Guest of Cindy Sherman Doc and The Art Market

by Art Fag City on April 13, 2009 · 26 comments Events

guest of cindy sherman, art fag city, paul ho, tom donahue
Guest of Cindy Sherman, production still

Karina Longworth over at Spout blog likes how “Guest of Cindy Sherman,” a documentary by Tom Donahue and Paul H-O (shortened from Hasegawa-Overacker), ruminates on the growth of the art market over the last two decades.   Paul H-O seems to think that this is a brilliant take (as opposed to the theme identified by the film’s title– dude reflects on marred relationship with girlfriend more famous than him) and says as much in the blog’s comments.  I couldn’t disagree more.  The growth of the art market was an easy device used to move the film along, and the subject was touched on only superficially.  Surely, at least more than one auction house specialist would have appeared in the movie were this topic discussed with any kind of depth. In fact, according to Kriston Capps at The American Prospect, the film often distorted its presentation of the market to meet the needs of a giant male ego,

Dovetailed into Hasegawa-Overacker’s documentary mash-up of Gallery Beat clips and Sherman home movies are interviews that illustrate the macho nature of the 1980s art bubble and the 1990s art crash it begot. Photographer Laurie Simmons describes how she enlarged her photos to compete with the massive scale of painting championed in the 1980s by macho Picasso types like Robert Longo, Eric Fischl, and Julian Schnabel — all of whom floated on the incredible bubble of the era (and appear in the film). Hasegawa-Overacker characterizes the resulting art world as a backlash against the alpha males, with artists like Sherman emerging in their stead. He even insinuates that Sherman is at the heart of the bubble that, to be sure, just burst (along with everything else).

It has the makings of a compelling narrative. A nice guy can’t compete with Julian Schnabel and the other loud painters. (A hot flash of antagonism between Schnabel and Hasegawa-Overacker drives home the point.) But when the alpha males are out of the picture, it is women like Sherman who take the reigns. The market swung once wildly in the direction of the macho, Hasegawa-Overacker argues, so the swing toward the feminine represented by Sherman’s enduring success must be some sort of overcorrection.

But that is simply not the case. The market never built a bubble around the work of women. Art market analyst Richard Polsky names only seven women in a 2007 rundown of the 50 most heavily traded artists. (Eight if you count Christo to mean Christo and Jeanne-Claude.) Sherman is one of those women, and her market experience, to be sure, has been extraordinary: She was the first photographer to be grouped with painters by an auction house for a contemporary sale. Works by Louise Bourgeois, Joan Mitchell, Lee Krasner, and Yayoi Kasuma set auction records last year, but none fetched prices within the same order of magnitude as male counterparts like Jeff Koons, Takashi Murakami, and Gerhard Richter.

To be fair to H-O, the film never explicitly draws the connection that Sherman’s enduring success must be an overcorrection for excessive macho male accolades.  But the relevance of Cindy Sherman’s impressive auction prices cited near the end of the movie is never specifically stated, so the Kapps read isn’t coming entirely out of left field [Update: It’s described as part of an overheated market].  In fact, if one were to apply art critic Jerry Saltz’s observation earlier in the film that compares her career to that of a zombie to theory, it makes some sense.   After all, the only reason zombies exist is to infect other people.   As Kapps points out however, Sherman’s presence in the market continues to be extraordinary.  Certainly, she’s not been “infecting” other female artists with her market success.

{ 26 comments }

Jennifer Coates April 13, 2009 at 6:22 pm

You make a very good point, but I am quite sure that I saw Amy Cappellazzo from Christie’s in the film. She’s the Senior Vice President and International Co-Head of Postwar and Contemporary Art. Surely, this makes her somewhat of an auction house specialist. Granted she was specifically talking about Sherman’s work in the context of the male dominated ballooning art world marketplace of the 1990’s/2000’s.

So at least one person with some auction credentials appears in the film. Judd Tully also talks in the film about the growth of the art marketplace as well. Beyond that, I am not sure how many people like that you can include in a film like this as the filmmakers have only so much time to tell their story which is only partially about the growth of the art market.

Jennifer Coates April 13, 2009 at 1:22 pm

You make a very good point, but I am quite sure that I saw Amy Cappellazzo from Christie’s in the film. She’s the Senior Vice President and International Co-Head of Postwar and Contemporary Art. Surely, this makes her somewhat of an auction house specialist. Granted she was specifically talking about Sherman’s work in the context of the male dominated ballooning art world marketplace of the 1990’s/2000’s.

So at least one person with some auction credentials appears in the film. Judd Tully also talks in the film about the growth of the art marketplace as well. Beyond that, I am not sure how many people like that you can include in a film like this as the filmmakers have only so much time to tell their story which is only partially about the growth of the art market.

Art Fag City April 13, 2009 at 6:30 pm

Hmm, that was an unfortunate mistake. I’ve made the correction.

Art Fag City April 13, 2009 at 1:30 pm

Hmm, that was an unfortunate mistake. I’ve made the correction.

Jennifer Coates April 13, 2009 at 7:38 pm

I think your initial point was a very good one, but I’m not sure from a journalistic or critical aspect that I agree with your revising the post after the fact to suit your editorial slant.

I guess anything goes in the blog world.

Jennifer Coates April 13, 2009 at 2:38 pm

I think your initial point was a very good one, but I’m not sure from a journalistic or critical aspect that I agree with your revising the post after the fact to suit your editorial slant.

I guess anything goes in the blog world.

Art Fag City April 13, 2009 at 7:55 pm

Does anything go? I updated the post with a strike through to indicate the inaccuracy. I could have just changed the text and left people to read the comments, but that’s poor journalistic practice IMO. The argument I made visa vi the auction house footage clearly doesn’t hold too much weight given your point, but I didn’t correct that because it’s not what I said.

“Anything goes in the blog world” is more than a little uncalled for in this instance.

Art Fag City April 13, 2009 at 2:55 pm

Does anything go? I updated the post with a strike through to indicate the inaccuracy. I could have just changed the text and left people to read the comments, but that’s poor journalistic practice IMO. The argument I made visa vi the auction house footage clearly doesn’t hold too much weight given your point, but I didn’t correct that because it’s not what I said.

“Anything goes in the blog world” is more than a little uncalled for in this instance.

tom moody April 13, 2009 at 8:35 pm

As if the “mainstream media” doesn’t constantly change texts without telling people.

A better fix might be to strike that entire sentence, since I doubt anyone believes in the “backlash bubble for women” theory.

tom moody April 13, 2009 at 3:35 pm

As if the “mainstream media” doesn’t constantly change texts without telling people.

A better fix might be to strike that entire sentence, since I doubt anyone believes in the “backlash bubble for women” theory.

ak April 14, 2009 at 1:32 am

Jennifer Coates….. weird (over)reaction for an oversight?

ak April 13, 2009 at 8:32 pm

Jennifer Coates….. weird (over)reaction for an oversight?

greg.org April 14, 2009 at 4:10 am

Paul H-O and his production staff asked me to do an interview for the documentary after I wrote in the Times about the market’s systemic discounting of women’s art. I went a few rounds of email with them to set it up, then I stopped responding and let it slide [not that they chased me] because I figured it would be hard for Paul to overcome his narcissistic dick persona from Gallery Beat. So yeah, glad I dodged that bullet.

I’m not going to see the movie, but as someone who spent several months running numbers, researching, and interviewing around on the topic of women artists and the market, I can echo Paddy’s and Kriston’s call of BS about a flight to femininity after the 80’s bust.

There’s “expensive” and “expensive for a girl,” and even Sherman is affected by that. Though it’d make more sense to compare her work with someone like Gober, or Gursky, but not Richter or Koons, who are outliers.

As for the zombie thing, Sherman’s rise coincides with the emergence of gender equity and institutional bias as an art market issue. [The Guerrilla Girls launched in ’85 and ran their $17.7 million Jasper Johns campaign in ’89.] She was a good, easy buy for “solving” collections’ female problem. [sic] But then it was “solved,” so the imperative to buy another Woman’s Work was lessened. But that same boxchecking afflicts artists like Minimalists Who Aren’t Named Judd or Flavin, too.

greg.org April 13, 2009 at 11:10 pm

Paul H-O and his production staff asked me to do an interview for the documentary after I wrote in the Times about the market’s systemic discounting of women’s art. I went a few rounds of email with them to set it up, then I stopped responding and let it slide [not that they chased me] because I figured it would be hard for Paul to overcome his narcissistic dick persona from Gallery Beat. So yeah, glad I dodged that bullet.

I’m not going to see the movie, but as someone who spent several months running numbers, researching, and interviewing around on the topic of women artists and the market, I can echo Paddy’s and Kriston’s call of BS about a flight to femininity after the 80’s bust.

There’s “expensive” and “expensive for a girl,” and even Sherman is affected by that. Though it’d make more sense to compare her work with someone like Gober, or Gursky, but not Richter or Koons, who are outliers.

As for the zombie thing, Sherman’s rise coincides with the emergence of gender equity and institutional bias as an art market issue. [The Guerrilla Girls launched in ’85 and ran their $17.7 million Jasper Johns campaign in ’89.] She was a good, easy buy for “solving” collections’ female problem. [sic] But then it was “solved,” so the imperative to buy another Woman’s Work was lessened. But that same boxchecking afflicts artists like Minimalists Who Aren’t Named Judd or Flavin, too.

SAMANTHA SCHLAIFER April 14, 2009 at 12:25 pm

Art Fag City – Did you even watch the film? From this review, it seems that in fact this did not take place.

SAMANTHA SCHLAIFER April 14, 2009 at 7:25 am

Art Fag City – Did you even watch the film? From this review, it seems that in fact this did not take place.

Art Fag City April 14, 2009 at 12:30 pm

Indeed, I watched it three times. But maybe you knew that already, because I brought all those notes with me when I spoke to Paul H-O, and it seems you are his assistant. To your point though: I acknowledge the mistakes made in the post, but the arguments being made are solid. (My actual review of the movie is here, but I’m sure you’ve seen that.)

With regards to auction prices, Paul H-O says in the film, it’s not just Cindy it’s Koons, it’s Matthew Barney. But the things Greg is discussing above never get covered in the film, and I think that’s pretty critical for a movie claiming to investigate gender.

Anyone who knows anything about the art world knows the art market was handled superficially. That simply wasn’t the focus of the movie; it did however provide a handy time line on which to hang the narrative. The art world isn’t doing well: Paul H-O starts Gallery Beat. People are friendly. The art world starts to do better: Paul H-O meets Cindy Sherman (the movie describes this time as a booming art market though, and compared to 2006 it’s nothing. As such it seemed a slight mischaracterization). The art world is booming: Paul H-O drops the show because he can’t get access to the right people (this seems a bit of a simplification of whatever actually went on. I started my blog in 2005, and was somehow able to make it work, without the profile of H-O). The art world goes completely crazy: Nobody knows who he is any more. The art world goes bust: Maybe he’ll be okay again (the movie was made prior to closing aspect of the narrative).

As you can see from that brief summation already, critical points are massaged just a little to make the film work. I don’t think that’s a good idea for a documentary, particularly when the people whose opinions carry the most weight — film critics — aren’t likely to know the difference.

Art Fag City April 14, 2009 at 7:30 am

Indeed, I watched it three times. But maybe you knew that already, because I brought all those notes with me when I spoke to Paul H-O, and it seems you are his assistant. To your point though: I acknowledge the mistakes made in the post, but the arguments being made are solid. (My actual review of the movie is here, but I’m sure you’ve seen that.)

With regards to auction prices, Paul H-O says in the film, it’s not just Cindy it’s Koons, it’s Matthew Barney. But the things Greg is discussing above never get covered in the film, and I think that’s pretty critical for a movie claiming to investigate gender.

Anyone who knows anything about the art world knows the art market was handled superficially. That simply wasn’t the focus of the movie; it did however provide a handy time line on which to hang the narrative. The art world isn’t doing well: Paul H-O starts Gallery Beat. People are friendly. The art world starts to do better: Paul H-O meets Cindy Sherman (the movie describes this time as a booming art market though, and compared to 2006 it’s nothing. As such it seemed a slight mischaracterization). The art world is booming: Paul H-O drops the show because he can’t get access to the right people (this seems a bit of a simplification of whatever actually went on. I started my blog in 2005, and was somehow able to make it work, without the profile of H-O). The art world goes completely crazy: Nobody knows who he is any more. The art world goes bust: Maybe he’ll be okay again (the movie was made prior to closing aspect of the narrative).

As you can see from that brief summation already, critical points are massaged just a little to make the film work. I don’t think that’s a good idea for a documentary, particularly when the people whose opinions carry the most weight — film critics — aren’t likely to know the difference.

Tom Donahue April 14, 2009 at 3:00 pm

Hi all-

“Guest of” is held over a fourth week at Cinema Village so if you haven’t seen it yet, please come check it out. And bring friends!

-Tom

Tom Donahue April 14, 2009 at 10:00 am

Hi all-

“Guest of” is held over a fourth week at Cinema Village so if you haven’t seen it yet, please come check it out. And bring friends!

-Tom

Rebecca Sherman April 14, 2009 at 5:19 pm

I just have to say that your review of the film was fantastic. You nailed it. At the end of the day, it was about a guy who wanted validation and attention for not doing anything. It was his choice to stop making art after his 1st solo show in the early 80’s and it was his choice to terminate Gallery Beat later on. I found it difficult to sympathize with someone who obtained such little drive, passion, work ethic and purpose…all while continuing to complain and blame his successful girlfriend (who continued to support and take care of him). Honestly, I felt embarrased for her that he made such a public display of their personal dilemmas on the radio, etc. I admit that the film’s highlights were the early Gallery Beat shows and the scenes that featured an intimate flirtation between Sherman and H-O. Who doesn’t like gossip?
As far as the issue at hand, the art market was inflated and Cindy Sherman was one of the few female artists to profit. She is an inspiration if anything. Not to mention, H-O is currently using her career to make his own profit. Just for a broad perspective: actors get paid $20 million for a movie. It doesn’t make it right, but that’s how it goes~

Rebecca Sherman April 14, 2009 at 12:19 pm

I just have to say that your review of the film was fantastic. You nailed it. At the end of the day, it was about a guy who wanted validation and attention for not doing anything. It was his choice to stop making art after his 1st solo show in the early 80’s and it was his choice to terminate Gallery Beat later on. I found it difficult to sympathize with someone who obtained such little drive, passion, work ethic and purpose…all while continuing to complain and blame his successful girlfriend (who continued to support and take care of him). Honestly, I felt embarrased for her that he made such a public display of their personal dilemmas on the radio, etc. I admit that the film’s highlights were the early Gallery Beat shows and the scenes that featured an intimate flirtation between Sherman and H-O. Who doesn’t like gossip?
As far as the issue at hand, the art market was inflated and Cindy Sherman was one of the few female artists to profit. She is an inspiration if anything. Not to mention, H-O is currently using her career to make his own profit. Just for a broad perspective: actors get paid $20 million for a movie. It doesn’t make it right, but that’s how it goes~

tom moody April 14, 2009 at 9:04 pm

Just in time for a discussion of the art market’s support for women comes a show at Sotheby’s called, ahem, “Women”:

http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/robinson/robinson4-13-09.asp

Progressive lot over there at Sotheby’s.

tom moody April 14, 2009 at 4:04 pm

Just in time for a discussion of the art market’s support for women comes a show at Sotheby’s called, ahem, “Women”:

http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/robinson/robinson4-13-09.asp

Progressive lot over there at Sotheby’s.

ak April 14, 2009 at 5:34 pm

I agreee w/ Rebecca Sherman’s assessment of the film:

“At the end of the day, it was about a guy who wanted validation and attention for not doing anything. […] Honestly, I felt embarrassed […] the film’s highlights were the early Gallery Beat shows and the scenes that featured an intimate flirtation between Sherman and H-O. Who doesn’t like gossip?”

including everything in between.. but this doesn’t mean the movie isn’t worth seeing, because it is. It has fun stuff in it. I’m glad I saw it. It is a very good “art-world” movie.

Paddy’s initial review made me want to see the film, unlikely I would have seen it otherwise. I remember Tom Donahue being so surprised I saw it after reading the AFC review.

If anything the treatment of the “art market” or even more specifically, “the women’s art market” is only a secondary aspect of the movie. I can barely remember anything substantial about that. I don’t know if after the fact someone is trying to push that as an important aspect of the film, because it’s not. If you want to learn about the art market or the women’s art market GOCS shouldn’t/wouldn’t be the first place to look.

And the market was “inflated,” but the market is impossible to pin down anyways–but nice to see it “booming” if you like art and want to make a living from it or some money or some prestige (unless you want to make your mark in the art market’s downturn)–because how do you really determine value for art: collectors and gallerists and auction houses and the global/US economy and, I guess, artists, critics, art foundations all help come to some sort of price for art… but people with lots of money have the most input, and it seems pieces (as far as post-war/contemporary art) that cost most are the most “masculine” in that they are “monuments” and “iconic” (and I think “iconic” is understood historically as a much more masculine characteristic, which should be elaborated on) and I don’t think, in general, women make as much of this kind of art as men. These are all generalizations, of course. Not that there isn’t systematic gender bias or even discrimination, or at least there absolutely, positively, has been historically–until recently (as far as I can tell) but “money” isn’t progressive and will take longer to catch up to people who think. This may be a lazy assessment, and it’s hardly a criticism of women’s art.

Contemporary Chinese art was “blowin-up” and it is terrible. It’s didactic (probably it’s worst quality), mostly ugly, often political, often derivative, often superficial. That art by female artists lags behind art by male artists in terms of how much money people are willing to pay for it, doesn’t really mean anything in regards the quality, assuming this is still what people are interested in.

ak April 14, 2009 at 10:34 pm

I agreee w/ Rebecca Sherman’s assessment of the film:

“At the end of the day, it was about a guy who wanted validation and attention for not doing anything. […] Honestly, I felt embarrassed […] the film’s highlights were the early Gallery Beat shows and the scenes that featured an intimate flirtation between Sherman and H-O. Who doesn’t like gossip?”

including everything in between.. but this doesn’t mean the movie isn’t worth seeing, because it is. It has fun stuff in it. I’m glad I saw it. It is a very good “art-world” movie.

Paddy’s initial review made me want to see the film, unlikely I would have seen it otherwise. I remember Tom Donahue being so surprised I saw it after reading the AFC review.

If anything the treatment of the “art market” or even more specifically, “the women’s art market” is only a secondary aspect of the movie. I can barely remember anything substantial about that. I don’t know if after the fact someone is trying to push that as an important aspect of the film, because it’s not. If you want to learn about the art market or the women’s art market GOCS shouldn’t/wouldn’t be the first place to look.

And the market was “inflated,” but the market is impossible to pin down anyways–but nice to see it “booming” if you like art and want to make a living from it or some money or some prestige (unless you want to make your mark in the art market’s downturn)–because how do you really determine value for art: collectors and gallerists and auction houses and the global/US economy and, I guess, artists, critics, art foundations all help come to some sort of price for art… but people with lots of money have the most input, and it seems pieces (as far as post-war/contemporary art) that cost most are the most “masculine” in that they are “monuments” and “iconic” (and I think “iconic” is understood historically as a much more masculine characteristic, which should be elaborated on) and I don’t think, in general, women make as much of this kind of art as men. These are all generalizations, of course. Not that there isn’t systematic gender bias or even discrimination, or at least there absolutely, positively, has been historically–until recently (as far as I can tell) but “money” isn’t progressive and will take longer to catch up to people who think. This may be a lazy assessment, and it’s hardly a criticism of women’s art.

Contemporary Chinese art was “blowin-up” and it is terrible. It’s didactic (probably it’s worst quality), mostly ugly, often political, often derivative, often superficial. That art by female artists lags behind art by male artists in terms of how much money people are willing to pay for it, doesn’t really mean anything in regards the quality, assuming this is still what people are interested in.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: