July 18, 2009

ten questions for hazel dooney

Hazel-Dooney-DCB-RCD.jpg
[Hazel Doo­ney. Study For Dan­ge­rous Career Babe: The Race Car Dri­ver (Homage To Hellé Nice). 2009 Acry­lic on paper, 40cm x 52cm.]
Hazel Doo­ney is a young and VERY suc­cess­ful Aus­tra­lian Artist. From the blurb on her web­site:

In Decem­ber, 2007, Hazel Doo­ney was the only female artist under 30 with works inc­lu­ded in the pres­ti­gious auc­tion, Modern and Con­tem­po­rary Aus­tra­lian Art, held at Christie’s in Lon­don. In what was a record-setting sale, with major works by Brett Whi­tely, Arthur Stree­ton, Fre­de­rick McCub­bin, Syd­ney Nolan, Arthur Boyd, Fred Williams and Tra­cey Mof­fat, two modest early works by Doo­ney fetched over $AU23,000 each.

You get the idea. We follow each other on Twit­ter, we exchange the occa­sio­nal email. I’m a big fan. There are A LOT of artists online, but very few as smart, inte­res­ting, talen­ted, suc­cess­ful or as dri­ven as Hazel, so I thought a “Ten Ques­tions” ses­sion would be in order. She kindly agreed to answer.
TEN QUESTIONS FOR HAZEL DOONEY
1. I’ve desc­ri­bed your work to the non-initiated before as “Hard-Edge, Ero­tic Pop meets Tank Girl”. That’s a MASSIVE over­sim­pli­fi­ca­tion, of course. For the bene­fit of gaping­void rea­ders, could you tell us more about your work?
I love your desc­rip­tion of it – I think I’ll use it in the future. It cer­tainly desc­ri­bes the atti­tude that suf­fu­ses it. In Japan, artists like Takashi Mura­kami have been labe­lled Shock Pop and some cri­tics have inc­lu­ded me in that. At its core, my art’s about the way con­tem­po­rary women’s iden­ti­ties and sexua­lity are defi­ned by adver­ti­sing, enter­tain­ment, even com­mer­cial por­no­graphy. I’m no dif­fe­rent – which is why ver­sions of me turn up in nearly all my work. Moreo­ver, I try to repli­cate the phy­si­cal expe­rience of modern adver­ti­sing and enter­tain­ment media which is why my large ena­mel pain­tings are pro­du­ced in series (just like TV shows and ad cam­paigns).
In some ways, I want to make it har­der to tell art (or artist) from pro­duct. My works are, fun­da­men­tally, con­cep­tual – even if most, so far, have been pain­tings. But this’ll change over the next few years as I expe­ri­ment with other media.
2. You found suc­cess at a very early age. Was it skill? Luck? Talent? Bad Cra­zi­ness? How did it all come about?
Des­pe­ra­tion, pro­bably. I had a fairly lonely, intros­pec­tive childhood and an often crazy, drug– and boy-dependent youth so when I finally recog­ni­sed that I had a modi­cum of talent, I sei­zed upon it. And I was deter­mi­ned not to waste an ounce of it. I wor­ked bloody hard to put together a solid body of work – mostly large and in ena­mel (I was nothing if not ambi­tious). And when I felt ready to show it, I refu­sed to let anything or any­body get in my way. I paid for and pro­mo­ted my first shows myself and I learnt very quickly how to res­pond pro­fes­sio­nally to collec­tors and the press. I rea­li­sed that art was the key not to having some kind of suc­cess – although I wan­ted suc­cess very much – but to sur­vi­val. That drove me hard for ten years.
3. The rea­son you got my atten­tion ini­tially, was hea­ring about your deci­sion to bag the tra­di­tio­nal gallery route, ins­tead elec­ting to sell your work to collec­tors via online. Tell us a little bit about your busi­ness model. Tell us why you deci­ded to cir­cum­vent the gallery sys­tem. Tell us about what’s wor­king. Tell us about the hard parts. Tell us your thoughts on how social media plays a part in this.
Four years ago, I deci­ded to quit the two highly regar­ded galle­ries in Syd­ney and Mel­bourne that were then repre­sen­ting my work. We had a dis­pute over how they wan­ted to posi­tion me and (believe it or not) cons­train my pri­ces. I found some very smart peo­ple in tech­no­logy and busi­ness who were pre­pa­red to help me figure out a way to manage myself – not just mar­ke­ting and selling my work but crea­ting an infras­truc­ture to manage every aspect of the busi­ness of it, from iden­tif­ying and com­mu­ni­ca­ting with indi­vi­dual collec­tors and pro­du­cing my own shows to expan­ding my online pre­sence and exploi­ting tools such as social net­works and email to deve­lop a wider inte­rest in my work and me. Since then, the value of my work has inc­rea­sed to five, maybe ten, times what it was five years ago, and 15 times what it was a decade ago and my career has radi­cally expan­ded – as has my collec­tor base.
Tra­di­tio­nal galle­ries and art ins­ti­tu­tions – and the art publi­ca­tions that depend on both for their adver­ti­sing – have had fuck-all to do with it. Neither did a tra­di­tio­nal, ‘high min­ded’ artist approach. I regar­ded myself early on as a post-punk per­for­mer, a ‘garage band’ ver­sion of a modern artist who ends up owning her own label and pro­mo­ting her own tours. I don’t deal through inter­me­dia­ries and I try to main­tain a direct con­nec­tion with ever­yone who has an inte­rest in my work. Which is maybe why my work has done so well at auc­tion recently.
4. You’ve been called “One of the Paci­fic Rim’s most con­tro­ver­sial artists”. That may be true, but I don’t find your work offen­sive in the sligh­test– I find it delight­ful. Sure, Sexua­lity– Female Sexua­lity in par­ti­cu­lar– fea­tu­res hea­vily in the work, but what’s con­tro­ver­sial about that? Everyone’s got a libido, after all. It seems to me that to from your pers­pec­tive, Sexua­lity and the Social Con­ven­tions that surround it are two things that are there to be pla­yed with, like a toy. Like you’re trying to make a serious sta­te­ment by having fun with it. Am I close?
I think the con­tro­ver­sial part reflects my outs­po­ken atti­tude towards the gallery sys­tem – and my rejec­tion of it. I don’t see my work as ero­tic, really. It just reflects an aspect of how young women in the deve­lo­ped world see them­sel­ves. For bet­ter or worse, sexua­lity is always a power­ful ele­ment of this. Besi­des, there’s always been both sexua­lity and sen­sua­lity in art. It’s as visi­ble in the works of Michae­lan­gelo as it is in those of Picasso or Modi­gliani. Howe­ver, these days, we don’t have the same social, reli­gious or gen­der cons­traints. We’re able to delve more deeply and frankly, crea­ting art that is more expli­cit, dar­ker and in my case, con­fes­sio­nal and/or cri­ti­cal.
That said, yeah, I do like to have fun with it. My Dan­ge­rous Career Babes series is a case in point. A lot of women like to dress up to pre­tend roles as adults. This is dif­fe­rent to actually being something. It’s a form of play-acting. So in this series, each figure has exactly the same pose, like an action figure or a Bar­bie doll, with one hand desig­ned so props can be slid into it, the other for­med for ges­tu­res or actions. Just as in real life, the cos­tu­mes are the key. The figure is a dress-up doll. The career that the figure assu­mes in each pain­ting is iden­ti­fia­ble because of the clothes.
Need­less to say, the glib­ness of this con­cept pis­ses some cri­tics off. Me, I think it’s a hoot.
5. As a well-known and cha­ris­ma­tic artist, sud­denly you find your­self with a “Public Per­sona”. This “Meta-Hazel”, as it were, run­ning around, going to all the right par­ties etc. You seem quite happy with your rela­tionship with MetaHa­zel. Was this always the case, or did it grow on you?
In many ways, it was part of my early sur­vi­val mecha­nism. I was immer­sed within her the moment I recog­ni­sed my future as an artist. Now we’re so tho­roughly inter­con­nec­ted, there’s no other Hazel but the Meta-Hazel, as you put it.
Actually, she’s still quite rec­lu­sive and rarely goes to a lot of par­ties. She’s way too busy. But she has a damn fine lifestyle and her sex life is… arcane, invol­ving a very cool, hugely talen­ted man and a bevy of young Asian camp-followers.
6. Every­body has a “Fan­tasy Ver­sion of Them­sel­ves”. You know, that fan­tasy per­son who mana­ges to get all their work done, while still having enough room left over to do everything else– like get­ting a life, for exam­ple. What does “Fan­tasy Hazel” do with her­self these days?
‘Fraid not, in my case. See above. I live every aspect of my dreams to the hilt, even if most of them are still dri­ven by a need to make art and suc­ceed (within a wide frame of defi­ni­tions) as an artist.
7. No mat­ter how big your “Per­so­nal Brand” beco­mes, at the end of the day, you still have to do the work. As I’m fond of saying, “Suc­cess is more com­plex than Fai­lure.” As your work gets more and more known, beyond Aus­tra­lia and Asia, are you having any trou­ble kee­ping up? How do you nego­tiate the ever-increasing demands pla­ced on you, by your fans, collec­tors, the media and busi­ness inte­rests? This inc­rea­sed com­ple­xity is something I always strug­gle with, so yeah, please do tell.
Some days, the work is tedious, labour-intensive and as repe­ti­tive as a pro­duc­tion line in a fac­tory. This is par­ti­cu­larly the case when I am wor­king with assis­tants on a hand­ful of large pie­ces at the same time – and yes, it would be impos­si­ble to work on the very large ena­mels without them, as I’ve become inc­rea­sing aller­gic to the medium. On other days, it can be almost lan­guid. I draw or paint alone, in a room over­loo­king the ocean, and an assis­tant looks after phone calls, pre­pa­res snacks for me, and ensu­res I’m left in peace.
The most fre­ne­tic times are just before my exhi­bi­tions – ‘show time’ as my assis­tants call it. My ope­nings are usually pretty extra­va­gant so the logis­tics are com­pli­ca­ted and usually bloody expen­sive, mainly because I pro­duce my own shows these days.
The key is having a good infras­truc­ture. Apart from my assis­tants, I have an exce­llent busi­ness mana­ger and accoun­tant who ensure that the right finan­cial and logis­ti­cal deci­sions are made for me. I always lis­ten clo­sely to them and follow their advice. And I have the won­der­ful Jim, a wise, older man who over­sees the work-flow on my com­mis­sions and the mun­dane details of pro­duc­tion, like ensu­ring we have enough fra­mes built or the right colour paints to hand.
But none of it works without dis­ci­pline. Early on in my career, I was told that suc­cess deman­ded one thing above all others: tur­ning up. Tur­ning up every bloody day, regard­less of everything.
8. I’ve noti­ced a lot of well-known artists, like your­self, like Damien Hirst, are now selling their work via auc­tion hou­ses like Christie’s or Sotheby’s, rather than Blue-Chip galle­ries. What do you think brought this about? Pros? Cons?
It’s clea­ner and a lot less effort than dea­ling with com­mer­cial galle­ries. Des­pite what they pre­tend, very few galle­ries or galle­rists have what is requi­red to deve­lop and manage even a mode­ra­tely suc­cess­ful career, let alone a ste­llar one – nor do they even want to. So I manage my own career and encou­rage my collec­tors to use auc­tion hou­ses for acqui­si­tions and sales. I don’t yet sell on my own account through them but after Hirst and Sotheby’s… maybe.
I have great rela­tionships with the best of them in Aus­tra­lia and colla­bo­rate in their mar­ke­ting efforts for my works ahead of a major sale. They’re polite, help­ful, good to deal with. I haven’t met an art dea­ler about whom I can say the same. Not yet any­way.
9. You have strong opi­nions about the art world, espe­cially the big art ins­ti­tu­tions. What are your pet pee­ves? What do you think needs to change? What would you change if you could?
Oh, I’d tear down nearly everything and replace it. Or not replace it at all. The dark creed under­pin­ning my attacks on the tra­di­tio­nal com­mer­cial and ins­ti­tu­tio­nal gallery sys­tem is that the sys­tem deli­be­ra­tely attempts to deter­mine, con­trol and some­ti­mes des­troy the des­tiny of indi­vi­dual artists – pro­mo­ting some at the expense of others, making arbi­trary jud­ge­ments influen­ced by fad, self-interest, even govern­ment fun­ding – for its own inte­rests, none of which are to do with art.
Nowa­days, too many galle­ries, public and pri­vate, see their role as somehow supe­rior to that of the artists they repre­sent. Hell, recently I read an inter­view with a noted cura­tor in New York who tried to argue that cura­tors were more impor­tant than artists. Is that really what it’s all come to?
Worse, more for rea­sons of social sta­tus than anything else, galle­ries like to think of art as something that should not be too ubi­qui­tous or ega­li­ta­rian in terms of access to it. They have no unders­tan­ding of new sys­tems of value that have gathe­red momen­tum because of the web: for exam­ple, the idea that ubi­quity not scar­city is likely to drive value higher or that the repo­si­tory of real value is no lon­ger the art­work, the pro­duct, but the artist, the pro­du­cer. This reflects what has chan­ged even in mains­tream busi­ness, where it isn’t the indi­vi­dual pro­duct that’s impor­tant but the brand.
As far as I’m con­cer­ned, the tra­di­tio­nal art appa­ratchik deser­ves to die. It’s an anach­ro­nism that’s out­li­ved it’s use­ful­ness. I think there is still a role for indi­vi­dual cura­tors or even ‘show pro­du­cers’ but they need to work in a more indi­vi­dua­li­sed, spe­cia­list way within a net­wor­ked ‘vir­tual’ para­digm – not old-fashioned bricks and mor­tar.
10. You’ve got your sch­tick, you’ve got your modus ope­randi, and obviously, it’s a good one and it’s wor­king well for you. How do you see it evol­ving in the next few years?
It’s not sch­tick at all. Sch­tick is what Perez Hil­ton or worse, Paris Hil­ton live on. Rather, it’s a com­mit­ment to a dif­fe­rent way of wor­king, both per­so­nally and pro­fes­sio­nally. And it’ll evolve with the ideas within the work. In the end, that’s all it’s about.
[The gaping­void “Ten Ques­tions” archive is here.]

14 Responses to “ten questions for hazel dooney”

  1. Daniel Edlen says:

    The thing that’s struck me about Hazel is how open, blunt, and clear she is with her com­mu­ni­ca­tion. Her sto­ries are very per­so­nal yet gene­ra­li­za­ble. Like you, her blog posts have punch­li­nes that are subtle yet power­ful. I look up to both of you, no foo­ling. You both are very ins­pi­ra­tio­nal as artists who’ve retai­ned your sove­reignty to the extent you have.
    Thank you, both.
    Peace.

  2. Hazel sounds like a gal who figu­red it all out early on and made it work for her. Loved the inter­view and will enjoy follo­wing Hazel’s remar­ka­ble work. Thanks!

  3. Everything Daniel has said about Hazel and Hugh is so on point. I appre­ciate the work you both do. Thank you for been a source of ins­pi­ra­tion.
    Have a nice week ahead.

  4. Moise Levi says:

    Thanks for this GREAT interview

  5. Anthony says:

    I love that you’ve finally hoo­ked up with Hazel Doo­ney here… I’ve been rea­ding both her blog and your blog regu­larly for a long while now… it’s like having my work friends and soc­cer chums meet for the first time and mix sur­pri­singly well. Rock on!

  6. Laura Cococcia says:

    Nice. Thanks Hugh for sha­ring Hazel’s work — just visi­ted her blog and added it to my blo­groll to keep up with the latest.

  7. Angela Hunt says:

    Thank you so much for this, Hugh. Yes, indeed, this is HUGELY ins­pi­ra­tio­nal.
    Thank you both.

  8. Kye Swenson says:

    Thanks for the inter­view with Hazel. I think it should be almost man­da­tory to have an inter­view like this every so often, espe­cially with someone as bold and blunt as Hazel. Great pers­pec­ti­ves from the both of you!

  9. Keahi Pelayo says:

    I just read you book…it was great! Chec­ked out Hazel’s work and she is awe­some too.
    Aloha
    Keahi

  10. Erika says:

    I’ve been follo­wing Hazel and visi­ting her blog for a while now…. I’m loving it…Great job… I like every part of it.
    Erika

  11. I read both Hugh’s and Late­ral Action’s inter­view with Hazel. She is bold, frank and very revea­ling. I feel ener­gi­zed to pur­sue my acti­vi­ties online in my blog and other social media. Thanks for revea­ling some of the behind the sce­nes acti­vi­ties that has pro­pe­lled her career. Errol.

  12. Mike Wood says:

    I just came across this after Hazel lin­ked to it off her twit­ter. I only wish more artists were inter­vie­wed so well, and ans­we­red so clearly, can­didly, and con­ci­sely. Now I’m off to read the Late­ral Action one. But I thought I should read em in order. Nicely done, sir. :)

  13. Sheila Wingsford says:

    Hmmm…I´m thin­king a legend in her own mind?
    C´mon, its clip art that looks like it was crea­ted in Adobe Illus­tra­tor.
    Check out her web­site for all the art she has crea­ted in the last year. 3 – 4 varia­tions on the same thing. That is a pro­duc­tive artist?
    Some artists sell their art, other artists try to sell them­sel­ves as the gim­mick. This artist is the lat­ter.
    And why do men always get suc­ke­red into the sch­tick of the women artists who push the sex and porn angle?

    • Hugh MacLeod says:

      “That is a pro­duc­tive artist?”

      And how would you know either way? If you were pro­duc­tive your­self , you’d have left an actual URL so peo­ple could also judge your work.

      Some peo­ple do, some peo­ple troll. Life is unfair.

Leave a Reply