After Adrien Brody juiced the Oscars with The Brutalist, he made a $400 million splash with his version of Pop art, essayed through his canvases of, most notably, a Marilyn Monroe that has been in popular Western cultural consciousness since the wild Sixties. The Brutalist—if you have watched it carefully—you are definitely aware that it is an imaginary “biography” of two real people, whose story was carved out of the trauma of the artist-architect humiliated in a concentration camp, and later through the great leap of the American dream, which, despite its monetary abundance and the ensuing fame, tends to place an incredible amount of trauma on the artist. Yes, it was the imagination of an artist suffering through bad and good times, as he created work that moved away from the older ideas of architecture.
The same cannot be said of the Marilyn Monroe and other Pop art symbolism Brody used in his paintings, in real life. They were like children who never left mommy and papa behind to explore the world. The painting that went for $400 million was not only painfully derivative, it was also brutal because it, once again, showed you clearly what the cult of celebrity does to art in general: it kills art’s true spirit, its indelible affair with freedom and rebellion.
From a social viewpoint, the Brody art bash is a punch in the face of artists who toil away quietly in order to find a voice that infuses lifeblood into human culture and civilization. It also might mislead younger artists into thinking that the extraneous “work”— like hanging out with the right crowd or being in the right coterie — are irreversible conditions for artistic success. Obviously, there is truth there, but it is grounded in the fires of Dante’s hell. You go to hell for achieving grand success by riding on the foot of contemporary stars.
The larger question is: should Brody paint? By all means. He must paint like everyone who wishes to paint. But there is a simple system to paint a picture that is original or leaning towards what might be considered original. That can come only through an intense exploration that rejects what has been done, and seeks to explore the person that the artist is. Nobody can simply jump into the problem of visual art and come up with a language that requires a little learning. Brody must paint, but he has to go through those hundred paintings that tell him what he really wishes to paint. There are career artists who have never got past the “beautiful” landscape. In that regard, Brody is fine. But anyone who is worth his or her salt, must understand that visual art is not merely about playing it right, but also about giving it the rhythm of your life. For example, there are many musicians who play the beat to its most perfect time, but a drummer is not just a drummer. A true drummer designs a foundation for a composition that tells us what it means to be human. This is even more important in this world where AI can do almost everything perfectly. Never in the history of mankind has the “flaw” been more a sign of human endeavour.
One of the biggest crimes an artist can commit is to be an echo of a time gone by. An artist’s job is not only to create beauty, but to also make us think why we make art. Art, as an intrinsically important job, is what guys like Sam Rodia or Gaitonde made us understand. Beautiful things always have a showcase, but a sublime or profound object or idea requires time and a civilization that is ready to understand it. And that is beauty. To fail in art is okay, but to succeed in art by displaying a lack of integrity and courage is a sin. Unfortunately, we have the likes of Brody because the art establishment very often punishes integrity and rewards mediocrity that sells. Since it is entrenched in a gross capitalist system and is run by people who know precious little about what it means to destroy oneself in the pursuit of the sublime, it cannot see further than the cash that the mediocre but popular brings in.
The art establishment has always been bad for art. History shows that. Right from irascible and impatient patrons in the old times to galleries that have drowned in meaningless curatorial notes. Very few in the art establishments have actually cared to know who a truly great artist is, or what actually makes an artist. They are more attuned to accepting a notion that feels comfortable. And that is why we have a guy like Brody—already famous and hence a boon for the market. Almost all galleries worth their salt must snag famous fish because they have to pay salaries. Art history is replete with stories of artists who were rejected before being accepted. Of course, this applies to literature too. Herman Melville died a forgotten customs official, and only 70 years after his death did Moby Dick rise from the ashes.
With such great examples of the great artist being born before their time (yes, Van Gogh always), it beats me why curators and art galleries do not seem to understand this. The “toast of the town” artist being feted is fine, but when are we also going to look at a picture purely because it is well made? Is that so damn difficult? Curators are often caught in the web of their own making, and they miss somebody who toils despite all odds and turns out fine pieces. If you can’t do this, at least stop promoting those who talk a good game and know all the people who can make or break an artist.
I am sure all of you remember a certain Salman Khan who, not far back, did a Bollywood on us by making paintings that were as inane as his films. It was a serious case of moonlighting because the “mood” got him, but he still made galleries stand up and take notice.
In about twenty years, these would be examples of fame beating art in an unfair duel. The popular always overruns the demanding. Art is so delicate and fine, that it is not, most often, an invader after a throne. It is a philosopher, like Socrates, who had to drink hemlock to be taken seriously.
Ed Sheeran, the pop icon, has also picked up paints and is now making art. He has said he makes it at some abandoned parking lot. I have to confess here that I am not a fan of his blockbuster song ‘Shape of You’. I just looked at his paintings, even after he revealed to us that Damien Hirst is his friend. What a friend to have! If a regular artist was Damien Hirst’s friend, he wouldn’t be a regular artist. He would be a recommendation we cannot ignore. But what about the art that Ed Sheeran makes… Is it as danceable too, as his music? The answer is no, because the paintings look like a cold leftover from the oeuvre of the action painters. Action painting died with Jackson Pollock, and this is a truth that should not be lost on us. This is not to say that Pollock was an original. He just blew up the “all over” composition of grandma Janet Sobel and grandpa Mark Tobey. However, Pollock had panache which Ed Sheeran doesn’t.
However, I feel a little kinder today. If you had to ask me what I would pick if I had no choice, I would pick Ed Sheeran as the more serious artist. He, at least, has something to show for his “action” painting. His personality and his truth are better ensconced in his paintings than Brody, who is rather too obviously derivative (a word dreaded by curators). Let me tell you this: all art made by humans is derivative in some way, but some derivations lead us out of the dark and into a space where it is possible to see the light. In this regard, Ed Sheeran has seen the shape of colour better than Brody.
My conclusion is this: both of them are good for the business of art, but not art itself. Art needs the voices of those who have been rejected by the world of art, especially by curators and the art world. Many curators and art aficionados have this uncanny ability to reject great artists. Unfortunately, the money is just too much in the tried-and-tested game of jacking up worth where there is none. And one always feels one’s taste is impeccable.
A sizable number of curators suffer from self-inflicted ego wounds. They are afraid that all the words they hold dear may not fit the artist who is from nowhere, belongs to no coterie and has no currency with the current coolness or trends. And these curators are responsible for the traction a guy like Adrien Brody or any other celebrity gets for unoriginal work. It just makes too much business sense to speak the truth. I mean, would you give a piece by Johnny Depp a second look, if you didn’t know Captain Jack Sparrow had made it? While there has been criticism, the truth of the art market is that he is eating away from the chunk that should have gone to a serious artist, who has spent all their years and resources in making art without applause.
To make a long story short, it is time for collectors and galleries who consider themselves to be serious evaluators of what is culturally significant, to move out of spaces that reward cronyism, and move to those unknown back alleys where the heart of the artist who bleeds, beats. In fact, such a move would actually help everyone go beyond the “wine and cheese” culture to a more robust, culturally significant continent of creativity. In fact, this would lead to a rediscovery of art. And it’s long overdue.
Featuring Image Courtesy: Jerry’s Altarama
Former Editor at Abir Pothi
