Courtney Love’s And She’s Not Even Pretty opened today at New York’s Fred Torres Collaborations.


http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t...courtney-1.jpg


You already know whether you’re going to like Courtney Love’s visual art. This is not to say that And She’s Not Even Pretty, the first-ever exhibition of her drawings, at New York’s Fred Torres Collaborations, is a celebrity vanity project with no value beyond the name attached to it — although some will inevitably judge it as such. What I mean is that Love’s art is exactly like her music; either you love it for its unflinching expression of all-out female id-ego-superego chaos or you hate it for being the self-involved ramblings of an out-of-control woman who can’t decide whether fame is a chronic illness or the only worthy goal in life.


http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog..._painting3.jpg


For those, like me, who fall into the former category, And She’s Not Even Pretty is an illuminating visual companion to the music of Hole. Courtney Love’s lyrics revolve around a small and specific constellation of images: torn dresses, smeared makeup, perfect and irreparably flawed bodies, disheveled beds, stars of the literal and Hollywood varieties, various debauched scenes and people. In both her life and work, Love always seems to be oscillating between destructive punk-rock rage and cosseted Victorian femininity, the nervous breakdown and the head-to-toe makeover that’s supposed to give her a clean slate (but never does). She’s always — often rightfully — bemoaning the artificial world of celebrities while lusting after its jeweled tiaras and empty promises of universal adoration.


http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3...18glo1_500.jpg


These are the contradictions that rule her drawings, made over the past year or so in colored pencil, graphite, and pastel layered on so thickly and smudged so freely you might mistake it for lipstick. At the center of each image is a woman — usually yellow-haired, almost always beautiful. Some are billed as pictures of famous blondes (Amy Phelan, “Gwyneth”), but even the ones that aren’t self-portraits feel like them. Reminiscent both of fashion sketches and cartoons, these are the kind of slim but curvy, wide-eyed, full-lipped avatars that an awkward high-schooler aspiring to be popular might draw.


http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3...mhko1_1280.jpg


Despite their girlish style, these pieces are more complex than they look. Many of the women in the pictures appear consumed by decadent misery; others are bleeding or even dying (some representative titles include La Mort de Courtney and And Then She Jumped into the Hudson). A lipstick-stained white Galliano wedding gown with the words “NOT MY **** ON MY DIME MOTHER” embroidered on it is lacy and delicate, but explodes with uncontrollable anger. (According to Sound of the City, the dress was meant for Love’s wedding to Edward Norton, which never happened, and the piece is not for sale.) Walking through the show, as in listening to Hole, you realize that in Courtney Love’s world, there can be no beauty without violence and self-loathing.


http://www.papermag.com/uploaded_ima...I_Am_20122.jpg


But it’s not just the darkness that gives this work depth. There’s self-awareness and surprisingly perceptive humor, too, two attributes that Love has never gotten enough credit for. Most of the images come accompanied by text, often apparently self-mocking snatches of Nirvana, Hole, and even Smashing Pumpkins lyrics. “I’m a celebrity, get me out of here,” reads the reality TV-referencing caption above the head of a blonde crying blood. The words, “But don’t you know who I am,” are scrawled across the bottom. A large, bright, attention-grabbing picture of a distressed, naked woman with a giant purse proclaims, in frantic, red-and-orange capital letters, “SHE HAD 42 BIRKIN BAGS.” It reads like a tongue-in-cheek epitaph, a bitterly funny depiction of ridiculous rich-bitch problems that also looks a whole lot like getting what you want and never wanting it again.


Flavorwire

Originally Posted by LemonJam (Post 5117804) it's very... studenty.

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 5142165) This stuff is no better or worse than the crap Tracey Emin churns out, but as Emin spent years at art college (******* knows what she did there all that time), her "art" is taken more seriously. She even represented the UK at the Venice Biennalle a couple of years back. Honestly... Tracey Emin was the best representation of British artistic talent we could come up with. I don't mind Courtney Love, I quite like Hole and I'm not that offended by a creative person having an art show off the back of their other work.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 5142176) I like Hole too. This whole calling everything "Art" puzzles me though......maybe I'm just not cultured enough to appreciate the more Bizarre stuff, usually I end up thinking my 8 year old could do a better job :laugh:

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 5142182) I know what you mean. I visited the Museum of Modern Art last time I saw in New York and just couldn't stop myself from saying "what a load of sh*t" out loud every thirty seconds. All the pretentious luvvies must have thought I was a real Philistine... which I probably am.

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva (Post 5142188) That's the thing about Art though isn't it? It's personal. We can't always appreciate the same things in the same way. As with any of the arts. Whether it be painting, sculpture, music, film. As for Tracey Emin, I find her works leave a lot to be desired, but she has many devoted followers, and always compels a lot of interest (not always for the right reasons). I, personally, am a big fan of Gilbert & George's work (not all series), but I bet a lot of other people regard them as a load of crap.

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 5142598) I agree about Gilbert and George. Where they differ from Emin for me is that it looks like art because it doesn't look like a child has done it. My earlier point about Tracey Emin was that, although lots of people could produce the same calibre of work that she does, because they haven't had their egos massaged year after year by a long line of art lecturers, their work isn't considered art at all. If I rocked up to the Tate Modern tomorrow morning with a pile of bricks they'd tell me to sling my hook. If Tracey Emin turned up with a pile of bricks they'd be crapping themselves and hugging each other with delight.

Originally Posted by Mrluvaluva (Post 5142639) Personally, I totally agree in regards to most of her work. She has never particularly appealed to me. I was just making the point that a lot of people do seem to like her work, for whatever reasons unbeknownst to you or I.

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 5142746) Yes, I get what you're saying. My personal view though is that it's because they're pretentious and want us all to think they know something about art that we don't. There is a lot of modern art that I don't "get" but can see it good, but with Emin and a few others, I think some people pretend that something's there that we mere mortals who don't air-kiss and call each other "dahling" couldn't possibly understand - The Emperor's New Clothes syndrome. Now this might be me being cynical (surely not!) but I don't tend to read award-winning literature either because I find it pretentious and prefer a good story to something the Literati has decided is worthy of their praise.

Originally Posted by kizzy (Post 5143345) But surely this is lovely?... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/de...-unveiled.html