tld-art 005: art, distilled. adrien brody, debated.
This week I spent time with the work—through new shows and books—pulling thematic threads and distilling what surfaced. Plus, my take on the art world's criticism of Adrien Brody's art.
Hi artsies,
As summer begins to settle in, last week brought a mix of light headlines—some good news for shuttered SFAI, the passing of a legendary gallerist, celebrating 40 years in business for another, and lots of must-see summer show roundups. But what gave me the most joy were the artist interviews and artwork deep dives. That’s where we’re focusing in this edition.
I had fun finding common themes and pulling esoteric threads across these stories—vision, power, stillness, ancestry, and reclamation—and hope you find something that sparks your interest too. And yes, I couldn’t resist acknowledging the flurry of attention around Adrien Brody’s art… skip to the end for my take.
As always, this is just a fraction of what I bookmarked—you can browse the full list here.
Art as deep emotion or an abstract vision
Art as defiance or a message for the future
Art as documentation or a moment in time
Art as identity or an ode to ancestry
Art as reclamation or an awakening
A Parting Rant on “Brodysquiat” Gate
tl-dr: Art critics and internet trolls are having a field day with Adrien Brody’s art ever since one of his paintings sold for $425,000 at a Cannes charity auction and his solo exhibition “Made in America” opened last week at Eden Gallery in Manhattan.
The press is pressing. Profiles in Cultured Magazine, Interview Magazine, and NYT gave Brody a platform to share how his NYC upbringing sparked his infatuation with street art, the role his photographer mother played in shaping his art practice, and how this body of work reflects on “the culture of violence and intolerance today.” The next day, ARTnews ran an article giving the “art press” perspective, calling the work derivative, cheap, technically poor, and “cringe-worthy.”
I urge you to read these before moving on:
Personally? I thought the Marilyn Monroe collage that sold at Cannes was comically cringey. But who cares? It raised $425K for AIDS research. To me, that feels like the perfect use case for obvious, commercial, and easily accessible art.
But as the critiques kept coming—and one Instagram art critic dubbed it “Douchebag Art” (a.k.a. red-chip art, the antithesis of Biennial Art)—I couldn’t help but wonder: Why does the art world feel so compelled to publicly declare how bad his art is?
I think it comes down to dissonance—between who the art world expects Brody to be (a serious, Oscar-winning actor with perceived “taste and grace”) and the work he’s making: glossy, hyper-legible, celebrity-slick, and apparently totally serious. The confusion is fair. But the vitriol? Maybe not.
If you’re reading this, you probably care about art—its power to move, provoke, transport. But part of that power comes from subjectivity. And part of what sustains it is business. It’s almost as if the “art world” forgets that.
So yes, his work may be subjectively “horrendous” to the art world haters. But to the (ostensibly) thousands of collectors sustaining the massive commercial/pop art market, it clearly isn’t. And honestly, the lineage from Warhol and Basquiat to Koons, Murakami, and now Brody isn’t that far-fetched—at least in terms of spectacle, accessibility, and marketability.
Maybe it’s the celebrity part that’s harder to swallow—that his art gets gallery shows, headlines, and high price tags because he’s famous. But fame has always been a form of currency in the art world. And honestly, who can blame Brody for using that currency—along with his $10 million net worth—to hire a world-class PR team to support his “first love”?
To be clear, I’m not trying to defend Brody or negate the freedom of free art critique. He’s doing just fine. But maybe the more interesting question isn’t why he’s getting attention and praise—but why it bothers people so much that he is.
Thanks for joining me for another week of art appreciation!
‘til next week,
tld-art