It has been ever thus: men, especially those of a certain age, become unhinged at the sight of a young woman in her underwear. We know and accept this, always with the hope, however, that this derangement won't interfere with their professionalism. Compared with how Monica Lewinsky and her thong affected history, an art exhibition is a minor event—yet Klaus Biesenbach, who organized Laurel Nakadate’s “Only the Lonely” at PS 1 (through August 8) and Ken Johnson who reviewed it enthusiastically in yesterday’s Times (but is still wondering if Christian Marclay’s brilliant The Clock could be just a “stunt,” see post below), might have considered that they were not thinking entirely with their heads.
While she also exhibited videos (such as one I found particularly mean-spirited, of herself dancing like Britney Spears in front of desperately lonely men), most annoying is 365 Days: A Catalogue of Tears (2010), where Nakadate worked up a state of sadness for a portion of each day, and then photographed herself—posing in her undies and often topless—before, after or during the shedding of supposedly real tears. Johnson asks, sensibly enough, “Since she is a fit and attractive woman in her mid-30s who has an M.F.A. from Yale and is now enjoying this retrospective, you might wonder what she has to be so lachrymose about,“ but then backtracks by saying, “A more sympathetic view is that she has been tapping into a river of grief and loneliness running under the surface of American life.” Now there’s a sentence that begs for amplification and justification: just what “river of grief and loneliness” is Johnson talking about anyway? And why the requirement to be sympathetic?In her work, this poor girl who has so much she must force herself to feel unhappy every day, makes a mockery of real sadness. While writing this I’ve been talking with a good friend whose aunt just died, and who is attempting to comfort his beloved 92-year-old grandparents. Do we want to see the pictures? Try glamorizing that scenario.
Despite its weak theme, the installation is impressive: framed in white and hung gallery-style in symmetrical rows that march toward an archway, these richly colored photographs turn the high-ceilinged rooms into a semblance of a Renaissance palace, streamlined for the 21st century. What’s really sad is that without Nakadate moping in them, most of the images could stand on their own. It’s pathetic that, given the times, artists feel the necessity to overlay perfectly good photography with art school conceits. Plus, whatever happened to subtlety? There are more evocative ways to convey sadness than the cliché of someone in tears.
The other really sad part is that if Nakadate were to have made herself happy every day, the results might actually have been interesting—but “happy,” unfortunately, is not very arty.
My conclusion is that this girl needs a job! Her next “performance” should be one where she photographs herself 365 days a year working in a convenience store. Marina Abramovic she is not.
Installation view, Laurel Nakadate "Only the Lonely," courtesy of the Museum of Modern Art, PS1.
Comments
Thank you.
Great opinionated review. I don't understand h...
A good question is.....why does so much art look a...
(just kidding, -- not really!)
AP
You could insert sexy skin because you'd do it...
But wait, it just occurred to me...perhaps this is an attempt to conflate two careers, lingerie model and conceptual artist, or maybe she's crying because she doesn't have any clothes, in which case, I'd be sad too! Maybe we should start a drive...
You are on fire with this review. I agree, 365 day...
~the other "anonymous"
I read the review in the Times and have been think...
Love it Carol! In this day and age to have a woma...
Laurel Nakadate admits to having a "safe"...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2011%2F02%2F17%2FMV2S1HMTDJ.DTL
I wonder if her sadness was real, if that would have made a difference in the overall piece?
Interesting that the Lynda Benglis show is up at t...
You said it perfectly, and put a smile on my face ...
brings to mind the old threat: stop that crying or...
When I read about Laurel Nakadate, I had just fini...
Sheesh.
I think she needed sadness as her gimmick -I mean ...
The real sadness will come when she has to be 'sad' in order to maintain her brand. "Oh, right, you're that chick who's really sad, I know you."
Oh my God, Thank You. An essay I wrote on this sh...
you ask why this girl gets attention? Well look a...
Very talented girl, I admire her works
This show is probably the worst thing I've eve...
I walked in the wrong door and read nothing about ...
The other parts of the show were awful - or great because I almost never have such a visceral reaction. The sexy pin up pose pictures that she invited a group of men from craigslist to handle & get fingerprints on looked good, but the process is egomaniacal and unkind. All the skits and photos she forced upon older lonely looking men seemed egomaniacal and unkind. Who does that to people? And why is her need to be the sexy focus of sexual tension and attention so great that she has to force it upon the most vulnerable men AND THEN on gallery viewers?
I'm really sorry I went to this exhibit alone. I desperately needed someone to talk with afterwards.
Whether or not the sadness is real is one issue, b...
Add new comment