“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.

“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.

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

Progressive lot over there at Sotheby’s.

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

Progressive lot over there at Sotheby’s.

“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

“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

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.

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.