First: With regard to the paintings themselves, simply repeating press-release hype isn’t healthy for anyone. It happens all the time that artists get stuck doing whatever first brought them success, and dealers or marketers encourage them to just do the same thing because it’s the easiest thing to sell, thereby undermining what could be a more enduring career. This is patently false. Art and art critique is entirely about repeating press-release hype, particularly if you're writing for ArtNet. This is very much as if eBay wrote an article saying "Beanie Babies are hyped and not worth collecting, as the hype is part of the art." I mean, yes? But eBay doesn't exist without Beanie Babies, and art doesn't exist without hype. This is ArtNet arguing that the art itself lacks value because the value is in the TikTok posts. Which, also, duh. But the whole of the article makes the point that art such as this is flash-in-the-pan bullshit and that any collector might as well go buy jpegs. So the surprise at the backlash is disingenuous, particularly when the artist straight-up calls out the author for "gatekeeping." Which is exactly what he's doing. That's all fine art is, really; does Charles Saatchi vouch for it? Well then it's worth a bajillion dollars. Try and explain Warhol's valuations to the Instagram audience, I dare you. That's the whole point: if rich people think it's worth money and you don't, then it's worth money. They are rich, therefore their tastes are refined, and the further from your tastes their tastes are, the more refined they are. UTA spent a lot of money to convince the public that their flash-in-the-pan street busker was actually a prima ballerina because UTA is all about convincing the public. The art world went "nah" because the art world is all about eschewing the public. I reckon Ben Davis doesn't much write for the public, or he'd realize that his whole role in this affair, as far as UTA and Devon Rodriguez are concerned, is to make Youtube Reaction Face to his brilliance. Except I think Ben Davis knows this, and knows that the hoi polloi losing their minds over the fact that Maxfield Parrish still isn't a "true artist" is the whole schtick. Rich people get to anoint their artists while alive by buying early and selling to their hangers on (IE, the crypto ICO model). Poor people get to anoint their artists by pointing out that their shit is still good when they're decades dead. That's a David Hockney. It sold for $26m in 2020. That's a Bob Ross. They sat in PBS offices around the US until the early 2000s, when the wave of nostalgia finally convinced some to try selling them on the open market to make ends meet. Ben Davis is in the business of telling the world that the David Hockney is worth $26m and the Bob Ross is not for the express purpose of pissing off Devon Rodriguez fans, so that David Hockney fans can see how unlike Devon Rodriguez fans they are celebrate their fine appreciation of Jeff Koons and gossip about bananas duct-taped to the wall of Art Basel which is in Miami for grift purposes.Quite a few people posted variations on, “what is even the point of art critics?” So let me say what purpose an article like the one I wrote might serve.
That brings me to the second point, which is where the case of Devon Rodriguez is specifically interesting. Basically, I’m arguing that we should think of his social media posts as part of his practice, to be reviewed in and of themselves. These are, after all, not just how he got famous; in some sense they are what he is really famous for. And they are in many cases clearly staged.
Was he really arguing that the art lacks value, though? That's certainly how Rodriguez seems to have received it, but the original review seems to be more making the (obvious) point that the social media channel and performative use thereof is a core element of his work. And that is of interest if it hasn't been the subject of much commentary on Rodriguez' work before. Which it clearly hasn't, given Rodriguez' and his fans' reaction. Which makes Davis' observation that simply repeating press release hype isn't healthy for anyone apt I would think (and let's be honest, it's only Artnet).
I largely agree with rezzeJ but, of course, feel the need to elaborate. You're right - "it's only Artnet." But what, then, is Artnet? I would argue it's the venue between eBay and Philips; it's the place for people who recognize they don't know much about art but want to know more. It's for people who go to regional gallery openings and probably own a past catalog or two but there's nobody at Christie's calling them up telling them that it would be in their interests to attend the sale in London next week. It is, in other words, exactly the venue that validates Devon Rodriquez and those like him. And that's where the hustle is, frankly - if you're one of Damien Hirst's galley slaves you are either up or out (mostly out). If you're Saatchi adjacent you have no worries. If you're anywhere else you're a small potatoes regional artist unless you have substantial hustle and a decent commercial appeal - Hipgnosis makes money. Thomas Kinkade made money. David Wyland makes money. But the more money they make the less "art" they are, ask any art critic. So the hustle is a given. The question becomes what part is hustle and what part is art? Warhol transcended. But he also made movies and was in photographs; those don't go for nearly as much as his paintings because the paintings are the art. Klein transcended. He also made movies and was in photographs, but if it isn't International Klein Blue it isn't worth nearly as much. Banksy threaded the needle in ways nobody else has: his stuff goes for lots of money but without the hustle it'd be nothing. The world is awash in graffiti artists trying to catch some of that Banksy magic but so far, there's only one. The important question is whether the value of David Rodriguez is in the painting of the Tiktok video. 'cuz if it's in the Tiktok video? There's no value. None. Tiktok is ephemera. But if it's in the painting? 'member Vine? There were Vine stars. There were Vine influencers. And now there aren't. Is TikTok here forever? I mean fundamentally Tiktok is Vine with the massive revenue gap plugged by the Chinese Communist Party propaganda machine. As soon as Xi stops getting what he wants out of TikTok it's a fucking memory. And so, argues Ben Davis, is Devon Rodriguez. - Technically okay, but only okay - Subway tropes are nothing new - There's nothing to differentiate his work from anyone else's - And what value is in the TikTok is eroding, by the way, due to the fact that it's clearly a schtick I maintain that the "goodness me! Look how outraged the artist and his hoi polloi are!" is 100% calculated and banked on. It proves Davis' point: if he were a real artist, his benefactors wouldn't be so uncouth. And see, here's the thing. This is what Devon Rodriguez' fans are consuming: They're all thinking I would stop and listen to Joshua Bell because my tastes are refined. Far more than every other lunkhead watching this very video on Youtube for these exact reasons. It allows them to feel cultured without recognizing that they have no clue who Joshua Bell is, what Joshua Bell is playing, or anything about classical music beyond a miasma of Amadeus, Stradivarius, "duh duh duh DUMMMMM" and waving batons around. Nobody gives a shit about painting anymore either but if you add a schlub on a subway you get to pretend you're cultured. Ben Davis popped that balloon, popped it good, and popped it knowing full well the outcome of its loud bang.
I think he is. The original review and follow-up are not making the point that the social media element is a core element of his work, but rather the core element. Davis' says things like the work is not presented in an "actual gallery." Describes his work as "conventional" and a hand in one of the works as looking "like a small rotisserie chicken." Beyond saying that Rodriguez is a good a technical painter, Davis doesn't really say anything much positive that would imply he thinks the works have value. Really, both articles pretty clearly state that the paintings don't have enough value to stand on their own merit, and are instead only popular due to the way Rodriquez has marketed them. Which Davis' then presents that as problematic due to the fact that the situations are faked. So if he thinks the work is lacklustre, and then also find Davis' social media problematic, then he's essentially calling the whole thing shite. Then he acts surprised about backlash from his fans...Was he really arguing that the art lacks value, though?...the original review seems to be more making the (obvious) point that the social media channel and performative use thereof is a core element of his work.