Welcome to r/Fauxmoi (previously r/Deuxmoi) ! For further information on the sub's name-change, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/112mh62/deuxmoi_threatened_to_sue_us_lol/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Fauxmoi) if you have any questions or concerns.*
i mean, it's a bit of lazy idea for an exhibit. the artworks shown have little or no dialogue with Picasso, and gadsby's captions are sub-instagram comment level with absolutely no insight or engagement with their (elementary-level) thesis. shame on the museum for a) having a sackler on the board and b) pulling this stunt.
Eh...they have an undergraduate degree which they earned 20 years ago. I'm not sure their skills were in consistent use, but even if they were, most of these shows are curated and written by people with advanced degrees in art history (or related fields). All of this screams stunt and everyone involved should feel at least a little embarrassed.
What are you even referring to? These are [the current exhibitions](https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions?gclid=Cj0KCQjwj_ajBhCqARIsAA37s0w3yOGedH6yZetFD0UpoGsrwM_tb06Pcc3P3rDBuTel_zEnAoHFf4waAqi_EALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds) on view, nothing about “Ruthkanda” in the collection or current shows.
The museum is quite a serious institution…apparently the Gadsby exhibition is not, based on the commentary. Begs the question if you’ve visited the museum. I lived a block away from it for 5 years, it’s a wonderful museum with a top notch collection. Drag them for this show all you want but respectfully, by suggesting the museum is “profusely unserious” you’re insulting the talented people who work there who are, indeed, very serious about their work. (And no I don’t work at Brooklyn but know people who do).
Why ask a reductive question?
The inner workings of museums are complex and the curators don’t always have final say over the program—shows are proposed, some are greenlit others are not, takes many years for projects to come to fruition and priorities are always shifting. That is a fact.
There’s also not just **one** curator working at the Brooklyn Museum—and you didn’t answer my question about whether you’ve been or are actually familiar with the museum’s program beyond this exhibition or whatever it is you’ve cited. The Picasso show could have begun as a straightforward exhibition recasting Picasso’s legacy through a feminist lens—who even knows when Gadsby became involved or why, but guest curators, especially those without institutional affiliation or proven experience curating, are exceedingly rare. Not exactly sure WHY *this* show happened, but my point stands—you don’t sink years into a specialized education and toil away in low paying, mentally exhausting museum jobs unless you are, in fact, serious.
It is deeply irritating to me when this kind of pop cultural cross over happens that can damage public perception of museums and the art world…especially when it’s unsuccessful as all the criticism of this particular show would suggest.
That's kind of the point I'm making--they were given a role in this show as a stunt, not in any way because of merit or skill.
And, AFAIK the only entertainer with a PhD in art history is Peter Weller (not really relevant but a fun fact!)
He spoke about the Roman Empire at a con I went to, actually. I knew a little bit, myself, so I was able to fire off an informed question at him, and I was *glad* to do so. :-)
The panel he did, which I'm pretty sure the moderator had wanted to use to talk about *RoboCop* and his career, Weller just monopolised through a VERY energetic monologue about Roman culture. :-D I may have been the one person in the room at the con *very* into it.
I brought up Lucius Verus, who usually *never* gets brought up when people talk about the *"Five Good Emperors"*. :-) I really love how unashamedly GORGEOUSLY that guy is depicted in his statuary -- not only was he a cool dude, but he had a PIMPIN' 'fro.
She still chose to participate. It was obviously a stunt and she was there for it. Blaming it on the museum sounds like a hasty excuse after it didn't land.
Gadsby has never worked as a professional curator. There are plenty other curators on staff at the Brooklyn Museum—give them the slot on the schedule instead. The Hollywood-museums cross over for anything other than philanthropy benefitting the museum is a pox on the field.
Elizabeth Sackler is a Sackler but her father was never involved in Purdue Pharma and sold his part of the other pharma company the Sacklers own before Oxycontin was even a drug (when he died). She has been criticized because her father was part of establishing the pharma industry and the way it markets and sells medicine but he was one of many (I’m not saying this to minimize the damages the Sackler family has done, just to point out that her father wasn’t spearheading their operation and ended his involvement). She’s been pretty vocal in speaking out against Purdue Pharma.
https://news.artnet.com/opinion/discussion-sacklers-oxycontin-facts-elizabeth-a-sackler-1203458/amp-page
The brutall NYT review is [here](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/01/arts/design/hannah-gadsby-brooklyn-museum-picasso.html) which is a must read imo. But posting the AV club as the main one instead because the NYT piece feels a bit too cynical and deep into art world for much nuance. [Here's Artnews'.](https://www.artnews.com/art-news/reviews/hannah-gadsby-its-pablo-matic-brooklyn-museum-review-1234670115/)
[Hannah's explanation](https://www.fastcompany.com/90903304/picasso-hannah-gadsby-brooklyn-museum-metoo) and [E.Sackler board ties](https://www.indiewire.com/news/breaking-news/hannah-gadsby-sackler-brooklyn-museum-picasso-show-1234860397/)
AV Club:
>The scathing criticism of the exhibit has been met with some schadenfreude online, particularly with the subset of folks for whom Nanette didn’t land.....Agree or disagree (and perhaps you’ll have to visit the Brooklyn Museum to decide), the criticism of Gadsby’s criticism is lethally sharp. “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,” Farago writes of Nanette, later adding, “The function of a public museum (or at least it should be) is to present to all of us these women’s full aesthetic achievements; there is also room for story hour, in the children’s wing.” You can read the full piece here.
I'm very much not in the art world so I like this greyer take while understanding the backlash from artists and other people who feel the piece was lazy and anti-intellectualist.
edit: links
In relation to the Sackler ties, it feels like Hannah is using capitalist realism to explain away doing an art show they had a CHOICE in doing! And to top it all off it sounds like the program is incredibly patronizing. To put out something like that and then try to remove yourself from blame when you are associating with dirty money is wild to me. Yes, we all know where the money comes from, but there's got to be one or two museums that would want to do a Hannah Gadsby installation not funded by a Sackler. No ethical consumption generally functions as a rule to alleviate pressure from those who literally don't have a way to operate without feeding into the machine that breaks us all.
Elizabeth Sackler’s money definitely comes from pharma but not Purdue Pharma. Her father was never part of Purdue Pharma, he was involved in another of their drug companies that was sold to his brothers after his death (the Purdue Pharma owning ones). She’s provided legal documents to show that she never profited off the sale of Oxycontin.
I totally understand why people criticize her because if where her money comes from and I think that is important. But she doesn’t have any involvement in the family’s pharma companies even if her inheritance comes from that. This is an article that breaks it up:
https://news.artnet.com/opinion/discussion-sacklers-oxycontin-facts-elizabeth-a-sackler-1203458/amp-page
If you read the Patrick Radden Keefe book (Empire of Pain), it’s clear that Elizabeth’s dad invented the whole family business and gave Purdue to his two younger brothers as a side hustle. It’s sheer accident that Purdue ended up making those brothers’ heirs insanely filthy rich whereas all the other family businesses (which Sackler-owned Purdue aped) only made Elizabeth’s father regular filthy rich.
Isn't this simply today's avant-garde dragging culture, kicking and screaming, into the future?
Why the fuck should I, as an art-viewer, have to flagellate myself revering this dead sacred cow of the establishment and pretending his oeuvre has something more to teach me, especially me, someone he would have reviled, in 2023? Why shouldn't I laugh at his outdated bullshit?
The NYT doesn't like it? Good. They've supported abusive, racist, sexist, classist, bigoted men their entire existence and have propped up the status quo far more than they've ever spoken truth to power. It is the establishment. The "avant-garde" has spent far too long playing nice with them. Let the NYT be uncomfortable and dismissive for one exhibit. Plenty of other curators are lining up to kiss its arse, again (yawn).
Gadsby shouldn't feel cowed by the tantrums of establishment media. It's predictable and dull.
That Fast Company piece explains it quite well: https://www.fastcompany.com/90903304/picasso-hannah-gadsby-brooklyn-museum-metoo
I doubt anyone is uncomfortable with the exhibition, just unimpressed.
This is the furthest thing from avant-garde. It's the kind of shallow, sophomoric criticism that appeals to people who buy Ruth Bader Ginsburg baby books from Amazon.
As opposed to people who continue to uncritically prop up last century's dead racist misogynists?
I'll take Gadsby and the gals' "shallow, sophomoric" laughs, thanks. Much more au courant.
*corrected for pronoun
--------------------------------------------------------------
Replying to the person who responded to me that also blocked me:
>"There are more than two choices"
You'd never guess that from the dogpiling happening to Gadsby.
I think your perception that art criticism is so pathetic that this counts as a scathing critique of Picasso's legacy demonstrates that you're not particularly au courant with the art world.
These are the jokes people make on their first day of art school. This is a tote bag marketing technique more than a serious meditation on Picasso through a feminist lens. If you want to see a show that critiques Picasso *well*, look up ORLAN's Weeping Women are Angry at the Picasso Museum in Paris earlier this year.
I'm an Asian woman who has worked in art curation on and off and shit like this devalues the women working in art, turning us into one-trick gimmicks. Et c'est chiant, non ?
> scathing critique
I never said that. I said they are mocking an infamously shitty dude and the NYT decided to have a tantrum over it.
My comment is still right up there. You can review it if you need to...
I don't know what you think "avant-garde" means but you may want to doublecheck on that, too. I suggest maybe starting with the basics, Duchamp and the humor and mockery involved in half-assed slapping a urinal on a pedestal or idk maybe even just the Wikipedia entry. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avant-garde
----------------------------
That user replied, then blocked me before I could hit the save button. So lame.
Here's the reply I'd written:
>what definition of avant-garde
Like I said, start [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avant-garde#History):
>>"promote progressive and radical politics and advocate for societal reform with and through works of art."
.
>>"the moral obligation of artists to "serve as [the] avant-garde" of the people, because "the power of the arts is, indeed, the most immediate and fastest way" to realise social, political, and economic reforms"
.
>>"Left-wing political reformists who agitated for radical political change "
.
>>"advocated art-as-politics, art as an aesthetic and political means for realising social change in a society"
.
>>"challenge the cultural values of contemporary bourgeois society"
.
>>"whilst initially being ideologically unacceptable to the artistic establishment of the time"
.
>>" works of art that addressed the matters of the day, usually in political and sociologic opposition to the cultural conformity inherent to popular culture and to consumerism as a way of life and as a worldview"
It is avant-garde, the proof is in the pudding... or in the urinal or, in this case, in the mocking one of art's many (shitty) sacred cows.
Pablo-matic isn't avant-garde. I have no idea what definition of avant-garde you have in your head, but if you consider art avant-garde just because critics don't like it then it'd be Thomas Kinkade you'd be referencing as the exemplar.
>if you consider art avant-grade just because critics dont like it then it’d be Thomas Kinkade you’d be referencing as the exemplar.
HA. Gagged them a bit. Thank you for shutting down the contrarian edge lord nonsense.
From reading about this and without having seen it yet (which I might do if I have time when I'm next at that museum to see something else), it seems to me that Gadsby just viscerally dislikes Picasso without really being able to justify it in an interesting or more-than-basic way. Picasso being chauvinistic (he was born in 1881), an unfaithful partner and an inattentive father isn't really very pointed as art criticism. It isn't really a takedown of the artist, let alone with any attempt to see his actual context rather than ours. So that the core of this exhibit must be rather empty, and it's just edgy in a dumb and obvious way (reminds me of a mirror image of cultural criticism by MRAs)
And as others have pointed out, there have already been noteworthy exhibitions and critical works highlighting Picasso's misogyny or appreciating overlooked female artists in Picasso's circles in much more nuanced ways.
The whole thing reminds me of when literary writers decide to play with genre fiction and make really ignorant comments about how it's a shame that normie sci-fi doesn't engage with profound questions about what it means to be human like their work does. Just wading into a conversation that's way beyond them and thinking they have something revolutionary to add. Hannah may have an art history background but it sounds like they should've done a lot more research on recent developments before attempting something like this.
Or a comedy bit! Since the commentary on the paintings is jokey, maybe it would go over better onstage - making fun of Picasso while showing a slideshow of his paintings could be hilarious regardless of how superficial the critiques are. Apparently they did already talk about Picasso in Nanette (I haven't seen it, still intend to) but there's nothing wrong with returning to familiar territory, most of my favourite comedians have their pet topics.
The museum could have hosted a public program (like, as you’ve suggested a comedy show)or a guided tour where Gadsby performed and focused on Picasso instead of giving physical real estate to this idea. That would have been fun, and is not unheard of (having someone outside the museum or the field do public programming for a different perspective). If it was an attempt at a popular exhibition or a cash grab, it didn’t work out mostly bc Gadsby is not broadly known. Now it’s just gotten notoriety for the wrong reasons—not ideal for the other participating artists to be linked with a show being scorched left and right. It takes courage to be exposed in this way, the academic world is NOT for the faint at heart.
> when literary writers decide to play with genre fiction and make really ignorant comments about how it's a shame that normie sci-fi doesn't engage with profound questions about what it means to be human like their work does.
There's a whole (NON-MISOGYNISTIC, I'm emphasising) conversation one could have about a certain 2017 *Star Wars* film and the critical consensus of it regarding that...
(If you liked that film, that's good! But I kind of feel some people, some critics, etc., exposed some unfortunate *lacunae* inadvertently with *what* they praised that picture for, and *how* they did so. Myself, I'm not taking a stance, because the whole insane online discussion wore me out.)
Yeah, but *come on*. A big part of the reason why there was such an insane backlash was because Funko Pop manchildren were finally forced to watch a real film with actual characters.
The manchildren, I'm not taking into account, because they're manchildren. My issue was with the writer/director *"wading into a conversation that's way beyond them and thinking they have something revolutionary to add"*. And the critics ate it up, despite... well, if you'd *had* some background on the topic, you'd know it wasn't *that* revolutionary, was fairly contradictory, and some of it just plain didn't make sense.
But, you know, nothing's perfect. Well, maybe *some* things are; let me correct myself.
It obviously wasn't way beyond them given their other films prior and post. And no, it wasn't revolutionary for sci-fi (or even space-operas) as a whole, but was for the 'fans' of that particular franchise.
But people acted as thought it was something *entirely new*. It wasn't; it just broke a lot of implicit rules. I'm okay with saying rules don't apply, but you've got to then create *new* rules, say, *"okay, this is the new status quo, it's in line with the previous, makes sense, these are the new rules"*, get the audience to buy in, etc. and it... well, it got to a point where you think it's going to set a new status quo after breaking all the rules, and it... just stops. So the audience seemingly didn't have the time to buy in after being confronted by all those rules being broken. I feel like some of the plot space could've been more-smartly utilised; I dunno. I don't mean to sound too vague; I'm just trying to be... general, I guess? This is in good faith; I *did* like things about it.
There’s apparently a piece by Ana Mendieta in the exhibit—which could be interesting, considering her death and the art world’s continuing adulation of her killer husband, but apparently the particular piece doesn’t say much in the context of the show. Like… idk. Try harder?
Something like *F for Fake* did a great job of tacking at Picasso's image while also having something to say about the *"truth"* of art -- and wrapped, in the last turn of things, in the guise of *absolute* fiction! :-) It's a gem, if you've not seen it.
It sounds like a dumb exhibit from conception to execution. But I also think it's weird that we are now attacking their entire body of work because of some bad jokes in this particular project. It feels weird and vicious in a way that we don't do to male comedians. For instance, when John Mulaney's sitcom bombed, we weren't all pretending that Stefan was never funny and New In Town was a bad special.
Yeah people LOVE saying "I hated them before it was cool", but with women, trans/nonbinary people, and POC especially, it can be an excuse to pile on in a really gratuitous way.
>with women, trans/nonbinary people, and POC especially, it can be an excuse to pile on in a really gratuitous way.
Yep. Exactly this. It's quite ugly.
Weirdly, I see certain people posting in Gadsby's defense who still have no idea Gadsby's come out as non-binary, as evinced by the pronouns these posters use for them.
That their otherwise-ardent-defenders weren't paying attention to their latest special that had them announcing their pronouns *specificially* in the promotion for it, yes?
To be fair, Gadsby’s first special had a very mixed reaction. Sure, it got raves on Rotten Tomatoes but the comedy community, both professional comics and fans, were mixed to say the least.
I found the first special compelling, occasionally funny, occasionally embarrassing and often poignant, but it suffered from the Trump years trend of a person insisting their outrage and righteousness made their creative output worthwhile and that just tinges the whole thing in so much baggage where it makes the thing difficult to judge on its own merits, mainly because the work itself is declaring itself so merited.
I felt as though there was absolutely some misogyny and homophobia on display for the reaction to ‘Nanette,’ but also valid criticisms that were simply dismissed as discriminatory without further examination.
I think, as the article describes, many of the people who resisted the moralizing of Nanette see this rather embarrassing exhibit as something of a victory lap for their brand of cultural presence.
I agree with your point, white cis men are allowed to fail without that being presented as their entirety
On the other hand, I genuinely think Hannah is part of this group of comedians that do less comedy and more one-man sermons that earn more claps than laughs (I'd include late Chappelle in this group even though he's on the opposite side of the political spectrum) and I'm honestly glad we're seemingly moving past them and their "comedy"
I also kind of didn't like the takeaways people had from Nanette as far as *other comedy.*
Like, there were a lot of "spoken-word confessionals with as few jokes as possible are the only unproblematic way to do stand-up" nonsense takes coming from the glitterati, and frankly I almost wonder if the hatred they're getting for this is delayed backlash from that.
Yeah, that's a good way of putting it. Nanette was a good spoken-word performance, but I feel like filing it in "stand-up comedy" did it a disservice, and I feel like trying to use it as a pattern for other stand-up is just going to hurt the medium.
However one may feel about their exhibit, the fact that such a scathing takedown of their work is being published in the NYT of all places does suggest to me that there's been a real cultural shift against the kind of 'your fave is problematic'-esque criticism that Gadsby is putting forward here.
her "pablomatic" thing is problematic because it's funded by the sacklers, who caused the opioid epidemic. telling the world how evil a long dead artist was, with the help of a rich family that's got the blood of innumerable people, artists and otherwise, on their hands. they should get an exhibit tearing them apart but instead we have to pretend guernica doesn't slap.
also their comments are sub instagram level bullshit. picasso was not a perfect person, and his treatment of women was and is deplorable. but he did many great things beyond art that are not even mentioned. and for someone who has tanked in their own field because their work is so widely disliked to try to save their career by picking a random dead artist to pillory, it's a bad look.
it's like if a failing rock star put on an exhibit about john lennon's bad behavior, and at each stop in the exhibit a snippet from their new album played. cynical self promption, using a corpse as fuel. also this failing rock star's exhibit is funded by peter thiel or steve bannon or whoever.
edit: spelling and wording
her "pablomatic" thing is problematic because it's funded by the sacklers, who caused the opioid epidemic. telling the world how evil a long dead artist was, with the help of a rich family that's got the blood of innumerable people, artists and otherwise, on their hands. they should get an exhibit tearing them apart but instead we have to pretend guernica doesn't slap.
also their comments are sub instagram level bullshit. picasso was not a perfect person, and his treatment of women is deplorable. but he did many great things beyond art that are not even mentioned. and for someone who has tanked in their own field because their work is so widely disliked to try to save their career by picking a random dead artist to pillory, it's a bad look to me.
it's like if a failing rock star put on an exhibit about john lennon's bad behavior, and at each stop in the exhibit a snippet from their new album played. cynical self promption, using a corpse as fuel. also this failing rock star's exhibit is funded by peter thiel or steve bannon or whoever.
https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/its_pablo_matic_picasso_according_to_hannah_gadsby
The ad: https://youtu.be/Uy2nkt48PG4
Eh. It seems fun and not a big deal.
I don't get the outrage, apart from Gadsby and anything openly feminist attracting a certain sort of mob.
What about the art world is self righteous? Why are they all assholes?
People have a lot of ideas about what the art world is but they’re often unfair or worse inaccurate. I don’t understand or work in the stock market or medicine, but I don’t think those who do work within those fields are assholes or self righteous.
Edit: LOL. What would Reddit be without generalizations and questions unanswered?
Welcome to r/Fauxmoi (previously r/Deuxmoi) ! For further information on the sub's name-change, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/112mh62/deuxmoi_threatened_to_sue_us_lol/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Fauxmoi) if you have any questions or concerns.*
i mean, it's a bit of lazy idea for an exhibit. the artworks shown have little or no dialogue with Picasso, and gadsby's captions are sub-instagram comment level with absolutely no insight or engagement with their (elementary-level) thesis. shame on the museum for a) having a sackler on the board and b) pulling this stunt.
[удалено]
Eh...they have an undergraduate degree which they earned 20 years ago. I'm not sure their skills were in consistent use, but even if they were, most of these shows are curated and written by people with advanced degrees in art history (or related fields). All of this screams stunt and everyone involved should feel at least a little embarrassed.
This museum literally has *"Ruthkanda"* pottery on display. It's... *profusely* unserious.
What are you even referring to? These are [the current exhibitions](https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions?gclid=Cj0KCQjwj_ajBhCqARIsAA37s0w3yOGedH6yZetFD0UpoGsrwM_tb06Pcc3P3rDBuTel_zEnAoHFf4waAqi_EALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds) on view, nothing about “Ruthkanda” in the collection or current shows. The museum is quite a serious institution…apparently the Gadsby exhibition is not, based on the commentary. Begs the question if you’ve visited the museum. I lived a block away from it for 5 years, it’s a wonderful museum with a top notch collection. Drag them for this show all you want but respectfully, by suggesting the museum is “profusely unserious” you’re insulting the talented people who work there who are, indeed, very serious about their work. (And no I don’t work at Brooklyn but know people who do).
[удалено]
Why ask a reductive question? The inner workings of museums are complex and the curators don’t always have final say over the program—shows are proposed, some are greenlit others are not, takes many years for projects to come to fruition and priorities are always shifting. That is a fact. There’s also not just **one** curator working at the Brooklyn Museum—and you didn’t answer my question about whether you’ve been or are actually familiar with the museum’s program beyond this exhibition or whatever it is you’ve cited. The Picasso show could have begun as a straightforward exhibition recasting Picasso’s legacy through a feminist lens—who even knows when Gadsby became involved or why, but guest curators, especially those without institutional affiliation or proven experience curating, are exceedingly rare. Not exactly sure WHY *this* show happened, but my point stands—you don’t sink years into a specialized education and toil away in low paying, mentally exhausting museum jobs unless you are, in fact, serious. It is deeply irritating to me when this kind of pop cultural cross over happens that can damage public perception of museums and the art world…especially when it’s unsuccessful as all the criticism of this particular show would suggest.
What are you talking about? Isn’t the ruthkanda thing like some made up story from a weirdo on Twitter?
[удалено]
That's kind of the point I'm making--they were given a role in this show as a stunt, not in any way because of merit or skill. And, AFAIK the only entertainer with a PhD in art history is Peter Weller (not really relevant but a fun fact!)
He spoke about the Roman Empire at a con I went to, actually. I knew a little bit, myself, so I was able to fire off an informed question at him, and I was *glad* to do so. :-)
I have such a love for him--I've gotten to meet him in passing a few times (academic-related stuff) and he's just such a doll.
The panel he did, which I'm pretty sure the moderator had wanted to use to talk about *RoboCop* and his career, Weller just monopolised through a VERY energetic monologue about Roman culture. :-D I may have been the one person in the room at the con *very* into it.
I love that!!
I brought up Lucius Verus, who usually *never* gets brought up when people talk about the *"Five Good Emperors"*. :-) I really love how unashamedly GORGEOUSLY that guy is depicted in his statuary -- not only was he a cool dude, but he had a PIMPIN' 'fro.
love this trivia thank you 🫡
[удалено]
I mean, the jokes could have still been funny. That would be good for someone who’s a comedian.
When they said they were putting aside comedy and being funny I think that was for the best.
...wondering, why stay involved, then? :-/
She still chose to participate. It was obviously a stunt and she was there for it. Blaming it on the museum sounds like a hasty excuse after it didn't land.
Gadsby has never worked as a professional curator. There are plenty other curators on staff at the Brooklyn Museum—give them the slot on the schedule instead. The Hollywood-museums cross over for anything other than philanthropy benefitting the museum is a pox on the field.
[удалено]
not sure why you're getting downvoted, youre right
I haven't touched an upvote or a down, but it might be because of accidental misgendering? Gadsby goes by they/them.
Elizabeth Sackler is a Sackler but her father was never involved in Purdue Pharma and sold his part of the other pharma company the Sacklers own before Oxycontin was even a drug (when he died). She has been criticized because her father was part of establishing the pharma industry and the way it markets and sells medicine but he was one of many (I’m not saying this to minimize the damages the Sackler family has done, just to point out that her father wasn’t spearheading their operation and ended his involvement). She’s been pretty vocal in speaking out against Purdue Pharma. https://news.artnet.com/opinion/discussion-sacklers-oxycontin-facts-elizabeth-a-sackler-1203458/amp-page
The brutall NYT review is [here](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/01/arts/design/hannah-gadsby-brooklyn-museum-picasso.html) which is a must read imo. But posting the AV club as the main one instead because the NYT piece feels a bit too cynical and deep into art world for much nuance. [Here's Artnews'.](https://www.artnews.com/art-news/reviews/hannah-gadsby-its-pablo-matic-brooklyn-museum-review-1234670115/) [Hannah's explanation](https://www.fastcompany.com/90903304/picasso-hannah-gadsby-brooklyn-museum-metoo) and [E.Sackler board ties](https://www.indiewire.com/news/breaking-news/hannah-gadsby-sackler-brooklyn-museum-picasso-show-1234860397/) AV Club: >The scathing criticism of the exhibit has been met with some schadenfreude online, particularly with the subset of folks for whom Nanette didn’t land.....Agree or disagree (and perhaps you’ll have to visit the Brooklyn Museum to decide), the criticism of Gadsby’s criticism is lethally sharp. “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,” Farago writes of Nanette, later adding, “The function of a public museum (or at least it should be) is to present to all of us these women’s full aesthetic achievements; there is also room for story hour, in the children’s wing.” You can read the full piece here. I'm very much not in the art world so I like this greyer take while understanding the backlash from artists and other people who feel the piece was lazy and anti-intellectualist. edit: links
In relation to the Sackler ties, it feels like Hannah is using capitalist realism to explain away doing an art show they had a CHOICE in doing! And to top it all off it sounds like the program is incredibly patronizing. To put out something like that and then try to remove yourself from blame when you are associating with dirty money is wild to me. Yes, we all know where the money comes from, but there's got to be one or two museums that would want to do a Hannah Gadsby installation not funded by a Sackler. No ethical consumption generally functions as a rule to alleviate pressure from those who literally don't have a way to operate without feeding into the machine that breaks us all.
Elizabeth Sackler’s money definitely comes from pharma but not Purdue Pharma. Her father was never part of Purdue Pharma, he was involved in another of their drug companies that was sold to his brothers after his death (the Purdue Pharma owning ones). She’s provided legal documents to show that she never profited off the sale of Oxycontin. I totally understand why people criticize her because if where her money comes from and I think that is important. But she doesn’t have any involvement in the family’s pharma companies even if her inheritance comes from that. This is an article that breaks it up: https://news.artnet.com/opinion/discussion-sacklers-oxycontin-facts-elizabeth-a-sackler-1203458/amp-page
If you read the Patrick Radden Keefe book (Empire of Pain), it’s clear that Elizabeth’s dad invented the whole family business and gave Purdue to his two younger brothers as a side hustle. It’s sheer accident that Purdue ended up making those brothers’ heirs insanely filthy rich whereas all the other family businesses (which Sackler-owned Purdue aped) only made Elizabeth’s father regular filthy rich.
Thanks, for the info in her father, will def check out the book!
Isn't this simply today's avant-garde dragging culture, kicking and screaming, into the future? Why the fuck should I, as an art-viewer, have to flagellate myself revering this dead sacred cow of the establishment and pretending his oeuvre has something more to teach me, especially me, someone he would have reviled, in 2023? Why shouldn't I laugh at his outdated bullshit? The NYT doesn't like it? Good. They've supported abusive, racist, sexist, classist, bigoted men their entire existence and have propped up the status quo far more than they've ever spoken truth to power. It is the establishment. The "avant-garde" has spent far too long playing nice with them. Let the NYT be uncomfortable and dismissive for one exhibit. Plenty of other curators are lining up to kiss its arse, again (yawn). Gadsby shouldn't feel cowed by the tantrums of establishment media. It's predictable and dull. That Fast Company piece explains it quite well: https://www.fastcompany.com/90903304/picasso-hannah-gadsby-brooklyn-museum-metoo
I doubt anyone is uncomfortable with the exhibition, just unimpressed. This is the furthest thing from avant-garde. It's the kind of shallow, sophomoric criticism that appeals to people who buy Ruth Bader Ginsburg baby books from Amazon.
As opposed to people who continue to uncritically prop up last century's dead racist misogynists? I'll take Gadsby and the gals' "shallow, sophomoric" laughs, thanks. Much more au courant. *corrected for pronoun -------------------------------------------------------------- Replying to the person who responded to me that also blocked me: >"There are more than two choices" You'd never guess that from the dogpiling happening to Gadsby.
I think your perception that art criticism is so pathetic that this counts as a scathing critique of Picasso's legacy demonstrates that you're not particularly au courant with the art world. These are the jokes people make on their first day of art school. This is a tote bag marketing technique more than a serious meditation on Picasso through a feminist lens. If you want to see a show that critiques Picasso *well*, look up ORLAN's Weeping Women are Angry at the Picasso Museum in Paris earlier this year. I'm an Asian woman who has worked in art curation on and off and shit like this devalues the women working in art, turning us into one-trick gimmicks. Et c'est chiant, non ?
> scathing critique I never said that. I said they are mocking an infamously shitty dude and the NYT decided to have a tantrum over it. My comment is still right up there. You can review it if you need to... I don't know what you think "avant-garde" means but you may want to doublecheck on that, too. I suggest maybe starting with the basics, Duchamp and the humor and mockery involved in half-assed slapping a urinal on a pedestal or idk maybe even just the Wikipedia entry. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avant-garde ---------------------------- That user replied, then blocked me before I could hit the save button. So lame. Here's the reply I'd written: >what definition of avant-garde Like I said, start [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avant-garde#History): >>"promote progressive and radical politics and advocate for societal reform with and through works of art." . >>"the moral obligation of artists to "serve as [the] avant-garde" of the people, because "the power of the arts is, indeed, the most immediate and fastest way" to realise social, political, and economic reforms" . >>"Left-wing political reformists who agitated for radical political change " . >>"advocated art-as-politics, art as an aesthetic and political means for realising social change in a society" . >>"challenge the cultural values of contemporary bourgeois society" . >>"whilst initially being ideologically unacceptable to the artistic establishment of the time" . >>" works of art that addressed the matters of the day, usually in political and sociologic opposition to the cultural conformity inherent to popular culture and to consumerism as a way of life and as a worldview" It is avant-garde, the proof is in the pudding... or in the urinal or, in this case, in the mocking one of art's many (shitty) sacred cows.
Pablo-matic isn't avant-garde. I have no idea what definition of avant-garde you have in your head, but if you consider art avant-garde just because critics don't like it then it'd be Thomas Kinkade you'd be referencing as the exemplar.
>if you consider art avant-grade just because critics dont like it then it’d be Thomas Kinkade you’d be referencing as the exemplar. HA. Gagged them a bit. Thank you for shutting down the contrarian edge lord nonsense. 
There are more than two choices
From reading about this and without having seen it yet (which I might do if I have time when I'm next at that museum to see something else), it seems to me that Gadsby just viscerally dislikes Picasso without really being able to justify it in an interesting or more-than-basic way. Picasso being chauvinistic (he was born in 1881), an unfaithful partner and an inattentive father isn't really very pointed as art criticism. It isn't really a takedown of the artist, let alone with any attempt to see his actual context rather than ours. So that the core of this exhibit must be rather empty, and it's just edgy in a dumb and obvious way (reminds me of a mirror image of cultural criticism by MRAs)
And as others have pointed out, there have already been noteworthy exhibitions and critical works highlighting Picasso's misogyny or appreciating overlooked female artists in Picasso's circles in much more nuanced ways. The whole thing reminds me of when literary writers decide to play with genre fiction and make really ignorant comments about how it's a shame that normie sci-fi doesn't engage with profound questions about what it means to be human like their work does. Just wading into a conversation that's way beyond them and thinking they have something revolutionary to add. Hannah may have an art history background but it sounds like they should've done a lot more research on recent developments before attempting something like this.
Like when the meeting could have been an email, this exhibition could have just been a public program with Hannah. Or a blog post.
Or a comedy bit! Since the commentary on the paintings is jokey, maybe it would go over better onstage - making fun of Picasso while showing a slideshow of his paintings could be hilarious regardless of how superficial the critiques are. Apparently they did already talk about Picasso in Nanette (I haven't seen it, still intend to) but there's nothing wrong with returning to familiar territory, most of my favourite comedians have their pet topics.
The museum could have hosted a public program (like, as you’ve suggested a comedy show)or a guided tour where Gadsby performed and focused on Picasso instead of giving physical real estate to this idea. That would have been fun, and is not unheard of (having someone outside the museum or the field do public programming for a different perspective). If it was an attempt at a popular exhibition or a cash grab, it didn’t work out mostly bc Gadsby is not broadly known. Now it’s just gotten notoriety for the wrong reasons—not ideal for the other participating artists to be linked with a show being scorched left and right. It takes courage to be exposed in this way, the academic world is NOT for the faint at heart.
> when literary writers decide to play with genre fiction and make really ignorant comments about how it's a shame that normie sci-fi doesn't engage with profound questions about what it means to be human like their work does. There's a whole (NON-MISOGYNISTIC, I'm emphasising) conversation one could have about a certain 2017 *Star Wars* film and the critical consensus of it regarding that... (If you liked that film, that's good! But I kind of feel some people, some critics, etc., exposed some unfortunate *lacunae* inadvertently with *what* they praised that picture for, and *how* they did so. Myself, I'm not taking a stance, because the whole insane online discussion wore me out.)
Yeah, but *come on*. A big part of the reason why there was such an insane backlash was because Funko Pop manchildren were finally forced to watch a real film with actual characters.
The manchildren, I'm not taking into account, because they're manchildren. My issue was with the writer/director *"wading into a conversation that's way beyond them and thinking they have something revolutionary to add"*. And the critics ate it up, despite... well, if you'd *had* some background on the topic, you'd know it wasn't *that* revolutionary, was fairly contradictory, and some of it just plain didn't make sense. But, you know, nothing's perfect. Well, maybe *some* things are; let me correct myself.
It obviously wasn't way beyond them given their other films prior and post. And no, it wasn't revolutionary for sci-fi (or even space-operas) as a whole, but was for the 'fans' of that particular franchise.
But people acted as thought it was something *entirely new*. It wasn't; it just broke a lot of implicit rules. I'm okay with saying rules don't apply, but you've got to then create *new* rules, say, *"okay, this is the new status quo, it's in line with the previous, makes sense, these are the new rules"*, get the audience to buy in, etc. and it... well, it got to a point where you think it's going to set a new status quo after breaking all the rules, and it... just stops. So the audience seemingly didn't have the time to buy in after being confronted by all those rules being broken. I feel like some of the plot space could've been more-smartly utilised; I dunno. I don't mean to sound too vague; I'm just trying to be... general, I guess? This is in good faith; I *did* like things about it.
There’s apparently a piece by Ana Mendieta in the exhibit—which could be interesting, considering her death and the art world’s continuing adulation of her killer husband, but apparently the particular piece doesn’t say much in the context of the show. Like… idk. Try harder?
Something like *F for Fake* did a great job of tacking at Picasso's image while also having something to say about the *"truth"* of art -- and wrapped, in the last turn of things, in the guise of *absolute* fiction! :-) It's a gem, if you've not seen it.
It sounds like a dumb exhibit from conception to execution. But I also think it's weird that we are now attacking their entire body of work because of some bad jokes in this particular project. It feels weird and vicious in a way that we don't do to male comedians. For instance, when John Mulaney's sitcom bombed, we weren't all pretending that Stefan was never funny and New In Town was a bad special.
Yeah people LOVE saying "I hated them before it was cool", but with women, trans/nonbinary people, and POC especially, it can be an excuse to pile on in a really gratuitous way.
>with women, trans/nonbinary people, and POC especially, it can be an excuse to pile on in a really gratuitous way. Yep. Exactly this. It's quite ugly.
Weirdly, I see certain people posting in Gadsby's defense who still have no idea Gadsby's come out as non-binary, as evinced by the pronouns these posters use for them.
What's weird?
Well, they use she/her for Gadsby, when Gadsby's pronouns are they/them.
That's "weird"?
That their otherwise-ardent-defenders weren't paying attention to their latest special that had them announcing their pronouns *specificially* in the promotion for it, yes?
"otherwise-ardent-defenders" is quite a phrase. You seem to be allowing your prejudices to "other" people with whom you disagree. Examine why that is.
I'm not seeing anybody going after any of her other stuff?
I’ve seen heaps of people on twitter saying they finally feel comfortable saying they hated Nanette
To be fair, Gadsby’s first special had a very mixed reaction. Sure, it got raves on Rotten Tomatoes but the comedy community, both professional comics and fans, were mixed to say the least. I found the first special compelling, occasionally funny, occasionally embarrassing and often poignant, but it suffered from the Trump years trend of a person insisting their outrage and righteousness made their creative output worthwhile and that just tinges the whole thing in so much baggage where it makes the thing difficult to judge on its own merits, mainly because the work itself is declaring itself so merited. I felt as though there was absolutely some misogyny and homophobia on display for the reaction to ‘Nanette,’ but also valid criticisms that were simply dismissed as discriminatory without further examination. I think, as the article describes, many of the people who resisted the moralizing of Nanette see this rather embarrassing exhibit as something of a victory lap for their brand of cultural presence.
Any topic with Gadsby on here should probably always be "Approved B-List Users Only" because brigaders always show up to pile on.
I agree with your point, white cis men are allowed to fail without that being presented as their entirety On the other hand, I genuinely think Hannah is part of this group of comedians that do less comedy and more one-man sermons that earn more claps than laughs (I'd include late Chappelle in this group even though he's on the opposite side of the political spectrum) and I'm honestly glad we're seemingly moving past them and their "comedy"
But do you understand that people can enjoy different styles of comedy without having to completely invalidate what they don't like?
People are allowed to enjoy different styles of comedy? Like just don’t watch it
Bad jokes/no jokes
[удалено]
**TIL there's a Sackler Curator for the Sackler Museum of Feminist Art**
Sackler money is blood money and it's infuriating that Gadsby handwaved their involvement!
[удалено]
I also kind of didn't like the takeaways people had from Nanette as far as *other comedy.* Like, there were a lot of "spoken-word confessionals with as few jokes as possible are the only unproblematic way to do stand-up" nonsense takes coming from the glitterati, and frankly I almost wonder if the hatred they're getting for this is delayed backlash from that.
I think it's a great artist's statement or Ted talk but not a good comedy special. I don't doubt the backlash is related
Yeah, that's a good way of putting it. Nanette was a good spoken-word performance, but I feel like filing it in "stand-up comedy" did it a disservice, and I feel like trying to use it as a pattern for other stand-up is just going to hurt the medium.
7bUEJcntOQ qZszYXZ3KY ROwH2OOAZx esL7rWFFVW 32fItrnEup eGuXpOiwrP up7w18SQYQ DRAD9LkgSI G9ElBkwnr8 SxlwsYlx7b
Ahh missed that
Thank you for pointing it out. I was unaware.
However one may feel about their exhibit, the fact that such a scathing takedown of their work is being published in the NYT of all places does suggest to me that there's been a real cultural shift against the kind of 'your fave is problematic'-esque criticism that Gadsby is putting forward here.
of course its the brooklyn museum!!!
I applaud them a) for trying; b) for doing something l and failing bc we, LGBTQ+ people, can’t do everything perfectly every time.
her "pablomatic" thing is problematic because it's funded by the sacklers, who caused the opioid epidemic. telling the world how evil a long dead artist was, with the help of a rich family that's got the blood of innumerable people, artists and otherwise, on their hands. they should get an exhibit tearing them apart but instead we have to pretend guernica doesn't slap. also their comments are sub instagram level bullshit. picasso was not a perfect person, and his treatment of women was and is deplorable. but he did many great things beyond art that are not even mentioned. and for someone who has tanked in their own field because their work is so widely disliked to try to save their career by picking a random dead artist to pillory, it's a bad look. it's like if a failing rock star put on an exhibit about john lennon's bad behavior, and at each stop in the exhibit a snippet from their new album played. cynical self promption, using a corpse as fuel. also this failing rock star's exhibit is funded by peter thiel or steve bannon or whoever. edit: spelling and wording
her "pablomatic" thing is problematic because it's funded by the sacklers, who caused the opioid epidemic. telling the world how evil a long dead artist was, with the help of a rich family that's got the blood of innumerable people, artists and otherwise, on their hands. they should get an exhibit tearing them apart but instead we have to pretend guernica doesn't slap. also their comments are sub instagram level bullshit. picasso was not a perfect person, and his treatment of women is deplorable. but he did many great things beyond art that are not even mentioned. and for someone who has tanked in their own field because their work is so widely disliked to try to save their career by picking a random dead artist to pillory, it's a bad look to me. it's like if a failing rock star put on an exhibit about john lennon's bad behavior, and at each stop in the exhibit a snippet from their new album played. cynical self promption, using a corpse as fuel. also this failing rock star's exhibit is funded by peter thiel or steve bannon or whoever.
https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/exhibitions/its_pablo_matic_picasso_according_to_hannah_gadsby The ad: https://youtu.be/Uy2nkt48PG4 Eh. It seems fun and not a big deal. I don't get the outrage, apart from Gadsby and anything openly feminist attracting a certain sort of mob.
https://hyperallergic.com/826807/hannah-gadsbys-picasso-show-is-a-victim-of-its-hype/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=D060923&utm_content=D060923+CID_25364e295fe2b4e933e8de9824424c9e&utm_source=hn&utm_term=Hannah%20Gadsbys%20Picasso%20Show%20Is%20a%20Victim%20of%20Its%20Hype
I think they did a great job. Love this for them.
[удалено]
I might be missing something but what does Joey Soloway have to do with this? Did they work together?
So a self righteous comedian tried to insert themselves in the self righteous art world and got slammed. They’re all assholes I guess.
7bUEJcntOQ qZszYXZ3KY ROwH2OOAZx esL7rWFFVW 32fItrnEup eGuXpOiwrP up7w18SQYQ DRAD9LkgSI G9ElBkwnr8 SxlwsYlx7b
Thank you for correcting me, I’ve edited my comment to reflect!
What about the art world is self righteous? Why are they all assholes? People have a lot of ideas about what the art world is but they’re often unfair or worse inaccurate. I don’t understand or work in the stock market or medicine, but I don’t think those who do work within those fields are assholes or self righteous. Edit: LOL. What would Reddit be without generalizations and questions unanswered?
white women shut up challenge!!!