#2 — The artist as celebrity, Google Street View as archive, the Oscars as an arena of vicarious projection for the average uninspired American
Marina Abramović’s new skincare line actually makes perfect sense.
I’m a few days late this week but at least I’m posting….that’s what matters!!!!!!
1. Longevity Method, Marina Abramović’s new skincare line
“In this age of screens, our souls seek the simplicity of the past,” Abramović proclaims in her new skincare line’s promotional reel:
Some publications — Highsnobiety, Hyperallergic — have alluded to the wellness stint as being her latest act of performance art, but the artist has not conceded the point.
The Financial Times visited Abramović and her long-time mentor, Dr Nonna Brenner, at the latter’s “longevity centre,” the Centre of Health & Prophylaxis in Austria. Abramović claims that Brenner, through her use of leeches, cured her Lyme disease when no one else could. “When Nonna put the leeches on me, which I had never seen used before, this kind of dark black jelly came out of my belly.” It’s kind of beautiful that, in this moment, Abramović’s body expelled toxins in the form of a “dark black jelly” reminiscent of the activated charcoal mask that the average girl will intentionally don to remove toxins from her skin.
Highsnobiety found her foray into skincare to be an “unexpected” move for the artist:
“The performance artist is gearing up to release a line of beauty and wellness products including skincare and supplements — a rather unexpected departure for a woman whose work explores themes like gender, death, and pain.”
Personally, I think this is thematically consistent for Abramović — after all, the wellness industry predicates itself upon the themes of “gender, death, and pain”: gender — women, rather than men, are expected to spend money, time, and mental resources to look presentable; death — anti-aging is merely a synonym for fear of death; and pain — getting waxed isn’t exactly the most pleasant feeling, “beauty is pain,” etc.
Abramović’s invocation of “the machine” feels particularly significant — it reminds me of that guy, Bryan Johnson (46), who went viral for spending millions of dollars a year to attempt to reduce his biological age to 18:
Johnson is actually a tech entrepreneur. “Our true longevity isn’t in machines, but in ancient knowledge,” Abramović proselytizes in her promotional reel. They’re both essentially trying to reverse aging (perhaps to feel closer to that ancient knowledge?). Ironically, without machines — read: advances in science and technology — neither of their regimens would be possible in the first place.
2. The Oscars as an arena of vicarious projection for the average uninspired American
On Wednesday, in the wake of the Oscars committee declining to bestow upon Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie the sacred nominations — what many Barbieheads have considered a misogynistic snub — Hillary Clinton posted the following:
Why do so many people care about Oscar nominations? Like it’s not you getting nominated…you’re not winning anything…of course, there is the identity politics angle, but I think this goes deeper than that.
I have this theory that the Oscars are an avatar for the average uninspired American consumer’s mundane, hapless, hopeless life. This life generates uncomfortable feelings that are difficult to confront: perhaps the sense that they’ve been neglected, that they’ve failed to accomplished what they’ve strived so hard to do, that the world has overlooked them and declined to give them their due — according to a study done by the Pew Research Center in 2023, more Americans say life for people like them is worse today than it was 50 years ago. Psychic self-laceration is painful — but sublimating these feelings into anger at your favorite actor being passed over for an Oscar nomination is decidedly less so. You still get to be angry — finally! the mental relief! — but there is a degree of separation that shields you from having to feel that anger directly, on your own behalf.
In this way, the Oscars — or the Emmys, or the Grammys, whatever — are a “safe space” for Americans to project their negative feelings onto a third party and allow themselves to feel self-righteous indignance when their favorite celebrities are passed over for what they deserve. The Hillary Tweet is a perfect example of this — she still has not gotten over her quite frankly embarrassing loss to Trump (sad!) — and she takes this opportunity to insert herself into the dialogue to allay her inescapable feelings of loss. I told my therapist about my theory and she says it’s a “pretty good” one, so make of that what you will.
3. Celebrity reactions to the Schiaparelli show
Earlier this week, my feed was congested with this video of Hunter Schafer, Zendaya, and Jennifer Lopez reacting to the Schiaparelli couture spring 2024 show (I can’t find the original post but this is what it was) —
The video literally crops out the actual look that they are “reacting” to, so you don’t even get to see what is evoking the reaction — the purported “subject” of the show. Of course, in the contemporary fashion show the relationship is inverted: the celebrities are the subject, and fashion is the object. I have nothing against Hunter, Zendaya, or Jennifer, but why does it matter to anyone how they feel about the show? You wouldn’t ask a random layperson on the street what they thought about it. Can people not form their own opinions anymore? Through branded partnerships, we’re instructed what to wear. Now — and I know this isn’t new just this season, but I think it’s gotten a lot more common in recent history, and will become even more so — we’re (tacitly) being instructed what to think. I seriously think whoever consumes fashion in this way is severely lacking in self-awareness, among other things...but more on this another time. If anyone wants to read Fashion and Celebrity Culture with me, please DM…..
4. The artist as celebrity
A GQ article featuring Anna Weyant, rising painter and girlfriend of famed gallery titan Larry Gagosian, came out yesterday. The writer mentions what Weyant wore to attend LACMA’s Art + Film Gala late last year:
"For the evening, Dolce & Gabbana dressed the 28-year-old Weyant in a sheer black mesh dress, floor-length and dotted with crystals. A pair of black satin high-rise panties and a matching plunge bra would be plainly visible underneath. With this ensemble, her butter blond coif, and delicately contoured features, Weyant would, perhaps, look more like a young actress than a humble New York painter."
She was dressed by Dolce & Gabbana? You mean the same fashion brand that sponsored Kourtney Kardashian’s entire wedding? That’s so cute — maybe we’ll get lucky and she’ll become a brand ambassador, too!!
5. Jon Rafman mining poetry from Google Street View
I love the idea of repurposing existing material — image, film (collage films), text (found poetry) — to create new artwork. It’s very Surrealist. I just recently found out about the artist Jon Rafman’s project, 9 Eyes, where he captured moments he found on Google Street View taken by the robotic Google camera.
There’s a great archived New York Times interview with Rafman where he discusses the project, speaking of the disconnect between the traditional notion of a photograph — taken by a human — and one taken by a machine:
“There’s something inherently exciting knowing that you might be the first person to ever gaze upon a scene that happened in the past. It’s almost like looking at a memory that nobody really had. Photographs are so connected to human memory, but these are photographs of no one’s memories…”
The project began around 2007/2008, and the last photo posted was about three years ago, so I’m not sure if it’s still being updated — but it’s aged so beautifully in the rapidly accelerating Internet landscape we occupy, where every moment is contrived and performed and orchestrated — it’s impossible to be organic when you know you’re being watched. Rafman says:
“There’s something about the camera that gives respect to the subject being photographed, something about the fact that it is this robotic gaze restores this balance that I feel like would be exploitative if it were a human photographer taking the picture. Even more sentimental images, like of a couple kissing, which I would think would be cheesy now, or clichéd — somehow the fact that it was captured by a robot spontaneously, by chance, restores a certain balance to the image.”
The Google robot does not stage anything. It is not instructing its subject to perform for any one of its nine (now 15) cameras. It is not manufacturing a moment that subscribes to any particular subjective editorial agenda. That’s what makes its output so sincere.
i agree with ur therapist i think this is a pretty good theory