Manchild Artist Tells a Dallas Arts Writer to Get Laid; Jezebel Weighs In Immediately

by Christina Rees January 26, 2015

Amongst Dallas-based arts writers who actually write critically about visual art, Loris Gréaud’s show at the Dallas Contemporary is zero for three. (We won’t count the glowing PR blurbs from machines that masquerade as glossy magazines, even though he does). Gréaud chose to respond to one writer, the Dallas Observer’s Lauren Smart, with a series of Facebook personal messages that Smart screen grabbed and reprinted today on the Observer’s site. It seems the 35-year old French art star believes the Texas writer might better understand his work if she had a boyfriend who takes an erection enhancer. He believes in this strategy enough to mention it twice. Oh, that old nugget of a takedown.

It took Gawker Media’s heavily-trafficked website Jezebel all of five hours to get hold of this gem of male posturing and narcissism. Oh, Loris. You’re old enough to know how the press and social media works, n’est-ce pas? (Unless YOU WANTED THIS RESPONSE. CONCEPTUAL ART.)






You may also like


Colette Copeland January 26, 2015 - 18:57

I am frankly flummoxed over the artist’s response. I confess that I loved what he had to say about his underwater concert for snorks project. I emailed this to CR after the panel discussion at UTD 2 days before his opening.

“I was at UTD for most of the panel and really liked what the artist had to say about his work in relation to Bourriaud’s ideas. The concert for the Snorks was really brilliant and poignant. I think the challenge with a work like this is that no one would understand the depth, complexity and multi-faceted nature of the work without hearing the artist speak about it. Just to see the underwater fireworks video documentation wouldn’t really mean anything. I don’t know if that’s the same for the DC show, but I’m not nearly as anxious to see it as I was. I am sure it didn’t help that it was shrouded in mystery and hype.”

After reading about his infantile, sexist and mean-spirited attack on Lauren’s honest response, it makes me want to BOYCOTT his show. I was planning on taking all 140 of my students. But why bother?

Bill Davenport January 26, 2015 - 19:30

I got this today from Joseph Magnano, the Prada Marfa vandal. Which is the worse reason to destroy art, cynical self-promotion, or sincere, if confused, idealism?

Hello this is Joseph Magnano.

I wanted to reach out to you, expressing some thoughts, that lead to emotions going through my well-being… because my heart is in it. After all these thoughts and emotions have been processed, I think to myself. “I thought we were all on the same side?” For Art!

For pushing societies. Where it is the flow of Art that sees necessity and despair, where it is the purpose of Art to push a society towards greatness. Society, like a school of fish… Art is the current of seas at which we travel. And it is a pattern more like a dance, but it is non-linear, sometimes systematic, yet never is it absolute in structure or step and always open to interpretation and variable. We channel that source as Art makers to push societies forward because it is our commitment to life.

For generations to evolve, transmute, change. Bring a new future. And for past generations to accept the rise of new generations that evolve, transmute and change societies. To bring a new future. For the betterment, even if the questioning and critique is challenging. We all work together, and see the placement. The build, the tower of life. Because we love it. And it needs dedication.

Its about Art. Its about the endless creation. Its about life. Not choreographing the flame, the flow of energy.

Art, and inspiring, and bringing others to purpose.

We are here for Art. When we make Art.

Not suffering, not ego, not pride, not money, not vanity… though we could be, because life does have its trivial freedoms… but when the universal consciousness reaches such restlessness, its about lighting the greater fundamental question: What are we doing with ourselves as a planetary species? And it’s not a curious question, but more one of cynicism.

When we have the ability to see, us Art makers. When we as the whole, humans have the ability to be empathetic to all, be loving, be responsible, create, be positive, have purpose and allow all to prosper without sacrifice and constant disparity. Never to be free, keeping the soul in bondage. And that bondage is dispersed upon all social classes. No one is above. The commitment to life becomes perverse.
The idea. Bring theory to practice. To bring being human to a shift of enlightenment that allows the universe to open “to us” in ways never seen, beyond the entitlement of scientifically discovery. And its really about seeing ourselves and this Earth for what it really is, beautiful. Yet the irony destroys, yet the idolism destroys. Yet the, ohh what have we done destroys.

Do you believe in magic? Are you spiritual? Do you believe in yourself? Do you realize the animation you are, walking on the surface of this globe that is placed in this universe. What is your purpose here?

I believe we live in age where people are philosophically regressing into their ego. Discovering the timeless DNA written in themselves because it is infinite and scary. Past life, the ebullition of creation, evolution and the progression and digression of man. All anyone wants is peace and the chance at life, yet the boundaries of complacency and confusion of contemporary society leaves one tempted and abused. The victim. I believe we live in an age where we wish we want to be peaceful angels again. Listen to the Earth. Embrace and accept. Be accountable and give to the future. The purpose is to create. Taking the step is half the battle. The rest is doing the work. So is the Art World about Art? Because Art actually moves societies, not become attractions. I’m just curious as to what the intention is.

Toni VanZant February 2, 2015 - 12:46

Joe, twice you mention peace in your diatribe yet you chose to make your statement in a most violent and defacing way. Do you know how it feels to see your art covered with grafitti? Destroying someone else’s art, as you question what is art, is not only immature, stupid and just plain wrong, it’s aggressive and mean-spirited; quite the opposite of peace. You say “be accountable and give to the future” and I say YOU be accountable – quit damaging art and forcing your skewed & myopic views onto artists, critics, students and art appreciators.

Kaitee Page January 27, 2015 - 02:45

Honestly, once again, you’re missing Gréaud’s point. He is telling the reviewer, Lauren Smart, in his own cleverly offensive way, to “get f*cked” which in Europe does not mean literally, “go have sex.” It means, “f*ck off” for writing an ignorant review. Lauren Smart is clearly manipulating the situation into more than what it actually is by playing the sexism card, which in my opinion is an immature cop out and a desperate attempt to gain sympathy & attention. She obviously does not understand his art, his culture, or his cultural slang, so why does she continue to cry about it? It’s embarrassing.

While Loris Gréaud’s emails to Lauren Smart may have been insensitive or rude, I have to say I agree with the points he made. Her review was quite ignorant, even elementary, so much in fact that I am almost positive the artist would’ve unleashed an equal amount of rage on a male reviewer had he written the same rubbish as she did. As he should.

Read her review people. It reeks of the type of self-righteous, spoiled brat, entitlement bullshit that you’d get from an academic or art teacher who failed as an artist whose only path of worth seems to be to mindlessly bring down others who have succeeded. No well-informed points, no cultural references, no merit… just a chip on her shoulder directed at the most convenient scapegoat.

After a while, I’m sure it gets tiring as an artist to have your life’s work (let alone your first ever exhibit in the US) torn apart publicly & haphazardly, within minutes by an uncultured idiot prancing around a museum whining because she is too “bored.” If art bores you, go back to playing on your cell phone for some instant Twitter or Facebook gratification which would obviously suit you better than wasting your time trying to understand something as complex and flowing and beautiful as art.

Professional art critics are expected to have a keen eye for art and a thorough knowledge of art history, neither of which, I would argue, Lauren Smart possesses. Lauren Smart clearly does not get art. So why is someone allowing her to review it in a Dallas paper? I guess I just don’t get it.

I expected more from you, Dallas!

E-man January 27, 2015 - 10:06

Dear Katiee Page, I’m glad that you link to your website and expose yourself in more than one way. There is nothing like having a woman who sells her sexuality for money lecturing people about high art and what it means to have good taste. Nice photos. Classy.

Great website. Talk about having a keen eye for the visual arts. Was the color scheme random or were you intentionally trying to sicken the viewer? Clearly, you should be our source when it comes to taste in the arts.

Cabe Booth January 27, 2015 - 22:09

Oops a daisy

Kaitee Page January 29, 2015 - 01:53

oopsie woopsie 🙂 Why is E-man so angry? Interesting…

Kaitee Page January 29, 2015 - 01:34

Whether or not you like his art, I do think in this particular case Loris Gréaud has a point. Even though he expresses his point in a bit of a rude & possibly drunken, yet hilarious way (and in a second language nonetheless), it begs the question: Why did the Dallas Observer send such an inexperienced, “bored,” and apparently inept art critic to review the exhibit of a renowned artist who has had installations at Palais de Tokyo, solo exhibitions at the Louvre and the Centre Pompidou in Paris, and worked with the likes of David Lynch, Sonic Youth, and Charlotte Rampling? It makes no sense.

Don’t we respect our artists enough here in Dallas to at least send someone with as equal or greater talent, experiences, & qualifications as the artist himself? When I read an art critique, I want to be educated and informed. Lauren Smart’s “review” sounds like just another temperamental adolescent girl b*tching about art not giving her as much instant gratification as her Twitter feed. There are no well-informed points, no cultural references, no merit.. just a chip on her shoulder directed at the most convenient scapegoat. It’s lazy writing at best, immature at its worst, and frankly she seems lost. It’s so poorly written & drenched in cliché, in fact, that I am almost positive Gréaud would have unleashed an equal amount of rage on a male reviewer had he written the same elementary rubbish as she.

There is such a thing as a good bad review. Unfortunately, Smart misses the mark.

Her “review,” in a sense is written from the same childish mindset that Gréaud, whether consciously or unconsciously, so accurately reflects back onto her with his emails. His emails, in the end, are a mirror to Lauren Smart’s own ignorance. Which makes me wonder; was this all part of his plan?

The fact that Lauren Smart goes on to publicly slam him for his spelling errors that were sent in a private email in his second language is equally disheartening & disturbing. Do you speak a second language, Lauren Smart? Even worse, after her feelings are hurt by Gréaud’s email rant, she does what any hot-blooded working woman under duress should do, right? She plays the sexism card. Ah, yes. What a damsel in distress you are Ms. Smart, you poor thing! Golly gee! Gréaud, that evil, mean bastard, how dare he speak to you this way. I mean, you have a big college degree and a big job at a newspaper so you’ll show him. You’ll show him alright! LOL.

What type of precedent is this setting for women in this country? That we can’t fight our own battles? That we have to air our dirty laundry and get the public to fight them for us? That any time we get a work email from someone that hurts our feelings and it’s a man, that we should pick out whatever we can in the writing that we can take out of context and call it sexism, and then make it public, with a sensational headline of course, so that the world can validate us and feel sorry for us for being such a victim? Gréaud’s emails said much more than, “go get laid,” but Lauren Smart doesn’t want you to know that. She wants to turn it around, make herself the victim, and be validated for simply being bad at her job. Sorry Smart, you may have fooled your friends and fellow bloggers of the world, but you don’t fool me. You’re an insult to the real female victims of the world. And that’s what this is about.

Onwards and upwards. Lauren Smart is not the first fame whore there ever was (ie. Taylor Lianne Chandler, Jackie the infamous UVA student who cried rape, the list could go on and on), and she certainly won’t be the last, just as Loris Gréaud is not the first artist to retaliate against a bad review, and certainly won’t be the last. But I hope that people who read or publish this crap on the internet can at least try to stop taking everything at face value and do a little research before snapping to quick judgements based on a hyped-up headline and that good old adrenaline rush that comes from cyberbullying celebrities. Stop encouraging strong, intelligent, able-bodied women to act like victims for the sake of attention, validation, and retaliation. Stop condoning disgruntled journalist internet trolls who make private conversations public for a cheap shot at their own fifteen minutes of fame. Think first.

In the end, while I can understand Gréaud’s emotional response to Lauren Smart’s haphazard, underwhelming, and largely unfounded dismissal of his life’s work, I agree that it may have been a lapse of judgement on his part to bother emailing her about it. Or was it? Because, in fact, that is exactly how I discovered him. So I’m happy 🙂

Michael A. Morris January 29, 2015 - 11:33

Ok, so one thing here. Why are so many expecting that kind of review from the kind of magazine the observer is? This is not at all a slight to the Observer, but the role it fills in reporting on Dallas culture is not as a super specialized academic art publication. It’s a free weekly that caters to a general public. So the style of Lauren’s writing, and the writing of others at that particular publication, are intended for a general audience. So if she’s not dropping references to Derrida, Deleuze and Guitarri, Guy Debord, Bourriaud, and whatever other post-structuralist text would give her some kind of authority in her opinion, shouldn’t we ask, why would she in that particular publication?

And calling her a “fame whore” and a victim seems pretty silly. She had a degree of power in the situation and used it. That doesn’t sound like a victim to me.

Maybe more and more diverse media outlets is what we really need, but that’s a different conversation.

Justin Hunter Allen January 30, 2015 - 00:45

I considered saying, “Here, here.” Then I looked it up and found…

“Here, here is widely regarded as a misspelling, although it is a common one, and there are ways to logically justify its use. But for what it’s worth, hear, hear is the original form (the Oxford English Dictionary cites examples going back to the 17th century) and is the one listed in dictionaries. English reference books mention here, here only to note that it’s wrong.”

Then read examples —

“Only that it was awesome,” she said, “and that the Bronco Bowl was the only concert venue that ever mattered.” Hear, hear. [Dallas Observer]

seems appropriate.

Hear, hear.

Brian January 27, 2015 - 10:59

I really do not believe that reporting on flame wars between critics and artists is great news reportage.

Robert Boyd January 28, 2015 - 09:33

But it’s fun to read about sometimes.

Troy Schulze January 27, 2015 - 16:20

Frankly, I don’t ‘get’ Smart’s review. It plays into a slew of cliches about contemporary art–that it’s pretentious; it’s about titillation; it’s meaningless. All this may be true of Greaud’s show, but Smart didn’t make the case (in any meaningful way) for her anger and bafflement. On the other hand, she used the artist’s explanations to suggest the work actually does have meaning.

Smart wrote: “When you seek some sort of greater meaning, a revelation, a higher calling, well, you’re bound to be disappointed not just from Gréaud’s museum but from life.”

Prescient words considering Greaud’s response.

Robert Boyd January 28, 2015 - 09:50

The issue is not the quality of the review, but the quality of the response. Gréaud’s response was really rude and pretty sexist (although I agree with Kaitee Page that he was trying to come up with a clever way of writing “get fucked,” not actually suggesting that her understanding of art would be improved by having a super-potent boyfriend). Because he was stupid enough to post it in a more-or-less public forum, it was fair game for Smart (or anyone) to ridicule it.

I don’t think it’s wrong for artists to respond to their critics, but it’s always a mistake to respond in anger. You’re not very likely to put your best face forward if you do. Gréaud seems like a pretty clever fellow, but in those Facebook posts, he presents himself as a thin-skinned jerk. The result is far worse publicity for him (ridicule all over the internet) than Smart’s review could ever have caused by itself.

Dorota Biczel January 27, 2015 - 21:56

Regardless of the merits of Lauren Smart’s review, there is no excuse for a misogynistic response (unless someone wants to argue for upholding sexism, racism, and classism).
Also, take a look at this:

Hazel Bartram-Birchenough January 28, 2015 - 00:41

I suspect Greaud is a publicity expert: the staged opening smash up, the defensive personal attack of a reactive woman critic…Dali said you have to do a lot to gain attention in the US, he smashed a large shop window falling out of a bath containing a nude figure, he got his show into the press…many years later this is similarly planned for maximum impact. This discussion suits his goal.

Bill Davenport January 28, 2015 - 09:02

This discussion may suit Gréaud’s goals, but it suits our goals as well. He gets publicity, Glasstire gets readers, and people get to squawk in outrage. Apparently this is what people want to think about. For everyone who reads a straight-up review on Glasstire, twenty read every new development in this silly, cynically manufactured hoo-ha.

Why did Lauren Smart rise to Gréaud’s bait? Because it made good copy. In terms of advancing people’s understanding, the proper thing to do with rude, provocative, content-free comments is to ignore them.

I posted the Joe Magnano letter above because Magnano is engaged in exactly this kind of antisocial attention grabbing, but being less savvy, and choosing to pick on people more powerful than he was, got arrested for it.

E-man January 28, 2015 - 10:52

Dali gained attention with surrealist antics that fit perfectly with his work. Today we are talking about how Greaud grabbed attention by being a big-mouthed, insecure, smelly, pseudo-intellectual, used car salesman type, man-child, douche.

Kaitee Page January 29, 2015 - 01:51

Wow. Why so angry, E-man? Perhaps that’s just what Greaud wants? It kinda seems like you’re taking this much too personally, no?

Joseph Magnano January 29, 2015 - 12:22

So whats wrong with self promotion, once you been labeled as a self promoter. Should I go hide under a rock. Should I let the art world try to put out my fire, tame my voice. Since when does art have so many rules. Were all just human-beings engaging with each other. I destroyed my own chance at anonymity so why not embrace what the image that has been created. Its life.
And picking on people more powerful than me. Wow, if “art” never did that we would live under and iron fist rule. Bill, maybe its time you wake up.

Joseph Magnano January 29, 2015 - 12:48

Maybe an even better idea instead of waking up Bill, may be to meet in person the ones you criticize, but that would have to take you getting off the computer, and actually engaging with someone socially.

I’m in Texas.

Bill Davenport January 30, 2015 - 03:01


In contrast with your Prada Marfa action, which exposed you to legal consequences, Loris Gréaud’s destructive publicity stunt and subsequent trash talk are completely safe. He (verbally) attacked a Dallas art critic, and destroyed his own work. Nevertheless, he’s managed to get his name and bad-boy persona some national buzz. It’s a slick, repellent piece of work. Be happy you’re a starry-eyed amateur.

I happen to agree that Prada Marfa was co-opted, against Elmgreen and Dragset’s original intent, to shill for the glam art market. The sharp contrast between the attitudes towards Richard Phillips’ Playboy Marfa, an exactly similar piece, which was removed as a crass sign, and Prada Marfa, which was allowed to circumvent the rules by being declared a museum, is telling.

Like Phillips, and unlike Gréaud, you picked on people with ability and an interest in retaliating. A bad move – not because they don’t deserve to be picked on, but bad for you- as you found out the hard way.

Bryan Wheeler January 28, 2015 - 09:06

I agree with, Bill. By now, this is an old dance in which all primary parties win, while the rest of us are left to trudge around in the muck of their BS.

Bryan Wheeler January 28, 2015 - 09:08

By the way, the story just got picked up by Huff Post, extending the victory for the artist and writer and deepening the muck for the trudgers.

Kaitee Page January 29, 2015 - 01:33

Perhaps this was all part of the artist’s plan? Click:

E-man January 29, 2015 - 09:37

It’s hilarious that you would call Lauren Smart a fame whore. Look at this photos of Katiee Page:

What kind of “___ worker” wears this uniform? Is it “construction worker?” Hmnnnnn…

Wait, wait… Here’s the best one. Before you open it, go up and read what I wrote to her before and then open it.


What inspired you to write these lyrics Kaitee?

“She walks the walk
She talks the talk
She stops the mouths from moving
She likes the dance
She’ll take the chance”


If I had published those kinds of lyrics I would be afraid to ever set finger to keyboard or pen to pad ever again.

It seems like your brain might be tired. Why else would someone who has written a slew of angry comments on Glasstire and the Observer question why I sound angry. Do you want to know why I’m angry Kaitee? It’s because people like you make the world ugly. You make ugly websites to promote your ugly songs and you say stupid and ugly things that inspire impressionable children to become just as ugly as you are. You travel all over the world and leave a trail of slime because you don’t have enough pity for the world to lock yourself away.

Oh, also, I want to let you know that Jerry Saltz, the most famous art critic in the world also seems to think that Loris Greaud is garbage. He tweeted to Lauren Smart this message “.@LaurenLizSmart Loris Gréaud’s PACE show was 1 of the worst, most vapid, unoriginal, silly, self-satisfied, preposterous, & monied all year.”

Can you please tell us all about how under-qualified and stupid Jerry Saltz is Kaitee?

Kaitee Page January 30, 2015 - 14:35

Perhaps this was all part of the artist’s plan? Click:

JDW January 29, 2015 - 17:45

Perhaps the artist planned this whole stunt out with Smart? It wouldn’t be the first time that he destroyed his own reputation for a piece.

Jan Ayers Friedman February 2, 2015 - 10:47

…and here’s me, wondering what local artists individually would do, given the chance to be given 5 years and 26,000 square feet of highly publicized space.

Bill Davenport February 3, 2015 - 09:05

Don’t forget Gréaud’s budget!

Loli Fernández-A Kolber February 2, 2015 - 11:38

Slinging mud, how original and how interesting! But…sort of sick fun.

nestor February 9, 2015 - 13:34

Have you seen the parrots now nesting in Houston ?


Leave a Comment

Funding generously provided by: