Does Anyone Want to Be the New Irascibles? Open Thread
I was talking with an artist in her studio the other day, and she mentioned how the idea of becoming an art star has trickled down to the high school level now---as a realistic path/dream to fame and riches (or as realistic as becoming a rock star or movie star, at least). This before most of them could even have a good grounding in art history or conviction about their own, hopefully still-developing, visions. Personally, I've met plenty of "artists" with nary a care about what sacrifices (or even what "art") they have to make to break into upper echelon of the art world...if it takes screwing that crusty old dealer or stealing their former boy/girlfriend's new vocabulary, well, that's all just part of the game.
But an article in The New York Times yesterday about painter/author Jonathan Santlofer's latest art world murder mystery (The Killing Art) got me to wondering about just what someone would do to get the career or acclaim that they want. Santlofer's tale seems, from the article, to be one more about revenge than active career plotting (they don't give too much away, but you get the idea that an old Ab-Ex painter who was pushed aside when the infamous "Irascibles" were getting ready for their close-up [see photo by Nina Leen for Life magazine above], begins killing everyone who stops him/her from slashing all the Abstract Expressionist paintings hanging around town).
I had someone, whom I no longer hang around with, once tell me that there's nothing he wouldn't do for his art. Whether it was some decrepit old critic who wanted him to do {unmentionable sex act...really, not for the squeamish} or a patron who expected him to play the dutiful lap dog, his art meant so much to him that he would "do whatever it takes" to promote it. I'm not sure how I feel about that really, other than it makes me want to take another shower.
So, the open thread question of the day: before the bitterness of rejection drives you to become a homicidal maniac, where do you draw the line with regards to what you would not do to pursue your dream. I know that's not a very encouraging question, so feel free to speak about your "friends" who are discouraged. I've thrown out some extremes here for entertainment value only. I don't expect anyone to disclose any secrets...I'm just curious about how much drive these starry-eyed high school students should be warned to expect their dreams to require.
One question in particular this NTY article raised for me, is are artists willing to risk the potential back-stabbing and heartache of banding together. Santlofer's story delves deeply into the little known facts that many artists who had hung around with the "Irasicles" got pushed aside when the spotlights went up. Coming out of Williamsburg where there's probably a good deal of similar betrayals, but mostly a great deal of camaraderie, I'm not sure how long any such support network can truly last. They do seem to disintegrate once success smiles on the odd member here or there.
But an article in The New York Times yesterday about painter/author Jonathan Santlofer's latest art world murder mystery (The Killing Art) got me to wondering about just what someone would do to get the career or acclaim that they want. Santlofer's tale seems, from the article, to be one more about revenge than active career plotting (they don't give too much away, but you get the idea that an old Ab-Ex painter who was pushed aside when the infamous "Irascibles" were getting ready for their close-up [see photo by Nina Leen for Life magazine above], begins killing everyone who stops him/her from slashing all the Abstract Expressionist paintings hanging around town).
I had someone, whom I no longer hang around with, once tell me that there's nothing he wouldn't do for his art. Whether it was some decrepit old critic who wanted him to do {unmentionable sex act...really, not for the squeamish} or a patron who expected him to play the dutiful lap dog, his art meant so much to him that he would "do whatever it takes" to promote it. I'm not sure how I feel about that really, other than it makes me want to take another shower.
So, the open thread question of the day: before the bitterness of rejection drives you to become a homicidal maniac, where do you draw the line with regards to what you would not do to pursue your dream. I know that's not a very encouraging question, so feel free to speak about your "friends" who are discouraged. I've thrown out some extremes here for entertainment value only. I don't expect anyone to disclose any secrets...I'm just curious about how much drive these starry-eyed high school students should be warned to expect their dreams to require.
One question in particular this NTY article raised for me, is are artists willing to risk the potential back-stabbing and heartache of banding together. Santlofer's story delves deeply into the little known facts that many artists who had hung around with the "Irasicles" got pushed aside when the spotlights went up. Coming out of Williamsburg where there's probably a good deal of similar betrayals, but mostly a great deal of camaraderie, I'm not sure how long any such support network can truly last. They do seem to disintegrate once success smiles on the odd member here or there.
posted by Edward_ at
9:48 AM
27 Comments:
Ed! You are so negative sounding today. I like it. You are trying to stir it up. Good. Fun.
So pretty much everyone I know, no matter what career level, is angry or dissatisfied at some (or most) points but everyone truly seems to appreciate their friends. Sure jealousy or competetiveness comes up once in a while, but really I think everyone I know of in this city is deeply dependent on their friend network. That is the best part of living here.
As for the rest. Yes. I know of some disgusting types who rub their junk onto crusty dealers in hopes of achieving something. I have seen it with my own horrified eyes. I poop on them.
As for the Art Star aspirations...it really disgusts me that some of the most morally bankrupt opportunist socially agressive fuck heads in the entire universe actually end up becoming successful. Sometimes these twits actually make good art though - so go figure. It's all very confusing. But I like to go back to the idea, over and over, that no matter who gets ahead of who, whether it lasts, whether you achieve the kind of success you want (whatever success is - not sure I know) that a life in art is a long race not a short sprint. I am quoting someone there. Not sure who.
My policy is to stay away from the irritants who think artmaking and participating in the artworld is a series of strategies and blowjobs. I hope for their eventual consumption by feral cats. That is all I can do.
Thank you Ed. I love your blog deeply. You are a great person, in case you weren't aware of it.
Ed! You are so negative sounding today.
Blame the cow in the bakery who gave me the noticeably smaller "half" of the Pugliese yesterday. Even after I pulled it out of the bag and held it up to look at it that harpy wouldn't take the hint and give me the larger "half." I don't know why, but I haven't been able to get over being angry at both her (for such a passive-aggressive "f*ck you") and myself for not insisting she give me my money's worth.
OH....this is my blog, not therapy...er, uh...yeah..., just trying to "stir it up."
Actually, we all deal with these darker realities of how folks get ahead in this biz. It's not good to focus on them, but occassionally it's good to let those who take advantage know that we know what they're up to.
I agree with Great Artist about the friends thing. I don't think all networks disintegrate when one person gets successful.
Has anyone read the Jerry Saltz review this week of Chris Martin's show? He seems to be one artist who is very aware of his friend network, for better and worse.
Hi.
Sure jealousy or competetiveness comes up once in a while, but really I think everyone I know of in this city is deeply dependent on their friend network. That is the best part of living here.
In general, you're right, we'd be totally screwed without our friends.
The part of this equation I'm still trying to get a good grasp on is dealing with those "acquaintances" who get miffed when you don't treat them like good friends.
I'm not talking about myself here (really...honestly, this is a friend, no quotations needed), but recently I've seen a dealer who's risen in stature turn a cold shoulder to a good friend of mine who was very supportive of that dealer's career. Part of me wants to stick up for my friend and let that dealer know what a putz he's become, but part of me understands that for the dealer, there have been many, many, many people who've played a role in helping him achieve his success, and most of them probably have an inflated sense of how big their own role was. In other words, the dealer is in a position now where he needs to cut loose some of the folks who are no longer able to propel him forward. He can't do this to his true friends, no matter where they stand in their careers (it's not only selfish and treacherous, it's short-sighted), but the limited number of hours in a day virtually demands that he do so with his acquaintances.
I know exactly how heartless that sounds. There's no justification for being rude, no matter how busy you are, but there are times when you realize that being coldish is simply a matter of survival. The ten minutes spent cathcing up with that acquaintance are two deals not closed or whatever.
If that all sounds jaded...again blame the bakery bitch.
One of the sad truths of the gallery system is that it’s far easier to become an adequate artist than it is to get adequate attention. I’m not so sure about the machinations of the Williamsburg crowd (surely Ed, you are infinitely qualified) but on the Upper East Side, it’s very difficult chaperoning artists in their young or mid-careers as their own salespeople.
There are those that are effusive and shameless (and certainly at times carnivorous, bellicose and deviant) in their self-promotion, and there are those that are hermetic and notoriously difficult. I find that this seems to hold true to the general temperament of the individual more so than the type of work or period of artistic origination.
People pretty much sleep in whatever bed they’ve made, euphemistically, and otherwise.
it’s far easier to become an adequate artist than it is to get adequate attention.
Don't we all know it. It's partly the number of people competing for that attention. At any given time there are what, 500? exhibitions up in New York City. During their duration, the New York Times will run what 40? reviews? That leaves 460 unreviewed shows (over ten times as many as get reviewed). It's brutal on that level alone, but gets worse when you start considering opportunities to get museum shows and such.
I agree that there's a range of artists (from those tireless self-promoters to the hermits) and both present challenges to the gallery, but in the end, a gallery is parallel to an actor's manager, in my opinion. They're there to promote, protect, encourage, and guide, but not to totally replace the need for self-promotion.
I'm noticing that sex seems to play a big part in the equation-I love the art biz. Moving on after some sucess is common in all walks of life. Often the reason for for sucess is a work ethic, much networking and work. Many relations from your past my not matain that spirit.
I'm noticing that sex seems to play a big part in the equation-
It is the ultimate motivation, no?
ugh. self promotion is exhausting.
From conception of the Art through to the marketing I may as well buy it to complete the cyle.
((Just a joke I like to make :-))
I am a firm believer in global retribution and ,as such, know the fakers, true backstabbers and bakery bitches will all git theirs some day!
maturity brings peace about things you can't change, and perspective about what really matters. If you see enough friends and art stars die, and you get to keep on living, and you still love what you do, you've won, period. You Are The Art Star.
Now, for sheer laughs, I could see creating an alter ego identity, like comedian Andy Kaufman's Tony Clifton character, and, through a rather obnoxious act, commit all kinds of ethical atrocities, both real and fictitious, for the sake of selling art. It would be a lot of fun, particularly when you consider how indescribably boring some artists and gallery dealers are. It may have already been done, no? Eventually people would catch on, but the act would survive because people love entertainment. And any dealers involved should know going in, obviously, and maybe some kind of disclosure would need to be made to potential buyers -- no sense alientating them, after all. The character's personality would be as much the art as whatever physical output was made. As part of the act, the artwork itself could be utter crap, to the power of 10. Instead of sharks in tanks, it could be tanks in tanks, or tanks in sharks. Instead of paintings of pills, paintings ON pills, or pills that supposedly make paintings on your stomach lining.
But just as a normal artist, it's sad to play lap dog. I read back in the late 70s where someone said that content resides partly -- maybe chiefly -- in the personality and integrity of the artist. Would anyone care, for example, if Charles Manson or John Wayne Gacey started kicking out some astonishingly good paintings? For me it's the same deal for someone who changes on the whims of others. I love it, for example, when a really successful artist moves on from their most successful work. It affirms for me the value of what they once did -- that they're whole people who continue to develop.
long comment, sorry --
To the exhausted self-promoter - wow I can tell you are so great at self-promotion by your daring anonymous comment. You must be so tired.
A really good movie about making it and what happens after that is "look at me” the new french film from the makers of "tastes of others" an even better film with a title that doesn't translate. (It’s about connoisseurship not what people taste like. It does seem necessary sometimes and self-destructive other times to dissolve the community that helped you get where you are. I have watched a very close friend become an Art star and drop everyone even dissing her mentor. Some of us that still love her hope it's a temporary insanity but most of us won't take her back. That same mentor gives really good advice. "The same folks you meet on the way up are the same you will see on the way down. So unless you want a free fall..."
Ed, I notice a lot of up and down in the careers of mid-career artists I know. Almost like there is a second round of selection. Is this to be expected?
pd
It is true. It is exhausting being me. I don't need to work it. I just show up. So many opportunities! It is running me ragged!
:)
...a life in art is a long race not a short sprint. I am quoting someone there. Not sure who.
Great Artist, that would have been Ice Cube when he said "...Life ain't a track meet, (no) it's a marathon..."
Ed, I notice a lot of up and down in the careers of mid-career artists I know. Almost like there is a second round of selection. Is this to be expected?
I see that too. Which is why persistence can pay off.
The late Mark Lombardi told me that when he arrived in New York, from Houston, he came with a plan. Having spent years running a space in Texas, he said he figured out how to strategize and get a career in New York. He was already relatively older when he moved here, but he set about it, step-by-step and low-and-behold it worked exactly as planned. (Why that wasn't enough for him, we'll perhaps never know.)
My point, though, is that perhaps why you see a second round of selection may be due to artists finding a rich new vein to mine ore developing an interesting new direction, or it might be due to them realizing how to work the system.
Then again, it might just be that they were ahead of their time and the rest of the art world caught up to them.
pd,
just wondering...are you a guy, and was her mentor a guy?....
Doing "unmentionable acts" or "playing the dutiful lapdog" does not help your artwork. In fact it hinders it's development and growth.
I had someone, whom I no longer hang around with, once tell me that there's nothing he wouldn't do for his art. Whether it was some decrepit old critic who wanted him to do {unmentionable sex act...really, not for the squeamish} or a patron who expected him to play the dutiful lap dog, his art meant so much to him that he would "do whatever it takes" to promote it.
art star? art celebrity, art tart, art visionary, art mart: i understand these but what is an art star? is that a term warhol invented? is it a tax bracket? or is it a lifestyle choice?
just wondering...
Anonymous said...
pd,
just wondering...are you a guy, and was her mentor a guy?....
nope.
pd is short for preacher's daughter. that's all I going to say about that.
but what is an art star?
someone who crosses over into celebrity through their art. Current art stars include (but are not limited to) Barney, Hirst, Emin, Brown, etc.
"The late Mark Lombardi told me that when he arrived in New York, from Houston, he came with a plan. Having spent years running a space in Texas, he said he figured out how to strategize and get a career in New York. He was already relatively older when he moved here, but he set about it, step-by-step and low-and-behold it worked exactly as planned."
what exactly WAS that plan?
-wwc
He didn't share the details wwc. But I got a sense that it included in part identifying the right gallery to approach, attending the right functions for networking, being generous and supportive so that those things came back to him, and then knowing what to say when opportunities came up.
pardon me for saying so, but it seems that mark lombardi is a tragic example. he may have had a plan, he may have achieved success, but the man killed himself. not to say that he does not provide a great model for getting somewhere in the artworld - do this, get that (eventually) - but using him as an example just underscores the tenuousness and sadness of it all - many artists are just brutalized by the amount of work they put into something that really doesn't pay back. a show here and there. some sales. maybe lots of sales at some point. but the tenuousness is draining. on already sensitive personalities. i am not suggesting that mark lombardi killed himself because of the artworld, but that it was my understanding that he got where he thought he wanted to be and it still didn't feel good.
Mark is a good example of an artist who jump-started a good career well past the age that conventional wisdom says it's probable.
In talking with his girlfriend at the time, I got the impression that Mark's reasons for ending his life were not at all related to the art world, so I don't think it changes anything I've noted here.
It sounds like his plan would lead to success (with luck) in any field. I'll add tothe plan "Draw like a champ".
-wwc
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home