A few years ago, Adrien Brody descended upon Hong Kong for the opening of a quasi- high-end Japanese restaurant, The Seafood Room in Causeway Bay. The walls were studded with his paintings, heralding an era where we were meant to revere Brody not as the actor, but as the artist.
Now I'm not saying the art foisted on the 8000-10,000 sq metre top level (well, it was on a high floor...) restaurant has anything to do with the closure of said restaurant, but it certainly didn't help. Staring at the wall as the gathering crowd ooh and aahed at the Hollywood actor's work, my face, that comes with subtitles, said too much. When I had a first look at the generously prime positioned framed artwork, my initial thoughts are my enduring ones. What is the big deal...
The hordes of socialites circulating the room were dying for a picture with him. True to form, Brody radiated a "holier-than-thou" air, reluctantly agreeing to the occasional selfie depending on how aggressive the asker was... or important she/he looked. You would think a man with an Academy Award under his belt could at least feign interest - if not a glint of a smile - at his own secondary career launch as auteur 'n' actor, but that was a stretch of the imagination.
Now I might seriously be wrong of course as the man has fab press, a cover story in Interview, and NY Times (my holy grail) did a lengthy feature on the man and his art... but, but for his celebrity, would the canvases get much mileage on the precious real-estate cover of a glossy magazine?!
At the time, I was working at Prestige magazine, and we had secured an exclusive cover shoot and interview with him previously, so he was 'friend of the mag' and I couldn't go whole hog on how much I disliked his work. But I could resist all mention of it in copy; death by omission. I cannot recall who conducted the interview with the actor, but there were attempts to skirt around his artwork to focus on his acting - which is considerably, consistently better. He went on to win another Oscar a decade later and (in-) famously gave the most grueling and boring speech in Academy history. However, fully trained in the machinery of PR and hype, Brody predictably tried to circle back to his canvasses at the interview(s).
Truth be told, the art was not terrible; it just wasn't great. We were barely two months out from Art Basel Hong Kong, where we had been witness to genuinely exceptional global art. The trouble with celebrities - particularly Hollywood stars when they deign to grace us in "little old HK" - is that the juggernaut of their PR machinery forces everyone to genuflect before the silver screen Gods, whether we want to or not, and swallow whatever they are selling.
Fortunately, at the time, we (the editorial staff) were led by an able editor, Christina Ko, who was notoriously intolerant of idiocy and false celebrity that made her an exceptional editor at Prestige, and persona non grata at Tatler. But that's another story. We were equally empowered by our then-publisher, Anne Lim-Chapman, who rarely bothered with copy unless it directly threatened ad sales. Blissfully, the feature was not a sponsored piece, giving our writers the rare freedom to say what they actually thought of the work. Well, it exists. It is out there. And it was not to our taste.
I was covering the restaurant opening and somewhat having fun as we knew who was in the mix; free flow of champagne and caviar (both I hate), but the people were lovely. It was also a great place to observe even those predisposed with great fortune, meeting great fame. They fawned and bobble-headed their agreement with everything said by said celeb. That assignment left me with immense sympathy for the invited press, who are routinely forced to nod along politely while Hollywood stars reveal their "deep, soulful" side projects. Enslaved to advertising, Hong Kong media, particularly glossy magazines, refrain from genuine criticism as everyone's so lawyer-'d up.
Adrien Brody is far from the only actor who insists on trading the script for a paintbrush.
If you have ever had to cover a celebrity gallery opening, you will recognise this varied lineup of Hollywood talent turned amateur painters and artists:
Sylvester Stallone: Known for his bold, expressionist canvases—frequently featuring Rocky—that have somehow found their way into retrospective museum shows. Well, it is colourful. I can say that... But is it any good?? I'm glad it gives him comfort - art therapy is legit - but is the art?!
Jim Carrey: Produces hyper-vibrant, large-scale abstract works and political cartoons in his vast studio, complete with dramatic video documentaries capturing his process. He's been widely critiqued for going "full method" for Man on the Moon. The reviews for the film were kinder than for his artwork.
Pierce Brosnan: A former commercial illustrator whose pop-art style portraits have managed to fetch impressive sums at charity auctions. It is an investment in celebrity that surprises me but then, I guess gentlemen prefer Bonds.
Anthony Hopkins: Paints vivid, dreamlike landscapes and surrealist portraits, fully leaning into a vibrant, chaotic colour palette. More bollocks than Pollack.
Johnny Depp: Sells pop-art style prints depicting his heroes and friends, driving online servers to crash within hours of release. In fear of his fandom and army, I refrain from further comment.
Lucy Liu: Exhibiting under her Chinese name, Yu Ling, for years before revealing her identity, she creates intricate ink paintings, collages, and fiber art. The canvases I've seen online are larger than her petite frame.. and there is paint on paper. I'm sure her Charlie's Angels co-stars and "sisters" would approve, but it looks incomplete, jejune, a word I learned in GCSE French that I've been dying to use since the 90s.
Brad Pitt: Though primarily focused on sculpture, his recent body of work debuted alongside musician Nick Cave in a Finnish museum. It's... about as successful as his marriage(s).
Macaulay Culkin: Co-founded an art collective called 33 Thomas Street, producing quirky, pop-culture-infused multimedia art. Note how often 'pop culture' refs and celebrity intertwine when it comes to their artwork. Their frame of reference is often limited as is the literacy.
Jemima Kirke: An accomplished painter with a BFA from RISD, specialising in intimate, pastel-hued portraiture.... it does look like the work of an A-level student praying she'll pass the course.
Viggo Mortensen: A true polymath whose abstract paintings were famously featured in the film A Perfect Murder, his art work is like his spotty box-office; a hit and a miss.
Seth Rogen: While technically a ceramicist rather than a painter, his colourful, wavy pottery and ash trays come with a soundtrack, his signature laugh. It's fine... no one is wow-ed by it. Not even Owen Wilson. PS: The Studio is the best damn comedy online right now.
Celebrity art isn't all bad - just because you've attained recognition in one field doesn't automatically disqualify you from other talents [Carrie "Princess Leia" Fisher was a fine actor and an exceptional observational writer and wit] but, when it is mid... it is often plain awful.
I'm sure many of you like the work of the mentioned above, and the hardcore fans hate us for this piece and truly, art remains so intensely subjective that no critic can state a definitive fact - we can only muster an opinion. Because we have eyes.
BTW there are others, in the hall of cine-fame and art shame, shout out to Dan Mahboubian Rosen;
