I saw this when it aired. It was five or six weeks ago I’m pretty sure. He does seem like a total dick, but a lot of great artists are.
Quite true. He was known for being a total dick back in the 80’s when his star was rising in the art world. But there’s no getting away from the fact that he’s a really good filmmaker. “The Diving Bell and The Butterfly” is amazing — a truly brilliant piece of work.
Schnabel’s one of those guys who can get away with having an over-sized ego, because he has the talent to back it up. I’ve always been intrigued by his artwork, and all of his films are excellent (I’ve probably seen Basquiat 20 times). Great artist.
He’s always had a rep as a dick. Interestingly he’s best friends with Lou Reed who also has a rep for being difficult to interview.But he makes pretty good films.
He’s a good painter and a brilliant filmmaker. Unless he’s commiting a crime, I’d only care about his work. I agree with Shotzi, great artists have well known reputation as total dicks at one point – Welles, Picasso, Kurosawa, Miles Davis, Warhol, Peckinpah… the list goes on.
This is somewhat off topic, but are there/have there been any repubaly humble artists (particularly film) who have had great talent, or at that high a level is a big ego inescapable?
@ Matthias
Werner Herzog
Ah, thanks.
Any others?
I felt like the OP until I saw this interview, now I think he’s awesome, Schnabel’s last word was tight. I like his Twombly-esque paintings.
The main thing I took from the interview is the reminder that a critic can get under an artist’s skin and stay there forever. Clearly, Robert Hughes — whom I greatly admire — is Schnabel’s personal bete noire, this devil whose name he can barely stand to hear.
I can’t really comment on his paintings. I do like his films..
This kind of reminds me of the Bob Dylan Time Magazine interview in “Don’t Look Back”
Haven’t seen Schnabel, but believe I heard him interviewed on radio about 8 years ago, maybe less, and wasn’t put off by him. (Wachtel is such a great arts journalist; that may have helped.) However, couldn’t get certain friend to see Before Night Falls with me, as he’s highly critical of the man.
In general, better to judge the works for what they are, and respond to what’s presented for your consideration. It always comes down to the relationship between oneself and the art. (i.e. no film is really the SAME film for any two viewers, because of what we bring to the experience that is uniquely our own.) Background info CAN help us interpret and comprehend works of art, improve our sense of where it’s coming from, provide helpful CONTEXT, but must it come between the viewer/reader/listener and the creative work itself? Sometimes the less known about the creative force behind the art, the better. It’s not really any of our business how a person runs his/her life (or lets his/her Ego/self-conceit run the the show, or possibly the Id. In some cases, it’s the Super Ego instead calling the shots!) unless we’re under the same roof. Great art seldom derives from mundane personalities. Artists are famous for being huge pains in the ass (as noted above already).
Miles Davis was mentioned – I loved the music (until he went insipid near the end), and – no question – he acted like a jerk. But the only time that got to me was when I saw him snub Wynton Marsalis on stage at a Festival. So petty and mean, so fragile, so foolish. But it only reflects poorly on the persona of the artist, seldom interferes with the art, in fact – tends to drive it, I’m guessing.
There certainly ARE brilliant creators who have well-adjusted social skills and very reasonable self-images. Robert Altman springs to mind (can only go by print and radio content I’m acquainted with). Wynton Marsalis. Dare I say, the problem seems to characterize more of the Great Men than the Great Women? (haven’t got my examples at the ready, but others might help?)
Just because you create something does not excuse pretension or being a snob.
Let’s separate character flaws out, for they are not justified by any art created, but whether or not they determine how you view the artist is another issue and is ultimately your personal choice.
Schnabel definitely has some ego problems. See Sketches of Frank Gehry if only for the Schnabel bits wherein he is in a bathrobe drinking champagne and spouting off about how great Gehry’s buildings are simply because they allow lots of space for exhibiting his art. Otherwise the documentary is bland, like the subject.
Time magazine man!!!!!!!!
Moderated
THE EGO HAS LANDED
I didn’t see him on 60 Minutes, but I saw him on Elvis Costello’s Spectacle show. Lou Reed invited him up to the stage or something. Completely not what I expected. I think he may have been drunk. I have only seen one film of his, The Diving Bell And The Butterfly, but it’s one of my favorite films.
Jim W
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sajnloTFvU
I saw this on 60 minutes a few weeks (or a month?) ago. I’ve only seen Diving Bell and the Butterfly and Before Night Falls, both of which I thought were very good. But after watching this interview, I acquired a huge dislike for him (Before Night Falls is still one of my favorites).
He seems like the stereotypical art snob except worst. His yellow tinted glasses, his obsession with a critic that doesn’t like him(8:00-9:40), the undeserved attacks on the interviewer, and his obviously huge ego make me really not like the guy.
It’s 12 minutes, but most of it is on his paintings which you can skip through.
Do you think he deserves to have such a high self-worth level? Has the character of a director ever affected how you view his/her films?