---
What is Art issue - Zoolander Review
---
Objectively Assessing Art?
Why Post-Modernism has democratised art and rid our world of elitist snobs
Editorial Opinion
I was having an in depth conversation with a person who claimed that there was such a thing as "good taste". That is, it wasn't up to what we as individuals thought was good - there is inherent in the world a notioon of good taste. Extending this to art, she said that there is good art and bad art. We've seen countless examples of adults entering their children's drawings into art competitions and winning them. Critics point to this as somehow proving that the idea that modern art is not real art. For example, how can a child's rambling be considered as socially relevent or even aesthetically pleasing? I say however, that the very fact that we live in a world where a child's scribble can be appreciated as art and be interpreted by adults as somehow being a critique of society, is something we should all treasure. It does not make a mockery of "art" - it elevates it as the great equaliser. When Elephant art is exhibited in galleries across the world, we must admire the universality and inclusiveness of artistic endeavour - where no one is left out, and even the most "mediocre" are given a voice. When art is an embodiment of society; no more will the elites be able to determine who joins their club as to what is "good".
So, the notion that good art can somehow be objectively ascertained is as ludicrous as it is simple minded. Of course, people who run art galleries would like us to think that a Picasso is more valuable than a two year old's scribble. However, in this world we are all authors. All of us artists. When we read Shakespeare - we are not only reading words - we are creating a world in our head, we are creating a way of reading it, we are being creative - we are all authors. I've often said that perhaps it is the INTENTION that makes the art what it is. If the author actually intended it to be art, well then it is art - if he or she or it intended it to make a social point - to interract with society, to challenge our beliefs, and lift our consciousness, well then god damn it - it is art.
So, we at the Australian Voice bring you the classic work of the post-modern artist doMad, who spent its entire life trying to challenge the way we thought about life from inception to death. The example below you may think is just a crudely constructed 'piece of crap' - that is your imperative (and indeed, you have made yourself an author in the process by reading it that way), but the study guide provided with the work makes you understand how truly inspirational and prophetic this person was. We can only mourn the loss of doMad who eight years to this day, emboldened by its artistic genius, gave its life in pursuit of the truth of the individual as author. doMad is the true embodiment of art as democracy in its purist sense - giving hope to all that the public sphere will really allow everyone their say in art.
INVERTED PAPER CLIP ON POST IT
doMad 1993
The unmistakable work of post-modern non-gendered genius doMad, this 1993 masterpiece from its "I don't give a fuck" period demonstrates a stunning ability to capture the zeitgeist of a world struggling with issues of right and wrong, identity and spelling, in a word and powerpoint driven, post-recession mileau of noveau riche "greed is good." It is also a biting critique of modern office life.
Positing an impeccably designed, symmetrically outlined Post It with a paper clip inverted and distorted in shape personifies this post-modern confusion and destruction of all identity. The violence of this contrast is also prophetic of the late 1990s massacres by disgruntled, disenfranchised and ultimately disembodied students throughout America. Students who were unable and not allowed to "fit into" the constructed, symmetrical, fascist, two dimensional world that the school system (represented by the post it) imposed on their inverted personalities (represented by the paper clip).
Visually appealing, with a masterful "contrast" of yellows, doMad deconstructs the notional fiction that humans are special unique individuals. As it said:
"We are all just in the same fucked up world with the same shit all attitude. We're all just water, flesh, GOO, inner intestines and stuff, but in different shades of yellow."
But the work itself triumphs as a bastion of individual endeavour, undermining its author's constructed pretensions about its importance and the importance of the work to a society still getting over the post-grunge post-nirvana alienation of that generation. Even in its own conception and analysis it contains a furious antithesis of ideas about humanity as it approaches post-humanism.
Obviously, we are only scratching the surface in this commentary of this masterpiece. Indeed, the intellectual weight of this priceless classic no doubt precipitated doMad's suicide when it underwent a Do It Yourself non gender re-allignment surgery.
STALE FASHION PARODIED BRILLIANTLY IN ZOOLANDER
Zoolander was one of the greatest films last year, simply because it was so incisive. We had in the writing and direction a complete understanding of modern design and aesthetics, particularly in fashion. The whole "derelicte" range that is created by the megalomaniac fashion designer is a corker simply because it is so prevalent in high fashion. We constantly see the dress of lower classes incorporated into high fashion art. This almost devalues the existence of these people or like white boys that consume black rap, it makes a mockery of the experiences of those people. Ofcourse, borrowing from culture is something that fashion, like art must do. It taps into ideas and puts it into practice. Only recently, when Yves Sant Lauren retired did they say how revolutionary he was because he gave rise to the "women wearing pants" rather than dresses. The derelicte range in Zoolander is an hilarious parody of those with deep pockets who buy designer clothes that look just like what homeless people wear. In the real fashion world we had "heroin chique" - a way of life that took off in fashion. And it's really interesting how the world shapes fashion and art.
Look at the work for example of Larry Clark, the director of KIDS. In the early 1970s he came out with a doco-pictorial book called TULSA. There are quite a few shocking pics of people shooting up and it's pretty queasy and sad sometimes. There's even a picture of a pregnant woman shooting up. But the style of Tulsa's art finds its way into fashion and fashion advertising. KIDS too seems to be quoted quite a bit in fashion photography. The use of very scrawny almost under-age models for example, to sell products like perfume or underwear, has a Larry Clark sensibility to it - though stripped of the meaning that Clark gives it in his work. If heroin chic took place 20 years after Larry Clark documented the reality of addiction in TULSA, that says something about the creativity in fashion or maybe even sadly, the lack of progress society is making in producing ground breaking work.
MOVIES in BRIEF
Zoolander
Ben Stiller has been in some great films. He was also director of the dark and overlooked and prophetic comedy "cable guy". Zoolander is far sillier and within the first two minutes, the film had me hooked and I was laughing almost constantly throughout. The dialogue was sharp, witty, empeccably delivered and while fundamentally stupid in intention, the film contains a strange amount of depth. There are some excellent send ups of recent movies. The whole dad/son relationship thing is played out brilliantly, and I think it's October Sky that is particularly given the parodic treatment. The overuse of reflections off mirrors in most films at times when a character has a "subjective breakdown" is also given a top notch overt send up (but at the same time is saying something about our society). Derek Zoolander is a dumb male model - of course, he doesn't realise it and amongst his model friends (there's a film clip 80s homo undertone section that even parodies that type of film hehehehe), there is a complete dumb world created - oblivious to how stupidly they think. But as with Dude Where's My Car, the movie reassures the audience that it's cool whatever you are and there is a strong sense of humanity behind Stiller's creation which lifts the work above being merely fluff. I suppose that has been the constant hollywood theme, probably because of a strong post-holocaust Jewish influence.
The premise and joke of Ben Stiller's character works on a number of levels given that Ben Stiller isn't exactly model material - but he becomes this character so convincingly. In particular, his many looks, the most famous of which "blue steel" is worth the entry price. Anyone who has picked up Face, or Vanity Fair and see the way fashion has infiltrated society would appreciate the parody. In particular, the way high fashion just completely sucks out poor fashion trends and turns them into expensive designer clothes. The "derelicte" concept is truly funny because it is so true to the fashion industry. If anyone remembers the "hip" show put on by a young urban crew at the Sydney Fashion shows that featured rats on the walk-way would not stop laughing at the creations in Zoolander. So the movie is a parody of an industry that pastiches. Very Postmodern.
Another good thing about the film are the constant star cameos in this movie that at times you can't keep up. The derelict in the movie is a highlight (and another great thing about the script is it's well thought out in the sense that it links characters with the theme of the fashion show, sort of predicting things that Spielberg does so well in his films).
To conclude, Zoolander succeeds because in its stupid way, it says something about our world, about our values but does it with such deftness that it doesn't manipulate but make us aware. Ben Stiller's performance is brilliant and he has a strong supporting cast and a keen eye for direction. I recommend this movie even though critics in Australia seem to have universally panned it. To fully enjoy this movie, I recommend watching the following films:
* October Sky
* The Manchurian Candidate (must watch this, it's always relevant
and Angela Lansbury is brilliant)
* Space Odyssey, monkey section only. This is not integral
though, because it's just part of the silliness.
* Any film where when a character breaks down, there's always a
mirror, a cracked mirror, etc. Mirrors work in this film on a
number of comic levels.
75/100
Don't Say A Word
I liked this film. A good piece of escapist fun. A thriller with some pretty good performances that as usual with these types of film, stretch the limit of credibility so much that it's impossible not to laugh at it. The ending is one of those big restoration gems that Hollywood still does better than anyone else - I dare anyone not to laugh out loud at that.
65/100
Some Like it Hot
A classic Billy Wilder film. This one features Marilyn Monroe, and there is no doubt as to why she is considered a big star. Basically two best friends, musicians and losers with no money, get mixed up with the mob in pre-depression alcohol prohibited america. They disguise themselves as women and the plot thickens. The real surprise here is in the way in which this movie ends and the way in which one of the male leads feels increasingly comfortable in his new found role. For a movie from a more conservative era, it's funny that one of the classics of cinema has this plot development.
80/100
HEDWIG and the ANGRY INCH
And while we're on a gender bending movie watching streak, Hedwig takes the cake. A transvestite, living in East Germany comes to America with an American GI who wanted him to have a sex change operation (which was botched, as we discover in one of the songs). The American GI leaves her, and s/he writes songs. Hedwig then falls for a teenage boy, who is a fundamentalist christian. The boy happens to copy all of Hedwig's songs, becomes a major pop star (placebo-esque) and hedwig sues. The movie is inventive - i don't know if it's wholly original. The whole gender thing has been done (what constitutes a man). It certainly is more shocking in parts than anything before it (well, even that's a lie). And some of the songs are funny because they're so wierd and shocking. Though the mass of critical raves doesn't mean this movie doesn't suffer from being too long, and the songs get a bit too much by the end of the film. This film supposedly re-invents the rock musical. I can't see that (another reason why we should be wary of film critics), but it still is a pretty good film.
70/100