The sanctity of marriage

Can you say "publicity stunt"?

Dan Zak of the Washington Post reports on the marriage of DC artists Dana Ellyn and Matt Sesow. Read the article here. I started to read it with only mild interest, but that interest quickly turned to an overwhelming feeling of "ugh." I know times have been tough for career artists who make their living selling their work to the public. But I didn’t think it was so tough that two moderately successful artists had to stoop to a new low and produce a show based on their own staged marriage. As the article states:

Everyone says they're perfect for each other, but no one thought they'd get married. They decided to do it when they realized they could craft a show called "Till Death Do Us Part." They'd paint about their impending nuptials, hang the art in a gallery, have a ceremony at the opening, invite the public, maybe cast themselves as a power couple in the D.C. art world.

Now do you see where my feeling of "ugh" comes from? If not, wait until you get to the part in the article about how they will continue to live apart after the wedding. Now?

I know there is a long history of themed weddings, but this one simply feels wrong. Maybe it has to do with previous divorces in the couple's past. Maybe it's the overt self-promotion. Maybe it's the fact that the art just isn't very good. Take any one of those things and add in Ms. Ellyn's and Mr. Sesow's lack of modesty, and I can tell you that I would never have exhibited either of their art... wedding or not.

A tangent to this rant: I can't help but think about the millions of Americans who fight against gay marriage, yet this stunt falls within their definition of "a-okay." Ugh.

[Images: Top, Cheers by Dana Ellyn; Bottom, Till Death Do Us Part by Matt Sesow.]

Comments

[Maureen E. Doallas]

I'm with you. I stopped reading after turning the page. I dislike how the Post gives so much space to this kind of crap when so many good artists go unrecognized (and yeah, I don't like their art).

[matt sesow]

hi Rob and all,
sorry to hear that you don't like our art or paintings, but that's ok, i don't like all of what i do either.
no, it wasn't a stunt... we really did get married, and rather than elope to vegas and do it with elvis, we wanted to have our families all here and make it a night to remember. dana and i have both shown at long view gallery in the past with great success. as well, i have been living as a full-time painter since 2001. i've shown at some pretty cool places in the world, with 2 solos in europe this year. yup, a lot of people do buy my crap!
anyways, have a great day and thanks for looking. no worries.
if you are in dc, please feel free to come to long view tomorrow/friday for 5-6pm to say hello and get to know us... also, we have a show at moca dc tomorrow (friday the 12th) starting at 6pm and another at aroma in cleveland park next friday night.
my best,
matt sesow

[LP]

I like Dan Zak's writing. And, I admit, I used to like Matt Sesow's work (haven't checked in with it in a few years). But what I can't stand is the couple's smug sense of self-importance. Their smarter-than-thou, "We're ARTISTS" attitude is icky.

[LP]

Now, see, Matt's comment reminds me of the nice, interesting artist I met at Nature Gallery years ago. The article paints him differently than what I remember.

[Rob Jones]

Matt is showing an understanding of criticism. Not all artists do. I look forward to seeing where his career (and ideas for self-promotion) goes from here.

[LP]

Not all artists understand criticism? Wha? (Just kidding.)

[matt]

Dan followed us around for about 3 weeks.. i had him into my studio and all parts of my life, including letting him watch me paint. he's a nice guy. the cocky quotes i made were while drinking at a bar late in the night one evening a few nights before the wedding/show opening... i was jazzed up and excited. i love dana and i love to paint, and i'll keep giving my passion to both.

thanks for looking.
matt.

[Dan Zak]

A little late responding here, but I wanted to mention that Matt and Dana's motives seemed both pure and transparent to me. They knew the wedding show idea was smart publicity, but this doesn't mean they're disingenuous about their art or each other or the event itself. And I wouldn't call them smug. They're confident and complicated and unafraid to express themselves both on canvas and in life. (If the story did not clearly convey these things, then that's my fault.) Thanks for the reaction and the comments and, most of all, for reading it in the first place!

[Laura Jones]

Full disclosure - I am the blogger's wife. There is a line in the world between art and commerce. (And between reporting and opinion.) It may be fluid, it may be different for a lot of people. But here, I believe the artists profiled have crossed that line, and possibly the reporter too. You have to be a good businessman to be a full time artist in addition to being a good (in some people's opinion) artist. Nothing wrong with that, we encouraged that when we owned Migration. But, again, that line....Crossing it means you can't go back.