I loved this piece !! Was just talking yday to some friends about how there was a sincerity to Girls - the spirit of the show and the girls’ ambitions - that is nonexistent in I love LA. Hannah’s dreams were self-indulgent and spoke to millennial delusion and self-importance. Maia’s “dreams” basically have nothing to do with herself, but how well she can operate within a system. The self doesnt matter, so selling out doesn’t ring as criminal anymore, either (though I think we might be seeing increasing backlash to that? Eg Jia Tolentino x Airbnb gate!)
This is such a great point. I do believe Sennott’s intention is to have her characters sell out and be a bit surface level and eventually find their core value (i mean, the show is called I Love LA), but with GIRLS there was such an intentionality to give us, yes, selfish / status obsessed characters but they weren’t flat — they had dimension and we learned that very early on. I think Sennott’s strength (if I review this in tandem with bottoms and shiva baby — both which I’m a fan of) is to create characters that represent a flattened version of a generation for satirical purposes, rather than a real person. For the shows comic ambitions, this largely works, but it’s the dramatic stakes where, so far, it feels weaker. That being said, I’m enjoying the show for what it is and hope there is more interiority later. Maybe we will get some bottle episodes like we did in GIRLS! :)
I totally agree w your take on Sennott! She’s brilliant and I’m really enjoying the show. And she can definitely do interiority, I thought I Used To Be Funny was such an elegant interpretation of trauma and generational gaps. I just saw the latest episode and we’re definitely getting closer to these characters’ gooey cores..
So I have thoughts. 1) Yes, you are correct, this is a complete sellout by Beeple, I would even go so far as to call it a media stunt. And really, this article feeds that stunt and, in its own way, sells out by leading with it. If you're going to be punk about things, be punk. I get it, that doesn't drive clicks.
But still, as an art critic, your observation is on point; it's blatant commercialization of today's political crisis in the same vein as Southpark, all dressed up as art.
2) That being said, we need this right now. I am really reticent to be overly critical of anyone who is willing to criticize this government and its tech oligarch enablers because it is so oppressive in its response to any question of its authority. To defeat oppression, we need criticism, whether it's pop or commercialized or just a spray-painted tag on a back alley wall. To take down resistance without acknowledging its merits in fighting authoritarianism is to fail to observe the whole picture.
Love this. So true about Girls and I Love LA- there's an authenticity chip missing there that makes it hard to connect even to their dreams, because their dreams are "get rich via corporations" and it's both speaking to the current cultural moment but also stark when you lay it out so flatly like that.
Yes, I think Rachel Sennott is a really good aggregator of a generation’s pursuit of status and capital while assuming the audience knows why they are pursuing it, while Lena was able to show both the generational aspect but also tie it to specified character flaws across the titular “Girls” so you understand why they had such misguided motivations. I don’t think we need to be in a world where artists need to explain all of their characters motivations and I think Rachel’s works largely relies on her audience knowing the world the characters are in (and who she is as a showrunner and writer) so she doesn’t need to explain it but it does make the end result feel a bit flatter, even though I think that’s probably by design. Thank you for reading 🙏🏿🙏🏿
I hated the Beeple piece immediately, it felt like shock art that could be quickly dissected and found to be flat. It makes me think of that insane, poorly made taxidermied shark Damien Hirst “made” with the absurd title. (There is a certain self-laudatory energy that Hirst and Beeple might share.) Thank you for such insightful writing about art and the art market and showing us the art you loved as well. I’ve got new artists to learn about and follow! (So glad to see Kehinde Wiley’s work there, saw an exhibit of his paintings in 2015 and will never forget, they’re so rich and energetic and absolute visual feasts.)
Dang. That was interesting. I'm a bit outside of the space, but it seems like this is fitting to 2025. At the same time, it isn't art that particularly gets me going. Folks are gonna eat it up, and it's going to get across the screens of those very tech oligarchs at some point. Seems like that's the point and the artist sure got a lot of attention towards that end. Good for them. Heck, if they sold it, double good for them, too. The world is weird.
I loved this piece !! Was just talking yday to some friends about how there was a sincerity to Girls - the spirit of the show and the girls’ ambitions - that is nonexistent in I love LA. Hannah’s dreams were self-indulgent and spoke to millennial delusion and self-importance. Maia’s “dreams” basically have nothing to do with herself, but how well she can operate within a system. The self doesnt matter, so selling out doesn’t ring as criminal anymore, either (though I think we might be seeing increasing backlash to that? Eg Jia Tolentino x Airbnb gate!)
This is such a great point. I do believe Sennott’s intention is to have her characters sell out and be a bit surface level and eventually find their core value (i mean, the show is called I Love LA), but with GIRLS there was such an intentionality to give us, yes, selfish / status obsessed characters but they weren’t flat — they had dimension and we learned that very early on. I think Sennott’s strength (if I review this in tandem with bottoms and shiva baby — both which I’m a fan of) is to create characters that represent a flattened version of a generation for satirical purposes, rather than a real person. For the shows comic ambitions, this largely works, but it’s the dramatic stakes where, so far, it feels weaker. That being said, I’m enjoying the show for what it is and hope there is more interiority later. Maybe we will get some bottle episodes like we did in GIRLS! :)
I totally agree w your take on Sennott! She’s brilliant and I’m really enjoying the show. And she can definitely do interiority, I thought I Used To Be Funny was such an elegant interpretation of trauma and generational gaps. I just saw the latest episode and we’re definitely getting closer to these characters’ gooey cores..
So I have thoughts. 1) Yes, you are correct, this is a complete sellout by Beeple, I would even go so far as to call it a media stunt. And really, this article feeds that stunt and, in its own way, sells out by leading with it. If you're going to be punk about things, be punk. I get it, that doesn't drive clicks.
But still, as an art critic, your observation is on point; it's blatant commercialization of today's political crisis in the same vein as Southpark, all dressed up as art.
2) That being said, we need this right now. I am really reticent to be overly critical of anyone who is willing to criticize this government and its tech oligarch enablers because it is so oppressive in its response to any question of its authority. To defeat oppression, we need criticism, whether it's pop or commercialized or just a spray-painted tag on a back alley wall. To take down resistance without acknowledging its merits in fighting authoritarianism is to fail to observe the whole picture.
brendon i want to bathe in your prose you connect dots so beautifully
thank you ayan 💗💗
The biggest sellout moment of Art Basel was the hosting of run club IMHO. Game's gone!
LOL there was a run club????!
Based and correct response 🤣
Larry Gagosian can't imagine a world without Larry Gagosian https://youtu.be/PcO2T9fm0Yc
this is one of my favourite New Yorker profiles ever
Especially part about Issy Wood
Love this. So true about Girls and I Love LA- there's an authenticity chip missing there that makes it hard to connect even to their dreams, because their dreams are "get rich via corporations" and it's both speaking to the current cultural moment but also stark when you lay it out so flatly like that.
Yes, I think Rachel Sennott is a really good aggregator of a generation’s pursuit of status and capital while assuming the audience knows why they are pursuing it, while Lena was able to show both the generational aspect but also tie it to specified character flaws across the titular “Girls” so you understand why they had such misguided motivations. I don’t think we need to be in a world where artists need to explain all of their characters motivations and I think Rachel’s works largely relies on her audience knowing the world the characters are in (and who she is as a showrunner and writer) so she doesn’t need to explain it but it does make the end result feel a bit flatter, even though I think that’s probably by design. Thank you for reading 🙏🏿🙏🏿
great essay!
Thank you, Marjorie :)))
I hated the Beeple piece immediately, it felt like shock art that could be quickly dissected and found to be flat. It makes me think of that insane, poorly made taxidermied shark Damien Hirst “made” with the absurd title. (There is a certain self-laudatory energy that Hirst and Beeple might share.) Thank you for such insightful writing about art and the art market and showing us the art you loved as well. I’ve got new artists to learn about and follow! (So glad to see Kehinde Wiley’s work there, saw an exhibit of his paintings in 2015 and will never forget, they’re so rich and energetic and absolute visual feasts.)
I cannot at all connect to modern art but I do think it’s a great vehicle for money laundering and tax evasion.
Dang. That was interesting. I'm a bit outside of the space, but it seems like this is fitting to 2025. At the same time, it isn't art that particularly gets me going. Folks are gonna eat it up, and it's going to get across the screens of those very tech oligarchs at some point. Seems like that's the point and the artist sure got a lot of attention towards that end. Good for them. Heck, if they sold it, double good for them, too. The world is weird.
The patron/artist relationship is alive and well. There will always be those with too much money and those without enough.