For a Limited Time Only: Delusional Downtown Divas

by Art Fag City on January 14, 2009 · 27 comments Reviews


Delusional Downtown Divas, Installation view, 2009, Photograph AFC, View the first episode here.

“I think by wearing the banana shirt you’re saying I’m the one with the penis, and also you’re wearing that kind of cut up banana fruit salad necklace so you’re kind of making references to bananas constantly which I think is kind of interesting”, AgNess approvingly tells Oona during a group fashion critique.   It’s not the only time penises come up in the video series now screening at APF Lab on Wooster;  in another episode, nearly every tree painting viewed is interpreted by one of the characters as penile, despite the artists instance that the work only dealt with trees. Not that this body part is critical to understanding the show; it’s just one of many chosen buzzwords used by a group of young women trying to enter and get ahead in the art world they were raised in.    As such, critical and dryly distorted discussion of genitali, art and fashion (or as Isaac Mizrahi concludes in one scene, the meaning of life), guide the adventures of these three girls.

Presented by Art Production Fund and Index Magazine,  the series contains a certain amount of autobiographical material.   For instance, superstar artist Peter Halle and founder of Index Magazine is also the father of cast member Isabel Halley.   “It’s the ultimate in art world nepotism!” a friend reported back to me.  But of course, ultimately, he didn’t care.  The work stands on its own, which is one thing connections don’t buy.

Exhibition on view through January 18th.  11-6 daily.  Also, don’t miss their zine.  I’ll be twittering their questionaire highlights through out the next couple of days.


“I think that fashion should be incredibly painful, like this choker, I actually really can’t breath right now. “

{ 26 comments }

eageageag January 14, 2009 at 10:27 pm

But would this exhibition have even happened if it wasn’t for nepotism? I don’t think that discounting the nepotism is valid just because you liked the work. Bit I’m glad you liked it.

eageageag January 14, 2009 at 5:27 pm

But would this exhibition have even happened if it wasn’t for nepotism? I don’t think that discounting the nepotism is valid just because you liked the work. Bit I’m glad you liked it.

Art Fag City January 15, 2009 at 2:03 pm

Discounting nepotism is not mentioning it at all, which is not what I did.

The videos would have found an exhibition venue with or without nepotism; simply exhibiting in this city isn’t that hard. Getting people to notice however, is. What the Delusional Downtown Divas would not have had without connections is the support of Index magazine and a who’s who opening reception. And yes, that certainly counts as something.

Art Fag City January 15, 2009 at 9:03 am

Discounting nepotism is not mentioning it at all, which is not what I did.

The videos would have found an exhibition venue with or without nepotism; simply exhibiting in this city isn’t that hard. Getting people to notice however, is. What the Delusional Downtown Divas would not have had without connections is the support of Index magazine and a who’s who opening reception. And yes, that certainly counts as something.

Eageageag January 15, 2009 at 3:37 pm

I also think it had a direct effect on the content of the video as well. Would they have scored these guest spots without nepotism (Isaac Mizrahi, Nate Lowman, Rachel Chandler, Dakota Solt, Clarissa Dalrymple). I don’t think so. So it is not only that they got supporters and a star filled reception audience because of nepotism, it also impacted the actual content of the art. Also, I am not so sure about this statement: “simply exhibiting in this city isn’t that hard”. This is based on the feedback I get from artists. I am assuming that you are not talking about vanity galleries.

Eageageag January 15, 2009 at 10:37 am

I also think it had a direct effect on the content of the video as well. Would they have scored these guest spots without nepotism (Isaac Mizrahi, Nate Lowman, Rachel Chandler, Dakota Solt, Clarissa Dalrymple). I don’t think so. So it is not only that they got supporters and a star filled reception audience because of nepotism, it also impacted the actual content of the art. Also, I am not so sure about this statement: “simply exhibiting in this city isn’t that hard”. This is based on the feedback I get from artists. I am assuming that you are not talking about vanity galleries.

Art Fag City January 15, 2009 at 4:04 pm

Would they have scored these guest spots without nepotism (Isaac Mizrahi, Nate Lowman, Rachel Chandler, Dakota Solt, Clarissa Dalrymple). I don’t think so. So it is not only that they got supporters and a star filled reception audience because of nepotism, it also impacted the actual content of the art.

They had to scam their way into to see Mizrahi by saying one of their mother’s was a client, so it’s all out in the open. Privilege is a reality for some people. Overall, I think it’s a bad idea to criticize talking about that experience simply because most of us don’t share it.

Regarding the statement that exhibiting in this city isn’t that hard: If an artist wants to show in the city they can do it. Even the least talented artists can find venues if they’re persistent. They can create their own exhibition space; they exhibit small galleries, or in out of the way group shows with friends; Artist’s Space’s Night of a 1000 drawings accepts all submissions; hell, Eric Doeringer shows on the street. Gaining representation and exhibiting in well known galleries is very difficult — and they’re not doing that yet — exhibiting in and of itself however is just work.

Art Fag City January 15, 2009 at 11:04 am

Would they have scored these guest spots without nepotism (Isaac Mizrahi, Nate Lowman, Rachel Chandler, Dakota Solt, Clarissa Dalrymple). I don’t think so. So it is not only that they got supporters and a star filled reception audience because of nepotism, it also impacted the actual content of the art.

They had to scam their way into to see Mizrahi by saying one of their mother’s was a client, so it’s all out in the open. Privilege is a reality for some people. Overall, I think it’s a bad idea to criticize talking about that experience simply because most of us don’t share it.

Regarding the statement that exhibiting in this city isn’t that hard: If an artist wants to show in the city they can do it. Even the least talented artists can find venues if they’re persistent. They can create their own exhibition space; they exhibit small galleries, or in out of the way group shows with friends; Artist’s Space’s Night of a 1000 drawings accepts all submissions; hell, Eric Doeringer shows on the street. Gaining representation and exhibiting in well known galleries is very difficult — and they’re not doing that yet — exhibiting in and of itself however is just work.

Eageageag January 15, 2009 at 4:23 pm

“Overall, I think it’s a bad idea to criticize talking about that experience simply because most of us don’t share it.”

I am not criticizing you for talking about nepotism in the context of this exhibition and I recognize that you mentioned the whole nepotism thing and didn’t entirely ignore it. You basically said in your initial post that yeah nepotism had some impact on this exhibition but the stuff is good so it doesn’t really matter. That was what I was commenting on. I don’t think the nepotism played an inconsequential or ancillary role here.

I am never going to see work by these artists, meet them, write about them, so perhaps I am judging things using the wrong standards. I see your point.

Eageageag January 15, 2009 at 11:23 am

“Overall, I think it’s a bad idea to criticize talking about that experience simply because most of us don’t share it.”

I am not criticizing you for talking about nepotism in the context of this exhibition and I recognize that you mentioned the whole nepotism thing and didn’t entirely ignore it. You basically said in your initial post that yeah nepotism had some impact on this exhibition but the stuff is good so it doesn’t really matter. That was what I was commenting on. I don’t think the nepotism played an inconsequential or ancillary role here.

I am never going to see work by these artists, meet them, write about them, so perhaps I am judging things using the wrong standards. I see your point.

Eageageag January 15, 2009 at 4:28 pm

And yes, if you were referring to the fact that anyone can stick something on a wall and it will probably remain there for awhile, then you are right. It is easy to exhibit something in the city.

Eageageag January 15, 2009 at 11:28 am

And yes, if you were referring to the fact that anyone can stick something on a wall and it will probably remain there for awhile, then you are right. It is easy to exhibit something in the city.

Art Fag City January 15, 2009 at 4:33 pm

You basically said in your initial post that yeah nepotism had some impact on this exhibition but the stuff is good so it doesn’t really matter. That was what I was commenting on. I don’t think the nepotism played an inconsequential or ancillary role here.

Point taken. You’re right.

Art Fag City January 15, 2009 at 11:33 am

You basically said in your initial post that yeah nepotism had some impact on this exhibition but the stuff is good so it doesn’t really matter. That was what I was commenting on. I don’t think the nepotism played an inconsequential or ancillary role here.

Point taken. You’re right.

Eageageag January 15, 2009 at 1:33 pm

Nah. I’m a douchebag.

Eageageag January 15, 2009 at 6:33 pm

Nah. I’m a douchebag.

Eageageag January 15, 2009 at 7:49 pm

If I walked into a gallery and saw some art and really liked it, and then later I found out that the artist was the son/daughter of some big player in the art world, than I wouldn’t make a big deal about nepotism. It would certainly be irrelevant from a critical perspective. Obviously it could have played a role in the artist’s career, helped them get the exhibition, etc., but it would not be intertwined with the work in some deeper sense. Based entirely on your description of the art, the event, etc., this did not appear to be the case with this particular work of art.

Eageageag January 15, 2009 at 2:49 pm

If I walked into a gallery and saw some art and really liked it, and then later I found out that the artist was the son/daughter of some big player in the art world, than I wouldn’t make a big deal about nepotism. It would certainly be irrelevant from a critical perspective. Obviously it could have played a role in the artist’s career, helped them get the exhibition, etc., but it would not be intertwined with the work in some deeper sense. Based entirely on your description of the art, the event, etc., this did not appear to be the case with this particular work of art.

sally January 16, 2009 at 2:58 pm

nepotism… in the art world? say it ain’t so.

sally January 16, 2009 at 9:58 am

nepotism… in the art world? say it ain’t so.

drillinbilliam January 25, 2009 at 7:40 am

this video is hysterical!!!

drillinbilliam January 25, 2009 at 2:40 am

this video is hysterical!!!

bb October 20, 2009 at 2:22 pm

I am not impressed. This work is all about connections. I would have to argue that without nepotism this work would not exist at all. It would not be displayed in a gallery (whether such a thing is hard or not to accomplish) because it would never have been made without the connections and privilege these girls enjoy.

bb October 20, 2009 at 10:22 am

I am not impressed. This work is all about connections. I would have to argue that without nepotism this work would not exist at all. It would not be displayed in a gallery (whether such a thing is hard or not to accomplish) because it would never have been made without the connections and privilege these girls enjoy.

beth harper November 7, 2009 at 2:47 am

The trouble with the art world is that it’s downright pretentious- the usual vegans wearing leather jackets and starving poets whose parents pay the rent. They hide behind psuedo intellect through fear of not being seen as a real artist.

beth harper November 6, 2009 at 10:47 pm

The trouble with the art world is that it’s downright pretentious- the usual vegans wearing leather jackets and starving poets whose parents pay the rent. They hide behind psuedo intellect through fear of not being seen as a real artist.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: