed with Princess Diana is spent like real money, about Shepherd Fairey's quote that I just mentioned above, how Thierry talks about how he took ordinary clothes and called them vintage and bought piles of them for $50 and turned around and sold them for $5000. Then look at the scene where they are getting quotes from the people at the art shows, everyone is made to look like a lemming and an idiot. They say things that have zero meaning and think they are being so smart. Why did he show the quotes from people who would look smart or have something to say? It's the stuff that's left out that matters most.
Thierry is not a true artist in the sense that he himself paints or illustrates--he has hired help, he's a business
Most successful artists have hired help. Banksy didn't print the Diana banknotes, and he probably doesn't construct his installation pieces. He's not the one painting the elephants or putting the chicken nuggets in cages. He might be standing nearby with a can of lager and laughing, but it's safe to assume a lot of his work is around conceptualising the ideas that end up with his name on them.
Ooooh! Conceptual art!
(And that's not to diminish his work - I utterly love Banksy. I bought a print and some other bits and pieces of his at the first show he ever did. In ROI terms it's probably the best investment i'll ever make. And, no: i'm not willing to sell any of it.)
Someone can correct me if i'm wrong, but I don't think the Chapman Brothers consturcted Hell, or Damien Hurst glued the diamonds to the skull, etc., etc.
Even the masters had studios of apprentices doing the grunt work, right?
I think you're right that Thierry is not a genuine artist (hence him having a bunch of hired help) but I think the movie is about hype and as Shepherd Fairey says "perceived power creat[ing] real power." I think Banksy is playing a "prank" on the art world and showing how superficial they are. Thierry has lines about how he buys clothes for $50 and sells them for $5000, then Banksy makes the fake money that people spend as real money, there are other examples but basically the motif is that people easily fool themselves into thinking fashion/trends/art or anything that has no value, has value, and in doing so manages to create actual value.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
No, I think that just serves to make it worse.
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.
That's a ridiculous position to hold. By that logic, if I see your face in a public place then I have the right to rearrange your face as I see fit.
I think you're wilfully missing the point, so I'm picking straw man.
Anyway, I agree with your sentiments about those who disrespect private property, but only to a point. The endless messy 'tagging' on small businesses in urban areas is egotistical, mindless, territorial pissing. I agree.
My beef with your previous comments is that you're throwing Banksy into that category, when any basic investigation of his activities clearly demonstrates he's a subversive with a very deliberate set of social and political messages.
That quote is extreme (and not the full quote - sorry), but Banksy clearly makes the point that we live in a world where we are constantly bombarded by banal, manipulative, consumerist messaging, and he feels that individuals with messages should not be given any lesser right to societal messaging, even if it means currently breaking the law to do this.
Sure there's fertile ground to do a "By that logic, if everyone...". Boring.
Living in East London I'd say the urban culture was massively enhanced by Banksy pieces lurking everywhere, and felt far more intelligent than a Singaporean, Truman-show, world of perfect polished billboards making everyone feel inadequate if they don't buy that product. meh.
Editing in the suggestion that those who don't share your reactionary and tone-deaf views on this subject are likely not property owners doesn't really do much improve your reply.
I think he asks permission when it suits him. Given his profile as an artist, I'd imagine he mostly wants to work on projects of the sort of scale that require permission from an organisation of some sort. I don't think he has an objection to tagging the streets of London still, but his most high-profile works now would be impossible without permission.
