You could try to piece together what’s going on in London’s art scene from a dozen press releases and under-the-radar group shows, or you could just read The Hollywood Superstar Review. The review is just as much a part of what’s happening as it is a record of it.
At a moment when people insist the art world is the new fashion world, what The Hollywood Superstar Review writes about maps this out. Framed as a running log of the city’s indie exhibitions, parties, and scenes, it gets something right by becoming something closer to a participant than an observer.
The online critique machine consists of reviews, essays, and blog posts, and it even lets contributors be pseudonymous (writers go under the names of Hollywood’s A-listers, from Sydney Sweeney to Timothée Chalamet). “Our blog gives people space to be pseudonymous, with minimal editing and a relatively high speed of posting,” which at its best feel like the golden days of long-form Twitter rants. If this is a Hollywood superstar, the veneers bite back!
As we dialed up the slightly terrifying superstars behind the review, we spoke about why art criticism should, sometimes, be allowed to take the piss.
Marley Wendt: How did The Hollywood Superstar Review begin?
The Hollywood Superstar Review: It was conceived by a hungover trio—a critic, an artist, and a slacker. We were bored of what we were reading and wanted to write straightforward art criticism, stuff that we would want to read. As it evolved, we realized it could be more of an open forum than a traditional art or culture magazine.
In London, we were around so many people with great ideas and thought, “why not make this their platform as well?” We write reviews of openings, but we also review a random night out in London. You don’t need credentials to write for us, just a hot take. It started locally, but now our network is expanding.
What was missing from art writing that made you start this?
There was no room for seriously taking the piss. Criticism has the capacity to make very niche areas of culture accessible to the public, and most art writing seems to be written exclusively for the art establishment. London had music and art that wasn’t being written about, and there was art that was never going to get coverage. Those groups were actually overlapping, but not getting written about. Part of what we want to do is figure out a) why they get overlooked, b) look at them, and c) just blow the doors open of what a review can be or be about.
The art of criticism is integral to the movement of culture—we want to carry it on with swag. Some of our favorite books are books about books.
What influenced the project?
Diva Corp. Glenda Slagg’s column in Private Eye. Klarna’d copy of the first UK edition of Vice. The Tiqqun bit where they epically own Michel Houellebecq with a fake obituary. Clement Greenberg. Ask FM. The blog Rookie. The digital world forum of undocumented opinion that’s been buried alive. Flickr. Bluesky. Twitter pre-Musk.
When we talk to older people at parties, they tell us that there have always been silly/bitchy London art papers to look toward, but those were niche. We wanna be less insular than that. We want 16-year-olds to read us. One of our music reporters is still in sixth form.
Why call it The Hollywood Superstar Review?
Because it’s fun and because Sheila Heti once said “all of my friends are famous to me”. We were told about the Andy Warhol thing after we had already started.
Who gets to be a superstar?
We don’t make the rules.
On your website you say that “anonymity is the luxury of the superstar.” Will you ever reveal your identities?
It’s not just about anonymity, but pseudonymity. On the Walk of Fame, we will mark ourselves not with our names in stars, but with the weight of our balls—we have big ones.
What makes something worthy of being featured?
If it doesn’t make us yawn, or if it makes you want to shoot the most famous artist at the table.
Is there a particular piece that you feel encapsulates what The Hollywood Superstar Review is about?
EU:RE at the Cause review, the piece on fascism and military jackets, or any of the stuff that became popular a year after we wrote about it. Any article where the curator got mad in the comments, like Pierre Huyghe. Our piece calling for better public relations. When we published Pasolini’s Corsair writings. When we got covered in Frieze, it prompted the editor of a large and irrelevant magazine to tell us “use your real names, you aren’t war reporters.” Like war reporters ever had to judge the Bethnal Green gallery circuit! Superstar is not media-trained!
Who do you imagine reading the review?
Not to be crazy, but magazines shouldn’t be appealing to an imaginary audience. We try to express our own point of view. Whoever reads the review is whoever is attracted to that POV. I can imagine anyone reading it, right now most likely hipsters (for lack of a better term).
What does the art world feel like to you today?
Read The Hollywood Superstar Review.
Looking ahead, what are your plans for the review?
We’d like to scale it up and get it printed. That takes money, so we’re working on that. We want to fabricate our merch properly. We want to make The Hollywood Superstar mephedrone candle so that everyone can buy it and smell what it is like to be an editor.
Credit: Source link