Rachael Maddux

rgr-pop:

resisting the urge to reblog to start shit with Writers or hurt feelings. but seriously, if you don’t think Lena Dunham benefited from nepotism when she got Index to back her first video project, which was A SERIES ABOUT THE ART WORLD that featured, among others, JOAN JONAS, IZAAC MIZRAHI, LINDA YABLONSKY, and got immediate press from Art in America, if you are arguing that Laurie Simmons isn’t influential based on the evidence that you don’t know who Laurie Simmons is, then whyyy are you writing about art?? if you don’t understand that “getting a job” works differently in the art world than it does at, say, Goldman Sachs, and that, yes, getting promised features in major art press because your mother is Laurie Simmons is by any definition nepotism, then you should not be writing about art. if you think “Carroll Dunham doesn’t have a wikipedia page” is good evidence that Carroll Dunham isn’t famous, then you obviously haven’t put up with the endless art press articles asking Where Is Art On Wikipedia??, and you shouldn’t be writing about art. when I started working at the art library, Robert Motherwell didn’t have a wikipedia page. Jeffrey Deitch doesn’t have a wikipedia page! Hilary Robinson doesn’t have a wikipedia page! some of my favorite artists don’t have wikipedia pages! (Pierrette Bloch, Jagoda Buic, Elaine Lustig, George Giusti, Kay Sekimachi, I just checked and Charles Pollock finally has a wikipedia page, which is new as of…like a few months ago.) that’s like An Issue in contemporary art circles! but they have monographs in libraries and are taught in art school and are written about in art press!

also Burn Every Dictionary, jesus fucking christ, we are GROWN-UPS.

okay bye.

I’m resisting the urge to not reblog this, for a couple reasons.

First, this is the internet. I can see you! And my feelings aren’t going to get hurt if you disagree with me. We are, as you say, adults.

More to the point, this is honestly the first time I’ve encountered a Dunham/”nepotism” argument that makes mention of that web series or Index or… any of that. That’s mostly why I’m replying, because I wan to cop to being wrong if I actually am wrong. All of the “Lena Dunham is popular because NEPOTISM” and “Girls castmates cast because NEPOTISM” arguments that I’ve seen have been like this one and this one where the thought process is clearly like “OK, unknown actresses with celebrity-ish parents—SOMETHING MUST BE AMISS.” Nothing more in-depth than that.

It’s totally true that I don’t know much/anything about the art world! Most people don’t. Most people (that I have encountered, at least, in real life and casually on the internet) who have been all gripey about Dunham and her success and her parents also do not know much/anything about the art world. The names of her parents do not mean much/anything to them. And I don’t think most people (most of the General Internet Denizens complaining about what they understand to be “nepotism,” at least) know much about what she did before Tiny Furniture or who might have backed what or been involved with what. Which is why it makes even less sense for the “nepotism” thing to be batted about as much as it has been.

The fact that the Girls cast so often gets dragged into the matter suggests to me that this all has way more to do with some weird general beef with celebrity kids (or some other more deeply buried issues with the show/what it represents) than anything about anyone’s actual biographies. For some people, the fact that she has parents who could be considered by anyone to be “famous” in any sphere is, I think, enough to write her off or dig in the claws.

It’s entirely possible that you are right about her benefitting from nepotism while The Internet is wrong about her benefitting from nepotism—you’re not working from the same base of evidence! Or even the same definition of the word! I really do think a lot of the people crying “nepotism” do not know what the word means and thinks it just has something to do with being a rich kid with famous parents. And actual nepotism does often go hand-in-hand with that! But that use of the word does not quite hit the mark here, for me.

The amount of time and brain-energy I’ve devoted to this matter today is now completely disproportionate to my actual interest and enthusiasm. I’m fried enough now that just found myself typing something insufferable like “I don’t care about Lena Dunham, I just care about LANGUAGE,” and… well, I guess that’s why I’ve even bothered in the first place? I don’t have a stake in Dunham’s career or her public image. The terminology of the discussion was just really bugging me. I do think words mean things and I value precision and accuracy. I don’t always hit those marks myself but I try and I want everyone else to try, too. Hopes, dreams, butterflies, etc.