Slim Picasso-ings
June 3, 2023 8:52 AM Subscribe
With Hannah Gadsby’s ‘It’s Pablo-matic,’ the Joke’s on the Brooklyn Museum - The Australian comedian turns curator in a show about Picasso’s complicated legacy. But it’s women artists the exhibition really shortchanges.
So who should be most brassed off by this show? Not Picasso, who gets out totally unharmed. But the women artists in the museum’s collection dragooned into this minor prank, and the generations of women and feminist art historians — Rosalind Krauss, Anne Wagner, Mary Ann Caws, hundreds more — who have devoted their careers to thinking seriously about modern art and gender. Especially at the Brooklyn Museum, whose engagement with feminist art is unique in New York, I left sad and embarrassed that this show doesn’t even try to do what it promises: put women artists on equal footing with the big guy.Gift link
This piece doesn't mention the crux of the problem that I have with the idea that this is somehow a progressive show, in that the program is partly curated and funded by a member of the Sackler family, whose empire has been built on the opioid crisis (and who have, as individuals, been recently granted immunity for their crimes).
Gadsby has been questioned about the connection. Their (frankly, imo, disappointing) response:
Gadsby has been questioned about the connection. Their (frankly, imo, disappointing) response:
“I’m doing a show at the Brooklyn Museum. There’s one Sackler on the board [trustee emerita Elizabeth A. Sackler]. We vetted this. Apparently, they’ve separated their earning streams from the problematic one,” Gadsby told Variety. “I mean, take that with a grain of salt. Doesn’t matter what cultural institution you work with in America, you’re going to be working with billionaires and there’s not a billionaire on this planet that is not fucked up. It is just morally reprehensible.”posted by fight or flight at 9:04 AM on June 3, 2023 [10 favorites]
They continued, “I was assured that they’d separated from the opioids strain. That’s where it lands. I don’t see it as a clean win-win. That’s for sure, but I’m not sure how to navigate this world.”
I have so many thoughts on this... event. The connection between the art in the exhibit and Picasso seems tenuous at best. I agree with the NY Times article on the haphazard organization of the exhibit. Why not include female Cubists? What exactly is this exhibit trying to say besides "Picasso was a dick?"
posted by europeandaughter at 9:16 AM on June 3, 2023 [9 favorites]
posted by europeandaughter at 9:16 AM on June 3, 2023 [9 favorites]
Well that told me a lot more about art exhibits Jason Farago might like to curate than about the exhibit being reviewed.
The artists who made them have been reduced here, in what may be this show’s only true insult, into mere raconteurs of women’s lives.
It's fine if you're not interested in art as storytelling, but I doubt Farago knows if all the women artists represented in the exhibit share that derision. And that mere raconteurs of women's lives sneer sure is something.
Also, I am solidly middlebrow and Don Quixote is my fave Picasso, so I'm sure this guy doesn't care about my opinion anymore than I care about his. But I think it's weird he's so down on Picasso's sketches.
posted by the primroses were over at 9:16 AM on June 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
The artists who made them have been reduced here, in what may be this show’s only true insult, into mere raconteurs of women’s lives.
It's fine if you're not interested in art as storytelling, but I doubt Farago knows if all the women artists represented in the exhibit share that derision. And that mere raconteurs of women's lives sneer sure is something.
Also, I am solidly middlebrow and Don Quixote is my fave Picasso, so I'm sure this guy doesn't care about my opinion anymore than I care about his. But I think it's weird he's so down on Picasso's sketches.
posted by the primroses were over at 9:16 AM on June 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
I am mixed on some of the Gadsby drags, but I really want to look up all the artists he mentioned in the article!
Also, Hannah Gadsby is a pretty big deal right now; this is Pete Wells writing about Guy Fieri in terms of how much harm it can do. When you’re big, critics are allowed to be spicy.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:34 AM on June 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
Also, Hannah Gadsby is a pretty big deal right now; this is Pete Wells writing about Guy Fieri in terms of how much harm it can do. When you’re big, critics are allowed to be spicy.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:34 AM on June 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
Anyway, this does sound like a stunt exhibit, and it seems plenty of art critics aren't fans, if you want a handy link to some more roasts.
Sounds like the purpose might be more about engaging people who aren't likely to seek out a Picasso exhibit, which seems fair in context of a worldwide anniversary celebration, but doesn't mean it's an objectively good exhibit of course.
Here's a more positive take from Time Out, not in defense of the Brooklyn Museum or Hannah Gadsby, who I agree don't need defense, but because it gave me a clearer idea of what the exhibit was trying to achieve than Farago's take down did.
(The Guy Fieri thing is a perfect comparison, because on the one hand, lots of people got a lot of joy out of roasting a ridiculous target, and on the other hand, he's basically a decent guy enjoying his life and the amount of hate directed towards him is bizarre. Such is life.)
posted by the primroses were over at 9:44 AM on June 3, 2023 [9 favorites]
Sounds like the purpose might be more about engaging people who aren't likely to seek out a Picasso exhibit, which seems fair in context of a worldwide anniversary celebration, but doesn't mean it's an objectively good exhibit of course.
Here's a more positive take from Time Out, not in defense of the Brooklyn Museum or Hannah Gadsby, who I agree don't need defense, but because it gave me a clearer idea of what the exhibit was trying to achieve than Farago's take down did.
(The Guy Fieri thing is a perfect comparison, because on the one hand, lots of people got a lot of joy out of roasting a ridiculous target, and on the other hand, he's basically a decent guy enjoying his life and the amount of hate directed towards him is bizarre. Such is life.)
posted by the primroses were over at 9:44 AM on June 3, 2023 [9 favorites]
It's painful that I can't hear Peter Schjeldahl's take on this
posted by falsedmitri at 9:49 AM on June 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by falsedmitri at 9:49 AM on June 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
So it's a Twenty First Century version of the Degenerate Art Exhibition?
posted by thatwhichfalls at 9:53 AM on June 3, 2023
posted by thatwhichfalls at 9:53 AM on June 3, 2023
i’d believe the exhibition is dire based purely on how crushingly unfunny gadsby’s captions are
posted by inire at 9:59 AM on June 3, 2023 [22 favorites]
posted by inire at 9:59 AM on June 3, 2023 [22 favorites]
Doesn’t matter what cultural institution you work with in America, you’re going to be working with billionaires
That's still a choice, at the end of the day, and not even really true of all efforts towards funding public arts programs.
Anyway, I read the same article yesterday. It appears the selection of Picasso was poor, and that other artists were showcased whose selections were also weak, as they relate to the program. There is also a painting by the comedian. It sounds like other critics leveled similar criticisms.
If you're choosing to take Sackler money, as it now appears? It seems like you should be able to get your hands on better material from other institutions, at the very least. If you're going to corrupt your ideals, maybe go all the way in.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:22 AM on June 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
That's still a choice, at the end of the day, and not even really true of all efforts towards funding public arts programs.
Anyway, I read the same article yesterday. It appears the selection of Picasso was poor, and that other artists were showcased whose selections were also weak, as they relate to the program. There is also a painting by the comedian. It sounds like other critics leveled similar criticisms.
If you're choosing to take Sackler money, as it now appears? It seems like you should be able to get your hands on better material from other institutions, at the very least. If you're going to corrupt your ideals, maybe go all the way in.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:22 AM on June 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
This seems like a project where the museum staff had good intentions but was poorly executed. A missed opportunity. Beyond the snark of the negative reviews I see, in the critics, a love for and curiosity about art in all its complexities which doesn't seem to be present in the exhibit itself.
posted by gwint at 10:51 AM on June 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by gwint at 10:51 AM on June 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
From the descriptive parts of the article, it sounds like a pretty weak exhibition. But I found the review mostly mean-spirited and wished that it had been written differently -- still a negative review of the exhibit, but without the cheesy and mean parts. And the mean-spirited text wasn't just aimed at the curator, but also anyone who might enjoy her work:
Not long ago, it would have been embarrassing for adults to admit that they found avant-garde painting too difficult and preferred the comforts of story time. What Gadsby did was give the audience permission — moral permission — to turn their backs on what challenged them, and to ennoble a preference for comfort and kitsch.
I get it, the author doesn't agree, but there's plenty of more usefully critical takes that actually engage with her points and also with why it seemed to find a receptive audience.
posted by Dip Flash at 10:54 AM on June 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
Not long ago, it would have been embarrassing for adults to admit that they found avant-garde painting too difficult and preferred the comforts of story time. What Gadsby did was give the audience permission — moral permission — to turn their backs on what challenged them, and to ennoble a preference for comfort and kitsch.
I get it, the author doesn't agree, but there's plenty of more usefully critical takes that actually engage with her points and also with why it seemed to find a receptive audience.
posted by Dip Flash at 10:54 AM on June 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
I will say, my bit of twitter (academic women, largely) has been loving the article. I certainly appreciated that he actually knows what he’s talking about and found it a good read. Thank you for the gift link, without which I wouldn’t have been able to read it.
posted by lokta at 11:10 AM on June 3, 2023 [8 favorites]
posted by lokta at 11:10 AM on June 3, 2023 [8 favorites]
At least finally Pablo Picasso was finally called an asshole.
posted by Nelson at 11:11 AM on June 3, 2023 [12 favorites]
posted by Nelson at 11:11 AM on June 3, 2023 [12 favorites]
What takes the review out of pure meanness for me is that the author seems to really care that there is a great deal of art by women that could have been employed to better take down the sort of myth of unique artistic genius that is often used to wave away Picasso's personal awfulness that Gaddsby ignores or skates over in this exhibition. I'd like to see this *and* the one suggested in the article but we're unlikely to get another one with the same aim of deflating Picasso for a long while, alas.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 11:21 AM on June 3, 2023 [10 favorites]
posted by lesbiassparrow at 11:21 AM on June 3, 2023 [10 favorites]
Not long ago, it would have been embarrassing for adults to admit that they found avant-garde painting too difficult and preferred the comforts of story time.
This kind of "this work is too challenging and avant garde for your pea brain to appreciate" commentary is just bullying. It is allowed to dislike an art piece for any reason, just as it is allowed to like it for any reason. Countless unsophisticated boors have stood in front of Picasso's Guernica and been moved, and I'm sure there are people who know a thing or two about Picasso who don't like it. Neither of those things necessarily diminishes the greatness of the painting .
Les Demoiselle d'Avignon has been famous for over a century. Critics and curators have had all that time to explain it at the uneducated boor level, and I think they have been successful in that project.
It does sound like the Pablo-matic show is underbaked, but Picasso's work being "too difficult" is not one of the reasons.
posted by surlyben at 11:28 AM on June 3, 2023 [8 favorites]
This kind of "this work is too challenging and avant garde for your pea brain to appreciate" commentary is just bullying. It is allowed to dislike an art piece for any reason, just as it is allowed to like it for any reason. Countless unsophisticated boors have stood in front of Picasso's Guernica and been moved, and I'm sure there are people who know a thing or two about Picasso who don't like it. Neither of those things necessarily diminishes the greatness of the painting .
Les Demoiselle d'Avignon has been famous for over a century. Critics and curators have had all that time to explain it at the uneducated boor level, and I think they have been successful in that project.
It does sound like the Pablo-matic show is underbaked, but Picasso's work being "too difficult" is not one of the reasons.
posted by surlyben at 11:28 AM on June 3, 2023 [8 favorites]
I remember going to the Picasso museum in Paris, years ago. As much as I love art museums and art in general, I really do not like the commentary put up in exhibitions on the walls as I deeply do not like artspeak. In the Picasso museum, things are arranged pretty much chronologically. The first gallery is very early works and a lot of blue period stuff. As I walked into the next gallery I glanced at the cardboard tacked on the wall with text. To my surprise, the text basically stated, something along the lines, that at this time in his life Picasso was having problems with women. I then walked into a room full of paintings of heavily distorted, screaming women. Yup, you could say that again. I was shocked to see a curator’s text speak in plain terms about the reality behind the artist’s works.
posted by njohnson23 at 11:35 AM on June 3, 2023 [15 favorites]
posted by njohnson23 at 11:35 AM on June 3, 2023 [15 favorites]
See, the conventional way for a person at a social advantage to take down a person at a social disadvantage is to accuse them of betraying their gender, race, sexuality, etc - I, a white person, have a better take on Black history than this unacceptable Black radical; I, a cis person, know more about gender than this stupid trans person; I know the marginalized better than they know themselves. Or, "I, Jason Farago, know more about women's art and feminist theory than so called "curator" Hannah Gadsby, whose important and beloved show Nanette also actually sucked". This is a guy with some axes to grind, clearly chosen because he'd write a mean and negative click-bait review. Which I have now read, alas.
I don't like cutesy-poo social-media-reaction approaches to culture, either, and probably wouldn't be thrilled by this show. But I'm not super interested in using feminism against itself to take down Hannah Gadsby.
posted by Frowner at 11:40 AM on June 3, 2023 [24 favorites]
I don't like cutesy-poo social-media-reaction approaches to culture, either, and probably wouldn't be thrilled by this show. But I'm not super interested in using feminism against itself to take down Hannah Gadsby.
posted by Frowner at 11:40 AM on June 3, 2023 [24 favorites]
Reading the captions like #WeirdFlex made me cringe. The exhibit looks like dogshit.
posted by windbox at 11:42 AM on June 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by windbox at 11:42 AM on June 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
Frowner, is Gadsby at a social disadvantage here vs this guy?
posted by Selena777 at 12:08 PM on June 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 12:08 PM on June 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
You can't buy this kind of publicity and I'd be pretty surprised if they're not popping open the champagne bottles at the Brooklyn Museum this evening, knowing this review ensures this exhibit is a tremendous financial success for the museum. I suspect the curators who helped put the show together knew exactly what they were doing. They were courting controversy, and they succeeded. I didn't even know there WAS such a place as the Brooklyn Museum until this morning, personally! And they got a huge headline on the New York Times website and a review everyone is taking about. It's a coup.
I harbor doubts as to whether Gadsby was in on the joke, though. I hope so, because if not I think this was a pretty cruel set-up.
posted by potrzebie at 12:33 PM on June 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
I harbor doubts as to whether Gadsby was in on the joke, though. I hope so, because if not I think this was a pretty cruel set-up.
posted by potrzebie at 12:33 PM on June 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
They were courting controversy, and they succeeded
As another example of why this all kinda sucks, Käthe Kollwitz is a great and important printmaker and sculptor in German history and maybe all of art history. I really recommend people see her work in Dresden. She had a very tragic life that informed her art. I had the opportunity to sketch a self-bust she made in the later years of her life, and I could see the pain in what she made. It really kinda sucks that hipsters and comedians in Brooklyn are not putting forwards her work in the best light to other back-patting hipsters who don't know anything about her or her life, and will somehow come away knowing less about her. That's a genuine tragedy that comes along for the ride with self-congratulatory stuff like this. Oh well.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:48 PM on June 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
As another example of why this all kinda sucks, Käthe Kollwitz is a great and important printmaker and sculptor in German history and maybe all of art history. I really recommend people see her work in Dresden. She had a very tragic life that informed her art. I had the opportunity to sketch a self-bust she made in the later years of her life, and I could see the pain in what she made. It really kinda sucks that hipsters and comedians in Brooklyn are not putting forwards her work in the best light to other back-patting hipsters who don't know anything about her or her life, and will somehow come away knowing less about her. That's a genuine tragedy that comes along for the ride with self-congratulatory stuff like this. Oh well.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:48 PM on June 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
Frowner, is Gadsby at a social disadvantage here vs this guy?
In what's important here - in the sense of "who is going to find it easy to win over respectable opinion". Gadsby may or may not be richer or more connected, but their fame is "woke" fame, which means that a lot of people are gunning for them and everything they say faces that same "women/queer people/AFABs/femmes are so sensitive, they lie about sexual stuff, they are emotional and not reasonable and can't put their feelings aside to analyze the important things" barrier as always.
In the sense of "who can probably get a netflix special", Gadsby has the advantage. In the sense of "who is automatically going to be taken seriously and assumed to be knowledgeable when they talk about art", the male NYT writer wins every time.
As I say, the popular way to attack feminists is by saying "you claim to be a feminist but really your fake bad uninformed "feminism" just hurts women, unlike the feminist analysis proposed by me, a man, the real feminism-knower who is rational and detached". You find this, for instance, in seventies criticism of big feminist books, books which now stand out sharply as important intellectual interventions, which is one reason I don't trust it when I see it now.
A feminist ally who knows feminist theory does not approach a feminist show, even a bad one, from the angle taken by Farago.
posted by Frowner at 12:51 PM on June 3, 2023 [44 favorites]
In what's important here - in the sense of "who is going to find it easy to win over respectable opinion". Gadsby may or may not be richer or more connected, but their fame is "woke" fame, which means that a lot of people are gunning for them and everything they say faces that same "women/queer people/AFABs/femmes are so sensitive, they lie about sexual stuff, they are emotional and not reasonable and can't put their feelings aside to analyze the important things" barrier as always.
In the sense of "who can probably get a netflix special", Gadsby has the advantage. In the sense of "who is automatically going to be taken seriously and assumed to be knowledgeable when they talk about art", the male NYT writer wins every time.
As I say, the popular way to attack feminists is by saying "you claim to be a feminist but really your fake bad uninformed "feminism" just hurts women, unlike the feminist analysis proposed by me, a man, the real feminism-knower who is rational and detached". You find this, for instance, in seventies criticism of big feminist books, books which now stand out sharply as important intellectual interventions, which is one reason I don't trust it when I see it now.
A feminist ally who knows feminist theory does not approach a feminist show, even a bad one, from the angle taken by Farago.
posted by Frowner at 12:51 PM on June 3, 2023 [44 favorites]
I suspect what's happening, in part, is that people are imagining that this could've been a much better show if they used the money to pay Gadsby to source more appropriate artwork, and they're summarily disappointed by how weak the show is.
Every modern art museum in the world wants Picasso and Picasso-adjacent pieces for the 50th anniversary this year. The exhibition is probably just making due with whatever leftovers the Brooklyn Museum has got, adding in a bit of celebrity and controversy to drum up some visitors.
posted by Pitachu at 12:58 PM on June 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
Every modern art museum in the world wants Picasso and Picasso-adjacent pieces for the 50th anniversary this year. The exhibition is probably just making due with whatever leftovers the Brooklyn Museum has got, adding in a bit of celebrity and controversy to drum up some visitors.
posted by Pitachu at 12:58 PM on June 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
I enjoyed the NYT article--I have a personal trait that condemns me to Metafilter's sixth or seventh level of hell, I enjoy mean writing when it's well done. But I really do feel like this isn't a worthy way to approach any of the artists involved. If the Brooklyn Museum wanted to do a feminist response to the 50th anniversary of Picasso's death, many of Picasso's lovers were artists in their own right, or they could have shown Picasso's female contemporaries in the cubist movement.
Instead, they threw up some random Picassos with social-media gag descriptions that Fozzie the bear wouldn't post, accompanied by a random selection of art that falls under the category of "feminist." It denies these female artists their individuality and opinions, they're still just reflections of Picasso, only now they're triumphant survivors instead of tragic muses. Never mind what their actual opinions were of Picasso (if they had any at all)! Never mind their influences or intent! We're just going to do The Bad Great Man and The Feminists 101 and call it a day.
It's doubly insulting because the implication is that everybody knows that female artists aren't enough to get the ticketbuyers through the door, it's going to have to be Picasso and somebody off the TV. And it's the Brooklyn Museum! They're famous for curating feminist art! That's what the Sackler money is for!
I will say that Gadsby is unlucky in that Nanette came out at the highest point of Trump/#MeToo and the exhibit is coming out now, when Trump is gone or at least taking a break. A lot of popular media was created directly in opposition to "the Cheeto" and without his very special presence, "all that remains are the remains of a perfect double act." Had Picasso died in 1970, this exhibition probably would have gotten a lot less pushback.
posted by kingdead at 1:00 PM on June 3, 2023 [19 favorites]
Instead, they threw up some random Picassos with social-media gag descriptions that Fozzie the bear wouldn't post, accompanied by a random selection of art that falls under the category of "feminist." It denies these female artists their individuality and opinions, they're still just reflections of Picasso, only now they're triumphant survivors instead of tragic muses. Never mind what their actual opinions were of Picasso (if they had any at all)! Never mind their influences or intent! We're just going to do The Bad Great Man and The Feminists 101 and call it a day.
It's doubly insulting because the implication is that everybody knows that female artists aren't enough to get the ticketbuyers through the door, it's going to have to be Picasso and somebody off the TV. And it's the Brooklyn Museum! They're famous for curating feminist art! That's what the Sackler money is for!
I will say that Gadsby is unlucky in that Nanette came out at the highest point of Trump/#MeToo and the exhibit is coming out now, when Trump is gone or at least taking a break. A lot of popular media was created directly in opposition to "the Cheeto" and without his very special presence, "all that remains are the remains of a perfect double act." Had Picasso died in 1970, this exhibition probably would have gotten a lot less pushback.
posted by kingdead at 1:00 PM on June 3, 2023 [19 favorites]
> It really kinda sucks that hipsters and comedians in Brooklyn are not putting forwards her work in the best light to other back-patting hipsters who don't know anything about her or her life, and will somehow come away knowing less about her.
Wait what? Are you dismissing everybody who put on this show, and everybody who visits the museum, as "back-patting Brooklyn hipsters"? That's how this is coming off, and the sentiment is absurd on so many levels. It's not putting your comment in the best light.
posted by Pitachu at 1:11 PM on June 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
Wait what? Are you dismissing everybody who put on this show, and everybody who visits the museum, as "back-patting Brooklyn hipsters"? That's how this is coming off, and the sentiment is absurd on so many levels. It's not putting your comment in the best light.
posted by Pitachu at 1:11 PM on June 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
As I say, the popular way to attack feminists is by saying "you claim to be a feminist but really your fake bad uninformed "feminism" just hurts women, unlike the feminist analysis proposed by me, a man, the real feminism-knower who is rational and detached".
This is what I thought when I read this too. Thanks Frowner for putting it into words for me.
posted by Toddles at 1:14 PM on June 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
This is what I thought when I read this too. Thanks Frowner for putting it into words for me.
posted by Toddles at 1:14 PM on June 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
It's quite possible that I would rather want to see the exhibition this guy would have curated. I does bother me that the female artists seem to have been chosen so randomly, apparently on the basis of convenient availability, or that, if there was any other logic to the choice, not enough care was paid to actually communicating it. I did make some mental notes to follow up on the artists he mentionned as his preferred choice.
Still, just going on about what you would have done instead is no way to criticize something. Guy might be the better curator, but he's also a bad critic. I haven't seen the exhibition, but I strongly suspect he's missing some points. He's clearly not making any effort to see them.
For instance the story, he sneers at Gadsby for wanting to tell, the story that's too basic to be worthy of telling, it's not "Picasso was a great artist, but he was also dick". It's "Picasso was a dick, and his art was overrated too". That story is just as basic, but it's a bit different, and one the critic is clearly not willing to consider.
But if you can accept that this is the story Gadsby wants to tell - and why the hell shouldn't she! "Picasso is a genius and a genius has to be a dick" is also very basic story, and one that has been and still keeps being told ad nauseam - a lot of the choice he complains about do make a certain amount of sense.
For instance, not choosing female artists who are actually in correspondence with Picasso's art, because that's already doing him too much honor, that's already taking him to seriously, but instead female artists clowning on random other male genius types. Because maybe, just maybe those male genius types are not that special anyway, maybe they're kinda interchangeable after all.
posted by sohalt at 1:21 PM on June 3, 2023 [14 favorites]
Still, just going on about what you would have done instead is no way to criticize something. Guy might be the better curator, but he's also a bad critic. I haven't seen the exhibition, but I strongly suspect he's missing some points. He's clearly not making any effort to see them.
For instance the story, he sneers at Gadsby for wanting to tell, the story that's too basic to be worthy of telling, it's not "Picasso was a great artist, but he was also dick". It's "Picasso was a dick, and his art was overrated too". That story is just as basic, but it's a bit different, and one the critic is clearly not willing to consider.
But if you can accept that this is the story Gadsby wants to tell - and why the hell shouldn't she! "Picasso is a genius and a genius has to be a dick" is also very basic story, and one that has been and still keeps being told ad nauseam - a lot of the choice he complains about do make a certain amount of sense.
For instance, not choosing female artists who are actually in correspondence with Picasso's art, because that's already doing him too much honor, that's already taking him to seriously, but instead female artists clowning on random other male genius types. Because maybe, just maybe those male genius types are not that special anyway, maybe they're kinda interchangeable after all.
posted by sohalt at 1:21 PM on June 3, 2023 [14 favorites]
I have no idea if the exhibit is good but this critic's wilful misreading of Nanette is foolish enough that I don't care what else he has to say. More power to Gadsby.
posted by Wretch729 at 1:48 PM on June 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by Wretch729 at 1:48 PM on June 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
I think that one reason this article has been making the rounds is that there are quite a lot of people who are put off by Gadsby's approach to talking about feminism and patriarchy; this art exhibit and Jason Farago's review of it calcified what they dislike about Gadsby's manner of rhetoric, and has made for an easy thing to point to—something that hasn't always been the case, since there's another attitude towards Gadsby which is more-or-less that the only possible reason to dislike them or Nanette is flat-out misogyny.
(I've been a fan of the writer Brandy Jensen for a while, for instance, and Jensen is conspicuously pretty scathing towards Gadsby, and has been from early on. She's who I discovered this article through, and it seems like a lot of people in her Twitter orbit have found sharing the piece to be quite cathartic.)
Personally, I struggle with my feelings on Gadsby's stand-up comic, which aren't scathing so much as they're more ambivalent than I'd like. I generally think that Gadsby's very funny and quite skillful when it comes to crafting jokes; I also feel like their humor gets a lot more rote and Tumblr-clapback as it gets more politicized. And while I find the subjects they talk about in their comedy to be quite interesting, and sincerely enjoy attempts to dovetail stand-up with cultural commentary, a lot of their commentary feels... half-baked. Some of it feels emotionally cathartic, rhetorically effective, but doesn't hold together well when I consider it. And between that and the way that the "comedy" part of their comedy act seems to fall by the wayside once they get into their critically-acclaimed "serious bits," I found that I just don't find their shows all that compelling. I lasted maybe forty minutes into Douglas, despite giving it a few solid tries.
Stewart Lee had a stand-up bit in 2012 about "sad comedy," back when the style of show that Nanette re-popularized first became A Thing in Britain. Nanette was a solidly constructed iteration on that kind of show, and it happened to blow up in a way that I'm not sure earlier takes on the genre did; I'm happy for Gadsby's success and think it's neat that it introduced a broader audience to ideas which aren't exactly mainstream stand-up fare, but it's hard to differentiate Nanette's craft or Gadsby's rhetoric from the zeitgeist that they happened to capture back in 2017. And that's tricky because, while I think that Gadsby is both quite accomplished at their craft and that their work had a massive impact on a lot of people, that also makes it hard to discuss their work critically without getting accused of disliking or dismissing it on patronizing, gendered grounds. (An accusation which I've seen lobbied at as many women who've been critical of Gadsby as at men.)
Obviously, there is also a definite layer of sexism, patronization, and general patriarchy going on in the backlash to this exhibit. I mean, the art world is rife with douchey conmen getting away with smarmy murder, and plenty of critics who think that chauvinism is a marker of good upbringing. But even taking that into consideration, it doesn't surprise me that someone whose art criticism wowed stand-up audiences did not, in fact, put together a Picasso retrospective that wowed actual art critics. And I'm not surprised that some feminists and intersectional progressives are reveling in the Gadsby criticism a little; as Natalie Shure put it, a lot of people on the left have been chafing at "the corrosive effect a certain strain of meme-y social justice has had on culture and criticism," and Gadsby has the misfortune of being one of the avatars of said strain. Which I think isn't entirely fair to them or to their craft, but that's kinda what you get when you aggressively market yourself as a political and cultural critic for the better part of the decade, and Gadsby wouldn't have a curated exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum if they hadn't done precisely that.
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 3:01 PM on June 3, 2023 [21 favorites]
(I've been a fan of the writer Brandy Jensen for a while, for instance, and Jensen is conspicuously pretty scathing towards Gadsby, and has been from early on. She's who I discovered this article through, and it seems like a lot of people in her Twitter orbit have found sharing the piece to be quite cathartic.)
Personally, I struggle with my feelings on Gadsby's stand-up comic, which aren't scathing so much as they're more ambivalent than I'd like. I generally think that Gadsby's very funny and quite skillful when it comes to crafting jokes; I also feel like their humor gets a lot more rote and Tumblr-clapback as it gets more politicized. And while I find the subjects they talk about in their comedy to be quite interesting, and sincerely enjoy attempts to dovetail stand-up with cultural commentary, a lot of their commentary feels... half-baked. Some of it feels emotionally cathartic, rhetorically effective, but doesn't hold together well when I consider it. And between that and the way that the "comedy" part of their comedy act seems to fall by the wayside once they get into their critically-acclaimed "serious bits," I found that I just don't find their shows all that compelling. I lasted maybe forty minutes into Douglas, despite giving it a few solid tries.
Stewart Lee had a stand-up bit in 2012 about "sad comedy," back when the style of show that Nanette re-popularized first became A Thing in Britain. Nanette was a solidly constructed iteration on that kind of show, and it happened to blow up in a way that I'm not sure earlier takes on the genre did; I'm happy for Gadsby's success and think it's neat that it introduced a broader audience to ideas which aren't exactly mainstream stand-up fare, but it's hard to differentiate Nanette's craft or Gadsby's rhetoric from the zeitgeist that they happened to capture back in 2017. And that's tricky because, while I think that Gadsby is both quite accomplished at their craft and that their work had a massive impact on a lot of people, that also makes it hard to discuss their work critically without getting accused of disliking or dismissing it on patronizing, gendered grounds. (An accusation which I've seen lobbied at as many women who've been critical of Gadsby as at men.)
Obviously, there is also a definite layer of sexism, patronization, and general patriarchy going on in the backlash to this exhibit. I mean, the art world is rife with douchey conmen getting away with smarmy murder, and plenty of critics who think that chauvinism is a marker of good upbringing. But even taking that into consideration, it doesn't surprise me that someone whose art criticism wowed stand-up audiences did not, in fact, put together a Picasso retrospective that wowed actual art critics. And I'm not surprised that some feminists and intersectional progressives are reveling in the Gadsby criticism a little; as Natalie Shure put it, a lot of people on the left have been chafing at "the corrosive effect a certain strain of meme-y social justice has had on culture and criticism," and Gadsby has the misfortune of being one of the avatars of said strain. Which I think isn't entirely fair to them or to their craft, but that's kinda what you get when you aggressively market yourself as a political and cultural critic for the better part of the decade, and Gadsby wouldn't have a curated exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum if they hadn't done precisely that.
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 3:01 PM on June 3, 2023 [21 favorites]
A feminist ally who knows feminist theory does not approach a feminist show, even a bad one, from the angle taken by Farago
i don’t really care whether this guy would self-describe as a feminist ally. his job is to give his opinion of whether the show is good or not (by his own standards and / or the standards it sets itself), and explain that opinion in a way that gives you a sense of what you might think of the show if you saw it. he’s done that very effectively - as have other critics re this show, mostly reaching the same conclusions.
appreciate it’s kind of painful when someone we otherwise have a good opinion of embarrasses themselves in public, but i think it’s a little more dignified to just take that reveal of flawed humanity on the chin, rather than casting around for reasons why the big bad male art critics are out to silence this fearless truth teller.
posted by inire at 3:05 PM on June 3, 2023 [13 favorites]
i don’t really care whether this guy would self-describe as a feminist ally. his job is to give his opinion of whether the show is good or not (by his own standards and / or the standards it sets itself), and explain that opinion in a way that gives you a sense of what you might think of the show if you saw it. he’s done that very effectively - as have other critics re this show, mostly reaching the same conclusions.
appreciate it’s kind of painful when someone we otherwise have a good opinion of embarrasses themselves in public, but i think it’s a little more dignified to just take that reveal of flawed humanity on the chin, rather than casting around for reasons why the big bad male art critics are out to silence this fearless truth teller.
posted by inire at 3:05 PM on June 3, 2023 [13 favorites]
Not long ago, it would have been embarrassing for adults to admit that they found avant-garde painting too difficult and preferred the comforts of story time. What Gadsby did was give the audience permission — moral permission — to turn their backs on what challenged them, and to ennoble a preference for comfort and kitsch.
What's really remarkable here is that Farago manages to completely ignore Gadsby's willingness to discomfit their own audience in Nanette. I have no idea, no fucking idea at all, how you can watch Nanette and conclude that Gadsby wants us to retreat from discomfort! One of the central points of that show was that they're tired of using their story as a punchline and they want us to squirm and sit with the truth of it. This part in particular:
"Do you remember that story about that young man who almost beat me up? It was a very funny story. It was very funny, I made a lot of people laugh about his ignorance, and the reason I could do that is because I’m very good at this job. I actually am pretty good at controlling the tension. And I know how to balance that to get the laugh at the right place. But in order to balance the tension in the room with that story, I couldn’t tell that story as it actually happened. Because I couldn’t tell the part of the story where that man realized his mistake. And he came back. And he said, “Oh, no, I get it. You’re a lady f****t. I’m allowed to beat the shit out of you,” and he did. He beat the shit out of me and nobody stopped him. And I didn’t report that to the police, and I did not take myself to hospital, and I should have. And you know why I didn’t? It’s because I thought that was all I was worth. And that is what happens when you soak one child in shame and give permission to another to hate. And that was not homophobia, pure and simple, people. That was gendered. If I’d been feminine, that would not have happened. I am incorrectly female. I am incorrect, and that is a punishable offense. And this tension, it’s yours. I am not helping you anymore. You need to learn what this feels like because this… this tension is what not-normals carry inside of them all of the time because it is dangerous to be different! To the men… to the men in the room, I speak to you now, particularly the white men, especially the straight white men. Pull your fucking socks up! How humiliating! Fashion advice from a lesbian. That's your last joke."
Maybe Gadsby's captions for this exhibition were goofy and slapdash. Maybe it was a cash grab. But if Farago's ability as an art critic reflects his ability as a standup comedy critic, his opinions on this exhibition are worthless.
posted by cubeb at 3:11 PM on June 3, 2023 [15 favorites]
What's really remarkable here is that Farago manages to completely ignore Gadsby's willingness to discomfit their own audience in Nanette. I have no idea, no fucking idea at all, how you can watch Nanette and conclude that Gadsby wants us to retreat from discomfort! One of the central points of that show was that they're tired of using their story as a punchline and they want us to squirm and sit with the truth of it. This part in particular:
"Do you remember that story about that young man who almost beat me up? It was a very funny story. It was very funny, I made a lot of people laugh about his ignorance, and the reason I could do that is because I’m very good at this job. I actually am pretty good at controlling the tension. And I know how to balance that to get the laugh at the right place. But in order to balance the tension in the room with that story, I couldn’t tell that story as it actually happened. Because I couldn’t tell the part of the story where that man realized his mistake. And he came back. And he said, “Oh, no, I get it. You’re a lady f****t. I’m allowed to beat the shit out of you,” and he did. He beat the shit out of me and nobody stopped him. And I didn’t report that to the police, and I did not take myself to hospital, and I should have. And you know why I didn’t? It’s because I thought that was all I was worth. And that is what happens when you soak one child in shame and give permission to another to hate. And that was not homophobia, pure and simple, people. That was gendered. If I’d been feminine, that would not have happened. I am incorrectly female. I am incorrect, and that is a punishable offense. And this tension, it’s yours. I am not helping you anymore. You need to learn what this feels like because this… this tension is what not-normals carry inside of them all of the time because it is dangerous to be different! To the men… to the men in the room, I speak to you now, particularly the white men, especially the straight white men. Pull your fucking socks up! How humiliating! Fashion advice from a lesbian. That's your last joke."
Maybe Gadsby's captions for this exhibition were goofy and slapdash. Maybe it was a cash grab. But if Farago's ability as an art critic reflects his ability as a standup comedy critic, his opinions on this exhibition are worthless.
posted by cubeb at 3:11 PM on June 3, 2023 [15 favorites]
In the spirit of centering the woman's opinion and thoughts, Yasmine Nair wrote a piece on Nanette that gets at some of the issues re: storytelling that Farago brings up. Farago is good, but he didn't do it first!
posted by kingdead at 3:36 PM on June 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by kingdead at 3:36 PM on June 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
The exhibition, at least as described in the article, sounds terrible. I can’t say I’m that fussed either way as I’m nowhere near Brooklyn. I also have zero opinion on Gadsby as I have a strong dislike of stand-up comedy.
If, however, you want to read a really good feminist take on Picasso and how to respond to his art, I recommend Monsters by Claire Dederer.
posted by Hartster at 3:40 PM on June 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
If, however, you want to read a really good feminist take on Picasso and how to respond to his art, I recommend Monsters by Claire Dederer.
posted by Hartster at 3:40 PM on June 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
It denies these female artists their individuality and opinions, they're still just reflections of Picasso, only now they're triumphant survivors instead of tragic muses. Never mind what their actual opinions were of Picasso (if they had any at all)!
From the Time Out review I linked above:
What a lot of free publicity though, for Farago and the exhibit. Well done all around. I hope people do find some artists they weren't already familiar with through this. Mickalene Thomas is great if you aren't already a fan.
posted by the primroses were over at 4:23 PM on June 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
From the Time Out review I linked above:
In addition to quotes from Gadsby, wall texts also feature quotes from the artists themselves. The museum contacted every living woman artist they featured to ask for their thoughts on Picasso. For deceased artists, the museum looked for their previous quotes related to the show.Jessica Robinson for Brooklyn Magazine also cites some of the included artists' reflections on Picasso:
In both wall text as well as in supplemental materials for the museum’s audio tour, there are many responses to Picasso’s legacy, positive and negative. The cumulative effect is less of an either/or stance but more both/and.Again, I haven't seen the exhibit and I bet plenty of the criticism is valid. But if people are coming away from these reviews with the impression that the other included artists' opinions of Picasso aren't represented, there are other reviews that suggest the curation addresses those concerns.
“I love a great deal of Picasso’s work, and I’m always learning from it,” says Kiki Smith. “As a printmaker I know very few who can get anywhere near the depth of his understanding and his playfullness … I was once asked by an auction house to give a talk about Picasso’s prints. They wanted me to speak critically of him as a person, but upon seeing the prints, all I was was deeply humbled. His work has often been a guide for me.”
What a lot of free publicity though, for Farago and the exhibit. Well done all around. I hope people do find some artists they weren't already familiar with through this. Mickalene Thomas is great if you aren't already a fan.
posted by the primroses were over at 4:23 PM on June 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
I remember taking "Great Books" as a college Freshman and being asked to write an essay on "Plato's Republic". It was frustrating, because how was it even possible for me to say anything interesting? I just graduated high school! So I wrote a satire I imagine was terrible, and I imagine the professor could have taken me down for being a callow fool but didn't. Now, decades later, with a greater knowledge of ancient philosophy and having survived the Trump presidency, I think I could write a better essay.
Therefore, I will give Hannah Gadsby a couple more decades to think about Picasso. The last time I thought about Picasso as a person was when reading Françoise Gilot's "Life with Picasso". I marveled that he could live with someone that intelligent and not notice or care. It's a really good book! She has interesting things to say about art!
Lately MOMA has taken to populating its galleries with the usual suspects, but also interspersing artists doing similar work at the time who never achieved similar fame due to being female or from the wrong country. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.
posted by acrasis at 5:13 PM on June 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
Therefore, I will give Hannah Gadsby a couple more decades to think about Picasso. The last time I thought about Picasso as a person was when reading Françoise Gilot's "Life with Picasso". I marveled that he could live with someone that intelligent and not notice or care. It's a really good book! She has interesting things to say about art!
Lately MOMA has taken to populating its galleries with the usual suspects, but also interspersing artists doing similar work at the time who never achieved similar fame due to being female or from the wrong country. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.
posted by acrasis at 5:13 PM on June 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
I enjoyed all three of the Gadby shows I've seen on Netflix, and I also really enjoyed a talk that Farago gave in the city I live in, as well as many of his articles. I also teach some Picasso at the college level. I haven't seen the exhibition. I wish the NYT had sent someone else to review this show.
When I teach students about art (often for the first time, they are not art majors) they are very reticent to critique work they see. Sometimes starting from a place that is graphic, vulgar or meme-ish is a great option to get their attention and make them feel like they have the right to engage. Another way is to tell them stories about the artists because most people love stories. Carravagio's legal troubles, Gericault's affair with his aunt, Gauguin ditching his wife and children to take off to Tahiti and "marry" a 13 year old, the crap way Hannah Hoch was treated by Hausmann and the other Dada artists or yes, how Picasso was a total asshole to pretty much every woman in his life. And then you can talk about the work they did, why it is considered so important historically, and how it fits into their life and the context they were working in, and now students have something to hold on to (besides colour, light, composition, line, balance, media etc, which we do get to also, but later).
I was listening to a talk by Jay Pitter yesterday and one thing she talked about was how early access to places of "higher" culture made her feel like she belonged and had a right to criticize and have an opinion. While some of us know a lot about Picasso and modern and contemporary art history there are many people that do not. I think an exhibition that is centred around people giving their opinion about Picasso (and not in art-speak or the usual didactic panels) might be an attempt to reach those who normally might not think it is their place to criticize. Again, I haven't seen it, but I strongly suspect this show is not for Jason Farago or any high-placed cultural critics. (BTW the Picasso litho images in the article are some of his erotic ones, that show him as a bull/minotaur in sexual congress with women. Kent Monkman mocked this in Death of the Female. That's a bull driving the car.)
Anyway, I got really irritated reading Farago's article when I saw it a couple of days ago. I'm also a queer woman and the way he spoke about Nanette showed me that he didn't understand it, at all. Maybe he didn't understand this show then either? I don't know for sure. I wish I could go to the Brooklyn Museum to see it myself. Maybe it could be better curated as a critical experience. This Picasso show in Montreal was very well done, for example. But even if it is not I actually think there could be some value in the show even if it does basically say "Picasso was a dick". I kinda though Farago was being a dick too.
posted by Cuke at 5:39 PM on June 3, 2023 [28 favorites]
When I teach students about art (often for the first time, they are not art majors) they are very reticent to critique work they see. Sometimes starting from a place that is graphic, vulgar or meme-ish is a great option to get their attention and make them feel like they have the right to engage. Another way is to tell them stories about the artists because most people love stories. Carravagio's legal troubles, Gericault's affair with his aunt, Gauguin ditching his wife and children to take off to Tahiti and "marry" a 13 year old, the crap way Hannah Hoch was treated by Hausmann and the other Dada artists or yes, how Picasso was a total asshole to pretty much every woman in his life. And then you can talk about the work they did, why it is considered so important historically, and how it fits into their life and the context they were working in, and now students have something to hold on to (besides colour, light, composition, line, balance, media etc, which we do get to also, but later).
I was listening to a talk by Jay Pitter yesterday and one thing she talked about was how early access to places of "higher" culture made her feel like she belonged and had a right to criticize and have an opinion. While some of us know a lot about Picasso and modern and contemporary art history there are many people that do not. I think an exhibition that is centred around people giving their opinion about Picasso (and not in art-speak or the usual didactic panels) might be an attempt to reach those who normally might not think it is their place to criticize. Again, I haven't seen it, but I strongly suspect this show is not for Jason Farago or any high-placed cultural critics. (BTW the Picasso litho images in the article are some of his erotic ones, that show him as a bull/minotaur in sexual congress with women. Kent Monkman mocked this in Death of the Female. That's a bull driving the car.)
Anyway, I got really irritated reading Farago's article when I saw it a couple of days ago. I'm also a queer woman and the way he spoke about Nanette showed me that he didn't understand it, at all. Maybe he didn't understand this show then either? I don't know for sure. I wish I could go to the Brooklyn Museum to see it myself. Maybe it could be better curated as a critical experience. This Picasso show in Montreal was very well done, for example. But even if it is not I actually think there could be some value in the show even if it does basically say "Picasso was a dick". I kinda though Farago was being a dick too.
posted by Cuke at 5:39 PM on June 3, 2023 [28 favorites]
his job is to give his opinion of whether the show is good or not (by his own standards and / or the standards it sets itself), and explain that opinion in a way that gives you a sense of what you might think of the show if you saw it.
Actually he started the article with a whole paragraph (and then a mention later) announcing that Everyone Is Using The Word "Problematic" Wrong, and then he says this:
(It is a title so silly that I cannot even type it; I am cutting and pasting.)
Honestly, based on the factual observations, I probably wouldn't like the exhibit. But from my reading the central thesis of the article is "I, Jason Farago, am better than Hannah Gadsby and certainly better than the rest of you."
I'm off to Netflix now to watch Gadsby because he's inspired me to check them out.
posted by mmoncur at 6:03 PM on June 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
Actually he started the article with a whole paragraph (and then a mention later) announcing that Everyone Is Using The Word "Problematic" Wrong, and then he says this:
(It is a title so silly that I cannot even type it; I am cutting and pasting.)
Honestly, based on the factual observations, I probably wouldn't like the exhibit. But from my reading the central thesis of the article is "I, Jason Farago, am better than Hannah Gadsby and certainly better than the rest of you."
I'm off to Netflix now to watch Gadsby because he's inspired me to check them out.
posted by mmoncur at 6:03 PM on June 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
In the spirit of centering the woman's opinion and thoughts, Yasmine Nair wrote a piece on Nanette that gets at some of the issues re: storytelling that Farago brings up. Farago is good, but he didn't do it first!
kingdead, that's a terrific read, thanks. I watched Nanette and loved it, and saw Douglas in person, which was also very good, but this Brooklyn show also sounds poorly done.
Farago seems to dismiss in a throwaway manner this bit though: "'Admiration and anger can coexist,' a text at the show’s entrance reassures us". This seems to me the crux of the matter and indeed is the TL;DR of his own critique.
posted by Rumple at 6:43 PM on June 3, 2023
kingdead, that's a terrific read, thanks. I watched Nanette and loved it, and saw Douglas in person, which was also very good, but this Brooklyn show also sounds poorly done.
Farago seems to dismiss in a throwaway manner this bit though: "'Admiration and anger can coexist,' a text at the show’s entrance reassures us". This seems to me the crux of the matter and indeed is the TL;DR of his own critique.
posted by Rumple at 6:43 PM on June 3, 2023
I can't remember the last time a show at The Brooklyn Museum got this much attention, and it sounds like just a slight summer show. I kind of agree with the poster above who said they must be popping champagne this evening - ordinarily this show would not have interested me in the slightest, but since I am only a half hour walk away I think I will go check it out to see how bad it really is.
posted by maggiemaggie at 6:59 PM on June 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by maggiemaggie at 6:59 PM on June 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
I haven't read the article yet, but I saw the show today and it was underwhelming and incoherent. There was thoughtful commentary from different artists, and little comments from Gadsby (tweets?) that were not funny or anything really. They were oddly interchangeable, like you could swap them around or replace them with a 90s SNL catchphrase without losing anything.
The real problem was with the art itself, with a couple of notable exceptions like May Stevens. I remember being absolutely knocked over by Louise Bourgeois at the Tate, but the work in this exhibit was just there. It was pretty crowded, First Saturday, so the small grey on grey text seems like a bad choice because it made the commentary and captions difficult to read from the back of a crowd.
I was at the museum for the music and the hangout--if I'd taken multiple buses and subways just for this exhibit, it would have been a disappointment. It's not worth Weekend MTA.
posted by betweenthebars at 7:24 PM on June 3, 2023 [13 favorites]
The real problem was with the art itself, with a couple of notable exceptions like May Stevens. I remember being absolutely knocked over by Louise Bourgeois at the Tate, but the work in this exhibit was just there. It was pretty crowded, First Saturday, so the small grey on grey text seems like a bad choice because it made the commentary and captions difficult to read from the back of a crowd.
I was at the museum for the music and the hangout--if I'd taken multiple buses and subways just for this exhibit, it would have been a disappointment. It's not worth Weekend MTA.
posted by betweenthebars at 7:24 PM on June 3, 2023 [13 favorites]
That Yasmine Nair piece was fantastic, wow. Thank you for linking it, kingdead.
It also introduced me to Soraya Roberts's piece on Nanette from 2018, which feels like a good distillation of the leftist/feminist/queer critique of Nanette that I mentioned earlier. (Roberts, who now does movie criticism at Defector, often skews pretty harsh, but never unreasonedly so, I think.)
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 6:26 AM on June 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
It also introduced me to Soraya Roberts's piece on Nanette from 2018, which feels like a good distillation of the leftist/feminist/queer critique of Nanette that I mentioned earlier. (Roberts, who now does movie criticism at Defector, often skews pretty harsh, but never unreasonedly so, I think.)
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 6:26 AM on June 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
I’ve been watching this with interest because it’s uncommon for an art history topic to be the Discourse. My basic thoughts are that the curators had a duty to tighten up the show and maybe they didn’t because Gadsby was a Name, exhibitions that don’t get the loans they need should be canceled or postponed otherwise you court this kind of criticism, and that I liked Nanette but disliked Douglas. Oh, and I am looking up what art Dora Maar made.
Picasso was a jerk face and I think everybody knows it? And, Mickalene Thomas’ art is cool but she was really rude to a coworker I was friends with.
posted by PussKillian at 4:45 PM on June 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
Picasso was a jerk face and I think everybody knows it? And, Mickalene Thomas’ art is cool but she was really rude to a coworker I was friends with.
posted by PussKillian at 4:45 PM on June 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
Strangely, I think there's a non-political problem lurking in the background here - you could call it the eternal September problem, or just the "people learn things at different rates" problem, or the problem of the expert versus the mundane.
So there is this widely beloved movie, Pride, about a real-life 1980s organization called Gays and Lesbians Support the Miners - de facto a bunch of genuine radicals whose work ended up transforming the labor party's stance on gay rights. It's your zany, sincere, ensemble-cast movie with several dance scenes and a retro soundtrack. Everyone loves it. It is extremely misleading in ways that I find upsetting, offensive, classist, misogynist, not good for the gays, etc*. Everyone loves this movie. And I have had to accept that most people in the US don't in fact know that much about the miners' strike, or Labor, or Thatcher, and are not interested enough in the history of radical gay activists to, like, actually look up factual information about them. For most people, it is a movie that explains that there was a miners' strike, that solidarity between GLBTQ activists and miners did happen and did matter, that Thatcher was bad, etc, and it gives some reality to the kind of widely accepted bog-standard homophobia which, like, Y2K kids tend not to view as an unalterable background of their lives. Mysteriously, when I break out the "this movie is bad actually" (I don't really think it's bad) it does not change people's minds or deepen their understanding.
And that is because before you get to the complicated stuff you have to have some knowledge about the basics. There's an awful lot of people out there who have very little idea that Picasso was kind of a misogynist asshole, or even what that means in an art context. There's an awful lot of people who maybe, maybe sort of know who Kiki Smith is but have not a clue about most of the other women artists. Similarly, there's an awful lot of people out there to whom "women are either madonnas or whores, women's anger is silenced, comedy is about tension relived by a punchline" is new stuff**. Many of those people are going to find stuff revelatory when extremely informed/extremely online/etc critics are going to find it extremely old hat, boring or politically counterproductive.
Like, I think about politically revelatory things I have encountered and not all of them have been what you'd call art of the first water.
I don't know what the takeaway is here - mediocre art can be experienced as great art if you don't know much about art? High culture criticism is for high culture audiences but we treat it as if it has meaning for everyone? There are always noobs? Anyway. I do not think this is a problem resolved by deciding Who Is More Left or whose approach moves us closer to the revolution, but it does kind of mean that something can seem pretty bland to a feminism-knower while completely blowing someone else's mind.
~~
*In re Pride: Spoilers.
First off, the big dramatic conflict is that the miners want to back out of their agreement with GLSM out of homophobia after being won over once. Nope, never happened. Union people were just like, "okay, we have gotten over our homophobia in the interests of winning, we agree, the end". Second, the film basically treats the lesbians who leave the group as shrieking ridiculous feminist harridans, when they actually left the group because of incredibly common movement sexism. Third, the one big political star who came from the mining town is shown as needing to be prompted to get education by one of the male activists, but no, she did it all herself. Fourth, they totally downplay the main character's actual communism to make him more normal and relatable. He was a communist. And last - look, the end of the movie may be good for the gays but it's a tragedy for working people, and the movie makes no effort to reconcile the two facts. The gays sort of won but the miners and the UK itself lost, and lost really badly as we see today, and the film just wildly, bananas-ly ends on this warm huggy high note.
**For me, actually, sometimes some really dumb truism seems truer and truer as I live. You can know something formally enough to deploy it in criticism and not know it enough to recognize it in your own life, so sometimes someone saying "you know, women, AFABs and femmes are pushed to repress their anger and prioritize others' feelings" may be, on the one hand, old hat and on the other something that suddenly becomes clear as part of your own life rather than just an abstract truth of feminism. I am not totally opposed to art that hits the same old beats, actually.
posted by Frowner at 8:45 AM on June 5, 2023 [13 favorites]
So there is this widely beloved movie, Pride, about a real-life 1980s organization called Gays and Lesbians Support the Miners - de facto a bunch of genuine radicals whose work ended up transforming the labor party's stance on gay rights. It's your zany, sincere, ensemble-cast movie with several dance scenes and a retro soundtrack. Everyone loves it. It is extremely misleading in ways that I find upsetting, offensive, classist, misogynist, not good for the gays, etc*. Everyone loves this movie. And I have had to accept that most people in the US don't in fact know that much about the miners' strike, or Labor, or Thatcher, and are not interested enough in the history of radical gay activists to, like, actually look up factual information about them. For most people, it is a movie that explains that there was a miners' strike, that solidarity between GLBTQ activists and miners did happen and did matter, that Thatcher was bad, etc, and it gives some reality to the kind of widely accepted bog-standard homophobia which, like, Y2K kids tend not to view as an unalterable background of their lives. Mysteriously, when I break out the "this movie is bad actually" (I don't really think it's bad) it does not change people's minds or deepen their understanding.
And that is because before you get to the complicated stuff you have to have some knowledge about the basics. There's an awful lot of people out there who have very little idea that Picasso was kind of a misogynist asshole, or even what that means in an art context. There's an awful lot of people who maybe, maybe sort of know who Kiki Smith is but have not a clue about most of the other women artists. Similarly, there's an awful lot of people out there to whom "women are either madonnas or whores, women's anger is silenced, comedy is about tension relived by a punchline" is new stuff**. Many of those people are going to find stuff revelatory when extremely informed/extremely online/etc critics are going to find it extremely old hat, boring or politically counterproductive.
Like, I think about politically revelatory things I have encountered and not all of them have been what you'd call art of the first water.
I don't know what the takeaway is here - mediocre art can be experienced as great art if you don't know much about art? High culture criticism is for high culture audiences but we treat it as if it has meaning for everyone? There are always noobs? Anyway. I do not think this is a problem resolved by deciding Who Is More Left or whose approach moves us closer to the revolution, but it does kind of mean that something can seem pretty bland to a feminism-knower while completely blowing someone else's mind.
~~
*In re Pride: Spoilers.
First off, the big dramatic conflict is that the miners want to back out of their agreement with GLSM out of homophobia after being won over once. Nope, never happened. Union people were just like, "okay, we have gotten over our homophobia in the interests of winning, we agree, the end". Second, the film basically treats the lesbians who leave the group as shrieking ridiculous feminist harridans, when they actually left the group because of incredibly common movement sexism. Third, the one big political star who came from the mining town is shown as needing to be prompted to get education by one of the male activists, but no, she did it all herself. Fourth, they totally downplay the main character's actual communism to make him more normal and relatable. He was a communist. And last - look, the end of the movie may be good for the gays but it's a tragedy for working people, and the movie makes no effort to reconcile the two facts. The gays sort of won but the miners and the UK itself lost, and lost really badly as we see today, and the film just wildly, bananas-ly ends on this warm huggy high note.
**For me, actually, sometimes some really dumb truism seems truer and truer as I live. You can know something formally enough to deploy it in criticism and not know it enough to recognize it in your own life, so sometimes someone saying "you know, women, AFABs and femmes are pushed to repress their anger and prioritize others' feelings" may be, on the one hand, old hat and on the other something that suddenly becomes clear as part of your own life rather than just an abstract truth of feminism. I am not totally opposed to art that hits the same old beats, actually.
posted by Frowner at 8:45 AM on June 5, 2023 [13 favorites]
It's true that it's hard to figure out the edges of the Eternal September thing. I remember saying something in front of my mother-in-law about Botticelli's Venus, famously reproduced on magnets and tea towels, parodied to beyond and back, and she had no idea what I was talking about.
Anyway, I get what you're saying, Frowner. I suppose I expect the Brooklyn Museum to be doing higher level work? We argue sometimes in Metafilter threads about when a topic is 101 or 102 or whatever, and Brooklyn is famously a center for feminist art scholarship. So it feels weird when I look at this exhibition and it feels very intro-level when you'd think that this institution would be pushing the boat out a little bit farther.
Also, I just realized I have possibly slandered Mickalene Thomas, I think it was a different extremely top-tier female pop artist who was mean to my friend. Artists! They're just like us!
posted by PussKillian at 2:15 PM on June 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
Anyway, I get what you're saying, Frowner. I suppose I expect the Brooklyn Museum to be doing higher level work? We argue sometimes in Metafilter threads about when a topic is 101 or 102 or whatever, and Brooklyn is famously a center for feminist art scholarship. So it feels weird when I look at this exhibition and it feels very intro-level when you'd think that this institution would be pushing the boat out a little bit farther.
Also, I just realized I have possibly slandered Mickalene Thomas, I think it was a different extremely top-tier female pop artist who was mean to my friend. Artists! They're just like us!
posted by PussKillian at 2:15 PM on June 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
I don't get why so many people on the left have so many intense, negative feelings about Hannah Gadsby. Like, just go about your day already.
posted by pelvicsorcery at 4:34 PM on June 5, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by pelvicsorcery at 4:34 PM on June 5, 2023 [4 favorites]
"In the sense of "who can probably get a netflix special", Gadsby has the advantage. In the sense of "who is automatically going to be taken seriously and assumed to be knowledgeable when they talk about art", the male NYT writer wins every time. "
Gadsby talks about being half-ass at art history as part of her performances. Her public persona has stated that she's not good at this thing that she's doing for the Brooklyn Museum. To defend her based on her identity, beyond her stated opinion of her own competency, seems, well, problematic.
And yes, the male NYT writer — the professional art critic — is likely to have more considered art opinions, and be annoyed by a museum-level shitpost.
It's also worth noting that people aren't responding to the many specific criticisms that are beyond even just feminist theory and into basic art history knowledge — including pieces that aren't responding to Picasso at all, but rather Manet, Courbet and Matisse. Or that revisionist takes on Picasso are themselves were old when Gadsby was in undergrad. Or that Gadsby includes one of their own paintings, despite calling it "shitty."
Or even that it lacks work from the women artists who Picasso is referencing, leaving only Gadsby's snark and Picasso's paintings, rather than actually having the conversation it promises?
I've enjoyed Gadsby's performances, though I do think their brief riff on Picasso was unoriginal and hardly biting, and do think that Gadsby's been done a disservice by being used as the name brand for what by all accounts is a powerfully underwhelming and hacky exhibition — whether that's due to Gadsby, or the institutional support, is impossible to tell. But it also seems like a fair number of folks here are having the same reaction lots of people do when told that their fave is problematic — rejecting criticism wholesale, carping on tone of critics, and treating attacks on their heroes as attacks on themselves.
And much as the ostensible outcome of a memeified curation is to bring in people who wouldn't normally be interested in the art, well, there's plenty of great links in many of the reviews to deep dives into Picasso. And as a meta comment, Picasso is generally overrated at least in part because he was so prolific — there's tons of crap with his signature on it — that this exhibition might also be seen as an object lesson about how it's good to recognize that someone with a lot of talent can still put out some bullshit and deserves to be called on it, lest we end up with breathless defenses of Warsaw Mermaid or Tete d'Homme.
posted by klangklangston at 12:02 PM on June 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
Gadsby talks about being half-ass at art history as part of her performances. Her public persona has stated that she's not good at this thing that she's doing for the Brooklyn Museum. To defend her based on her identity, beyond her stated opinion of her own competency, seems, well, problematic.
And yes, the male NYT writer — the professional art critic — is likely to have more considered art opinions, and be annoyed by a museum-level shitpost.
It's also worth noting that people aren't responding to the many specific criticisms that are beyond even just feminist theory and into basic art history knowledge — including pieces that aren't responding to Picasso at all, but rather Manet, Courbet and Matisse. Or that revisionist takes on Picasso are themselves were old when Gadsby was in undergrad. Or that Gadsby includes one of their own paintings, despite calling it "shitty."
Or even that it lacks work from the women artists who Picasso is referencing, leaving only Gadsby's snark and Picasso's paintings, rather than actually having the conversation it promises?
I've enjoyed Gadsby's performances, though I do think their brief riff on Picasso was unoriginal and hardly biting, and do think that Gadsby's been done a disservice by being used as the name brand for what by all accounts is a powerfully underwhelming and hacky exhibition — whether that's due to Gadsby, or the institutional support, is impossible to tell. But it also seems like a fair number of folks here are having the same reaction lots of people do when told that their fave is problematic — rejecting criticism wholesale, carping on tone of critics, and treating attacks on their heroes as attacks on themselves.
And much as the ostensible outcome of a memeified curation is to bring in people who wouldn't normally be interested in the art, well, there's plenty of great links in many of the reviews to deep dives into Picasso. And as a meta comment, Picasso is generally overrated at least in part because he was so prolific — there's tons of crap with his signature on it — that this exhibition might also be seen as an object lesson about how it's good to recognize that someone with a lot of talent can still put out some bullshit and deserves to be called on it, lest we end up with breathless defenses of Warsaw Mermaid or Tete d'Homme.
posted by klangklangston at 12:02 PM on June 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
Jude Doyle: Gadsby, Gadfly
It is not your fault if you didn’t know any of this. It is the job of responsible journalism to provide this kind of context for you. What I’m saying is that “Hannah Gadsby is in bed with the Sackler family” is one story and “Hannah Gadsby is funded by the same organization that has funded most big feminist art exhibits in NYC for the past decade” is another story and “in capitalism, the legacy of feminist art is held hostage by murderous billionaires” is a third story altogether. It’s the job of any decent journalist to frame this mess so that you know which story you’re seeing.posted by Lexica at 5:55 PM on June 6, 2023 [5 favorites]
Is Hannah Gadsby’s Picasso Show at the Brooklyn Museum ‘Disastrous’ or Are Its Critics Just ‘Hysterical’? Here Are All the Hot Takes (Artnet).
posted by Nelson at 1:22 AM on June 7, 2023
posted by Nelson at 1:22 AM on June 7, 2023
« Older The images that fucked ya were a patriarchal... | This week in US police brutality Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Nelson at 9:00 AM on June 3, 2023 [11 favorites]