Guest of Cindy Sherman: New Doc Offers Superficial Look at Art World

by Art Fag City on March 30, 2009 · 18 comments Reviews

Art Fag City, Paul H-O, Guest of Cindy Sherman, Gallery Beat, Paddy Johnson
Image via: Guest of Cindy Sherman

If you've heard anything about Guest of Cindy Sherman, a new documentary tracing the career of quasi art celeb and one-time Sherman partner Paul H-O, you probably won't be surprised to learn it shakes out as expected: Informative interviews and archival footage make up the first half of the movie, and grating pseudo emo-male explorations of gender dynamics compose the second. In the 1990s, H-O produced Gallery Beat, a New York-based cable access show covering art openings and events. Later, he dates actual art celeb Cindy Sherman, but their relationship suffers because H-O doesn't like operating in the shadow of his girlfriend.

“New York is the suck-up capital of the world, and Cindy thinks people are really nice,” Paul H-O told me recently, pointedly adding “And I don't”¦ she's very naïve.” Brazen “I-understand-the-world-better-than-you” statements occur so rarely in press interviews I wondered how much of the film was meant to justify the director's contributions to the art world. After all, museums, dealers and collectors attribute so much intellectual and commercial value to Sherman's work; even the most tangential of relationships to her take on an importance they wouldn't have otherwise. H-O willingly acknowledged this when I asked him why critics hadn't spoken qualitatively about his own work. “Cindy's obviously a subject of much more interest than what I did or do or have done, really.” Nonetheless, the movie explores the director’s work, interests and personal life, only occasionally establishing its effect on the art world.

Beginning the film more or less where we are now — in the face of a recession — Guest describes a friendly art world open to small DIY operations such as Gallery Beat. Co-directors Tom Donahue and Paul Hasegawa-Overacker’s opening montage demonstrates that reality, though former Whitney director David Ross reminds the audience: “You knew you could let them in. They wouldn't be seen by that many people.”

An audience gets a feel for the Gallery Beat's unpretentiousness almost immediately. Art in America editor and host of the show Walter Robinson describes it as “The Beavis and Butthead of the art world.” Julian Schnabel eventually explodes at Paul H-O, condemning his coverage as a “masturbatory exercise in stupidity.” As though it were a bad thing; though not explicitly stated, Schnabel in fact represents the enormous male ego– a theme lurking throughout the film. Speaking specifically to gender, painter April Gornik complains about the many exhibition opportunities afforded to the bad boys of the ’90s. (Her husband Eric Fischl claims the opposite). Laurie Simmons discusses how she changed the size of her photographs so she could exhibit with men making super-sized paintings.

But like Schnabel's outburst, the most powerful statements on gender dynamics usually aren't emphasized as such. Certainly John Waters’ description of Sherman's importance — “They don't say photography anymore. They just call it art because of her work” — makes a strong statement about feminism, particularly as the subject of art, without explicitly labeling it so. Her art literally changed the context in which people discuss a medium, and it did so within a feminist framework.

Soon we see Paul H-O meet and flirt with Cindy Sherman, who then later hook up. In 2000 Gallery Beat finds its end when higher market stakes keep galleries from granting them event access, and the appeal of Cindy's fame begins to grow thin for the director. “Am I being too sensitive masculine?” H-O asks actress Jeanne Tripplehorn, “Yes,” she tells him in so many words, but that doesn't prevent an inane comedy routine from following. “Whatever happened to that guy who married Madonna?” he jokes rhetorically. In fact, were it not for the interview with Panio Gianopoulos, an editor at Bloomsbury Publishing (and Molly Ringwald's husband), the entire segment on unequal partnership might not have been palatable at all. Not only does Gianopoulos elucidate the crux of the dilemma — that it feels like it shouldn't be one — but he provides the most compelling example of unintended cruelty. Describing his memory of the time photographers once flocked to shoot a guy wearing an animal costume at the Planet of the Apes premiere, Gianopoulos observed, “I've never been more anonymous than something from a different species.”

Notably, this was not described as a gender issue, but a people problem. The film would clearly have benefited from taking this perspective a little more frequently, though I got the sense this wasn't part of H-O's agenda. This was a movie made to validate his own projects and concerns. Were they not quite so superficial, he might have succeeded.

Guest of Cindy Sherman screens at Cinema Village through this Saturday.

This review was edited by S.T. VanAirsdale and Peter Zimmerman.

{ 18 comments }

greg.org March 30, 2009 at 8:04 pm

nail, head. excellent review.

greg.org March 30, 2009 at 3:04 pm

nail, head. excellent review.

Lisa Balour March 30, 2009 at 9:25 pm

I loved the film.

It really displayed a side of the art world that is rarely seen. AFC may think it’s superficial, but in comparison to what? There are no other films that even come close to giving viewers the kind of access to the art world that this one does as well as showing one of the most prominent artists of our time creating work in her studio.

I was also pleasantly surprised at how funny the movie is. I laughed from start to finish. Very entertaining. It was this tone of the film that made it so enjoyable. Mucho kudos to Paul H-O for laying it all out there and, in my opinion, succeeding. This is a film that you just have to see for yourself.

Lisa Balour March 30, 2009 at 9:25 pm

I loved the film.

It really displayed a side of the art world that is rarely seen. AFC may think it’s superficial, but in comparison to what? There are no other films that even come close to giving viewers the kind of access to the art world that this one does as well as showing one of the most prominent artists of our time creating work in her studio.

I was also pleasantly surprised at how funny the movie is. I laughed from start to finish. Very entertaining. It was this tone of the film that made it so enjoyable. Mucho kudos to Paul H-O for laying it all out there and, in my opinion, succeeding. This is a film that you just have to see for yourself.

Lisa Balour March 30, 2009 at 4:25 pm

I loved the film.

It really displayed a side of the art world that is rarely seen. AFC may think it’s superficial, but in comparison to what? There are no other films that even come close to giving viewers the kind of access to the art world that this one does as well as showing one of the most prominent artists of our time creating work in her studio.

I was also pleasantly surprised at how funny the movie is. I laughed from start to finish. Very entertaining. It was this tone of the film that made it so enjoyable. Mucho kudos to Paul H-O for laying it all out there and, in my opinion, succeeding. This is a film that you just have to see for yourself.

Art Fag City March 30, 2009 at 9:42 pm

@Lisa Balour I don’t think a film has to be contrasted to something better to prove it’s actually superficial. Footage of Cindy Sherman working on of weak bodies of work isn’t essential to understanding what she does.

On merit, does Gallery Beat warrant its own documentary: probably not. Is Paul H-O’s doomed relationship with Cindy Sherman reason enough to make a documentary: certainly not. It has some entertainment value, but past that, it’s not a success.

Art Fag City March 30, 2009 at 9:42 pm

@Lisa Balour I don’t think a film has to be contrasted to something better to prove it’s actually superficial. Footage of Cindy Sherman working on of weak bodies of work isn’t essential to understanding what she does.

On merit, does Gallery Beat warrant its own documentary: probably not. Is Paul H-O’s doomed relationship with Cindy Sherman reason enough to make a documentary: certainly not. It has some entertainment value, but past that, it’s not a success.

Art Fag City March 30, 2009 at 4:42 pm

@Lisa Balour I don’t think a film has to be contrasted to something better to prove it’s actually superficial. Footage of Cindy Sherman working on of weak bodies of work isn’t essential to understanding what she does.

On merit, does Gallery Beat warrant its own documentary: probably not. Is Paul H-O’s doomed relationship with Cindy Sherman reason enough to make a documentary: certainly not. It has some entertainment value, but past that, it’s not a success.

Rose April 2, 2009 at 9:05 pm

I must disagree with this review. How is this a superficial look at the art world? I’ve seen the film, and it’s actually quite the opposite–it provides a raw, honest look on the superficiality that taints the art world. It doesn’t take itself too seriously, and that’s why it makes you laugh. I don’t know about you- but if a movie can be thought-provoking and humorous, it’s top-notch entertainment.

Rose April 2, 2009 at 4:05 pm

I must disagree with this review. How is this a superficial look at the art world? I’ve seen the film, and it’s actually quite the opposite–it provides a raw, honest look on the superficiality that taints the art world. It doesn’t take itself too seriously, and that’s why it makes you laugh. I don’t know about you- but if a movie can be thought-provoking and humorous, it’s top-notch entertainment.

Benjamin April 13, 2009 at 3:20 am

I think the review is spot on.

I was very disappointed that the movie didn’t investigate further the relationship a seemingly anonymous man has with a famous partner. Especially when the main example at hand is Cindy Sherman herself. I think it missed a very large opportunity when it glossed over that subject matter with a comedy routine and a few frustrated quotes from other couples.

All in all I thought the documentary wasn’t able to justify its own existence, as Paul seemed to want to vent more than explore or explain.

Benjamin April 13, 2009 at 3:20 am

I think the review is spot on.

I was very disappointed that the movie didn’t investigate further the relationship a seemingly anonymous man has with a famous partner. Especially when the main example at hand is Cindy Sherman herself. I think it missed a very large opportunity when it glossed over that subject matter with a comedy routine and a few frustrated quotes from other couples.

All in all I thought the documentary wasn’t able to justify its own existence, as Paul seemed to want to vent more than explore or explain.

Benjamin April 12, 2009 at 10:20 pm

I think the review is spot on.

I was very disappointed that the movie didn’t investigate further the relationship a seemingly anonymous man has with a famous partner. Especially when the main example at hand is Cindy Sherman herself. I think it missed a very large opportunity when it glossed over that subject matter with a comedy routine and a few frustrated quotes from other couples.

All in all I thought the documentary wasn’t able to justify its own existence, as Paul seemed to want to vent more than explore or explain.

DSE April 13, 2009 at 12:49 pm

“top-notch entertainment” is giving H-O too much credit. This movie did not provide a new take on Sherman’s work nor did it give us access into the art world (which I would have enjoyed). Instead, it allowed us to observe a flat, egotistical, selfish H-O trying to work out and justify his failed relationship with Sherman…

DSE April 13, 2009 at 12:49 pm

“top-notch entertainment” is giving H-O too much credit. This movie did not provide a new take on Sherman’s work nor did it give us access into the art world (which I would have enjoyed). Instead, it allowed us to observe a flat, egotistical, selfish H-O trying to work out and justify his failed relationship with Sherman…

DSE April 13, 2009 at 7:49 am

“top-notch entertainment” is giving H-O too much credit. This movie did not provide a new take on Sherman’s work nor did it give us access into the art world (which I would have enjoyed). Instead, it allowed us to observe a flat, egotistical, selfish H-O trying to work out and justify his failed relationship with Sherman…

MJB June 18, 2010 at 4:49 pm

I’m not a visual artist so for me, this film was an amazing look into a world I know nothing about. I saw it twice! fascinating stuff!

MJB June 18, 2010 at 12:49 pm

I’m not a visual artist so for me, this film was an amazing look into a world I know nothing about. I saw it twice! fascinating stuff!

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: