Work of Art (Bravo): The Next Great Artist.
Great potential, but right now…not so much…
Editorial Comments
[Inspired by critic Anton Ego (of Ratatouille)]
“In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read.”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I am not a reality TV expert. When I learned about the concept and the structure (judges and challenges) of Work of Art, I was apprehensive, but also very excited. I was especially excited initially to see the name of Jerry Saltz associated with the show, but in the beginning everyone else was seemingly insignificant. Mr. Saltz was, and still is in some respects, an art world heavyweight. I had calculated that Mr. Saltz’s inclusion lent the production enough legitimacy to make it a serious undertaking.
I studied the show as much as possible, while simultaneously writing my dissertation, continuing my research, teaching and trying to eek out a bit of life. I faithfully watched every Wednesday and even purchased the episodes one by one from iTunes the next day in order to watch the show again and again. Work of Art became a pleasant distraction and—OH NO—entertaining! The revelation that I was entertained came as somewhat of a shock, but as I said in one of my previous posts, if reality TV can give a boost to a phenomenon as important as art, why not? I liked the idea.
In addition to enjoying Work of Art, another thing it did was annoy me to no end. It was sort of like eating French Onion Soup—I look forward to it, but the intestinal difficulties later…well, it’s the price I know I will pay. The one-liner critique comments were intolerable. Mr. Saltz and his pressing, repetitive questions drove me nuts! I just couldn’t understand the choice of China Chow as judge or host, and her wardrobe was even more confusing: you just don’t see this on Top Chef or any other reality TV production. I found it maddening.
“But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talents, new creations. The new needs friends.”
As it very often happens, when idea meets execution things can and will go wrong. This show is no exception. That said, if it hasn’t already been obvious thus far, let me say loudly and clearly: I SUPPORT THE IDEA BEHIND THIS SHOW AND SINCERELY HOPE IT CONTINUES ON INTO SUCCESSIVE SEASONS. Like every other show, Top Chef, etc., I hope there are improvements and changes.
“Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere.”
Who would have thought that one of today’s brightest stars in country music would have come from Checotah, Oklahoma? Carrie Underwood and the production team at American Idol thought so, that’s who! And if Bravo’s Work of Art proves anything, it’s that the winner was not from any major art or cultural super center. A winner was named, a winner is known. Nevertheless, just like Carrie Underwood, it’s what you do with that win afterwards that will make or break you. Otherwise, you’ll end up like Peregrin—the Whitney Museum collected her work a few years back, but her career has been a fizzle until now, and her future still remains to be seen. Greatness is possible despite humble origins, but you must actually possess greatness. Does Abdi possess greatness? If anyone had a chance, I think it is Abdi. However, an arranged marriage—the show at the Brooklyn as the ultimate game show prize orchestrated before the first episode was ever filmed—does not guarantee greatness. So, we must wait and see if Abdi is a flash-in-the-pan game show winner like American Idol’s Ruben Stoddard or The Next Great Artist’s Carrie Underwood. Plenty of artists get a show in New York: it’s not the first show, but the ability to secure successive shows that’s far more indicative of success.
BRAVO
Here are my criticisms of the show:
The lack of scholarship and the lack of an academic presence were obvious. It is as if Bravo completely ignored this component of the art world. Perhaps the inclusion of Jerry Saltz was the wink towards academia, but it just didn’t work out that way. Bravo, with or without trying, connected to some important and familiar academic concepts and conventions during the course of the show that simply did not receive adequate attention from the entirely commercial cast. Bravo cloistered the contestants (artists) in a “crit,” but forgot that when plugging into this environment (a critique) it is generally far more academic. Think of a cognitive map—what you touch touches something else. As such, Bravo touched, but ignored the academy.
The critique should not have been called a “crit” since the art was judged, judgments were passed and someone was sent home in a game show environment. Critiques are constructive and comprehensive—no one gets sent home from a crit. The “crit” should have been called the “judgment”: you did not appoint a panel of critics, but of judges. By definition, judges pass judgment. While it might well be impractical to show the critique of each artists’ work, some of the artists with greater potential may have been able to develop their work and hang on longer in the show if they had received more feedback—a real critique—after each challenge. Instead, there were the top three and bottom three, with everybody else ignored and left to try and guess what was wrong with their work or what was somewhat successful. I think Bravo perhaps needs to go back to the studio on this issue prior to next season. One suggestion I could offer: allow the artists to hold a critique of each other’s work prior to the opening of the gallery, perhaps with Simon as moderator. At least this would provide some peer feedback even if the judges were not involved.
On Bravo’s Top Chef and on the Food Network, judges are charged with the task of describing their culinary experience as they eat the contestant’s food (taste, texture, flavor, etc.). This makes for an interesting, though dissimilar (relatable) experience. On Work of Art that kind element was missing in critique. Description and analysis are two very important critique concepts that were conspicuously missing. Maybe Bravo relied too heavily upon the visual given that Work of Art dealt with works of visual art—assuming the audience could see what was going on and presuming we all might have a shared experience. However, this just wasn’t so. I suspect that studio lighting and television editing added an element that altered the TV viewing of the art from the way in which it might have been seen in person. Mark’s painting, for instance, didn’t look that bad to me on TV or the internet, yet was lambasted as bad hotel art by Jerry Saltz. Clearly there was a visual divide without any compensation, but this could potentially be resolved with a higher level of articulation on the part of the judges.
The challenges were somewhat like academy homework assignments, but then again, not. Academy assignments are always more instructional, less frivolous, students are generally given more time to complete an assignment and no one expects a “masterpiece.” With the exception of Abdi’s drawing in the second-to-last episode, I saw nothing that rose to meet the challenge of creating a masterpiece in such little time. Abdi did, however, succeed in this single instance. Perhaps collecting and mining some university art course syllabi in order to refashion the challenges would be a good idea if there is to be a second season. I do not know what the actual shooting schedule was like, but it appeared to have taken place in about two weeks, with work days and show days occurring back-to-back. To be fair to the artists and to raise the bar a bit on the quality of the work that results, it seems to me that there should be at least three days, if not a week, allotted for each challenge.
Audis? No artist I know goes tooling around in an Audi! Of course I understand the need for corporate sponsorship, but this was beyond the pale. [And yes, I am aware that the American Idol contestants crank out a new Ford commercial each week.] Find some old dusty Fords or VWs that leak oil, smell and break down from time to time. Instead of three Audis, get two cramped subcompacts and stick all fourteen contestants in there. Or at least make it similar to the Penguin book cover challenge and be overt in requiring the artists to make commercial artwork for Audi.
“They come from the cities and they come from the smaller towns. With beat up cars…”
“With pipe dreams in their heads and very little money in their hands. Some are black and some are white, they ain't to proud to sleep on the floor tonight…”
Speaking of which, if there is a next season, don’t house the contestants in some luxury condominium. Make the artists sleep in the studio and allow them work around the clock! I personally know three graduate students who each spent a year living in their university-provided art studio spaces during grad school. They worked constantly, ate crusty, greasy pizza most of the time, showered at the university rec-center (or simply stunk), wore horribly tattered clothing, but…made really great art work! Apart from the academy, struggling would-be artists have it even worse—just ask Erik. Dial down the opulence! Artists who haven’t made it big just don’t live this way. As per my previous suggestion of allowing the artists more time for each challenge, spending less on the accommodations would perhaps allow budget to provide that additional time.
China Chow: I cannot think of a more unsuccessful element of this show. Ms. Chow cheapens the show with her fashion antics. Host and judge? That was her function, yes, but NO! Have you watched the clip of Ms. Chow questioning Jaclyn’s painting—voicing her suspicions that the woman in the painting couldn’t actually be Jaclyn because, “those aren’t her thighs!” Unintelligent and obviously lacking in discernable artistic judgment! And I stand by my oft-repeated criticism that she more often came across to the audience as a programmed mannequin for some designer’s clothing line who regurgitated clichés at the end of each show. Inappropriate! A single pair of her shoes undoubtedly cost more than all the clothing in any one contestant’s luggage. In another Bravo production, Top Chef, Padma Lakshmi is always appropriately attired, never overdressed, and avoids such blunders.
Jerry Saltz: Immediately Jerry seemed like a wise choice, one who would have given the show an intellectual edge. It didn’t happen. If beady little eyes staring out beneath cocked eyebrows and an insistent demeanor were Bravo’s idea of edge, it fell flat. On American Idol, everyone held his or her breath in anticipation of what Simon Cowell might say because Simon is a master in delivering quick, poignant criticism. Jerry Saltz isn’t Simon Cowell and couldn’t perform in this context. I continue to appreciate his writing, but on camera and/or in the way the show was edited, it simply didn’t work.
Bill Powers: I am a fan of Mr. Powers thus far. I found Mr. Powers to possess reason, dignity and balance in his criticism, despite the one-liners. Bill was also a calming presence. Now and again his wardrobe could get a little funky (for instance, he might consider wearing dress shoes with a formal suit instead of sneakers), but that’s New York for you. I especially appreciate Bill’s gallery experience. In my mind, there are three great art world institutions (among other contributors): the academy, the museum, and the gallery. Though there are some unavoidable capitalistic motivations—but, hey, this is America—all artists would do well to learn as much about the gallery industry as possible. Bravo chose wisely with Bill.
Jeanne Greenberg Rohatyn: Ms. Rohatyn is also a gallerist, and I actually preferred her over Bill Powers. Like Bill she possessed reason, dignity and balance in conjunction with perceptive criticism. There was an interesting additional edge I just can’t put my finger on to identify with an appropriate adjective. That said, she missed two shows, and in so doing it seems that unfortunate choices were made that resulted in the elimination of contestants who probably deserved to stay, and the retention of contestants who did not deserve to continue on in the competition. Bravo built in some redundancy by choosing two judges from the gallery arm of the art world. Insomuch as she missed two shows, I’d cut Ms. Rohatyn from the cast if there is a second season unless she could ensure that she would be consistently present.
THE ARTISTS
Abdi,
Congratulations! You did it! Painting, drawing, sculpture, figurative, representational, (and, yes, conceptual) journeyman artwork won out over more conceptual exhibits. You deserved to win. The last image shown of you walking away carrying a bunch of bags is, I’m sure, a metaphor for your bright future. I was especially happy to learn your back-story—one of a supportive and loving home life with a strong loving mother. Perfect! Additionally, the gesture of gifting your mother the one hundred thousand dollars in prize money is especially touching. Your mother is proud of you and so am I. Great job!
Miles,
In the end you spent three months and five thousand dollars eating at White Castle, taking pictures and making pixilated art—something you’ve already done. Your work fell flat, it was aesthetically unappealing and you deserved not to win. Antics are interesting only when the work produced is exceedingly successful. Yours wasn’t.
Peregrin,
I admit that I’ve been critical of you and your work. I would have sent you home in weeks past, but had I done so, I would have missed the opportunity to see the brilliant work you produced for the finale. Your installation this go-round was aesthetically pleasing and showed a great deal of hard work. Good job! Note to Miles: Abdi and Peregrin’s work is how work is supposed to look when given money and time to produce art—an uncommon luxury you squandered!
THE JUDGES
With the exception of Bill and Jeanne, whose commentary I enjoyed, same ol’ – same ol’. All forgettable. For next season, Bravo would be well advised to include a museum curator and someone from the academy (many of whom are also working artists) in order to provide a better representation of the art world contexts in which work must ultimately be successful.
Mr. Saltz,
I believe this was a poor opportunity for you—one you should probably have avoided. Practicing art criticism on TV is a great deal different than doing so in print. In print you can be (and are) far more lucid. The allowance of two hundred fifty to three hundred words is a luxury. When your criticism is confined to one or two lines, it has to be spot on. Yours wasn’t. Not ever. Furthermore, your needling of the contestants—“why not, why not, why not”—“defend your work, defend your work”—came across as faint, high-pitched, annoying, and completely absent of scholarship (and this should not be so insomuch as you are a professional critic with elite part-time educational affiliations—a professional [mind you] who travels, lectures and critiques grad students during one-on-one studio visits). Oddly enough, for me, this had the affect of likening you to a successful pro football walk-on—a player who proves himself in one position on the field without the standard collegiate experience or accomplishments. But, ask that player to play another position and his lack of formal training is evident. Next, judging from what I would term your cheeky comments in your blog at New York Magazine, you gave the impression—at least to me—that you were occasionally disappointed with the show. Again that, to me, is like the walk-on player whining about the team and play of the game after being invited to become a member of the team. Of course, you’re entitled to your opinion, as is anyone. Nevertheless I found your entire performance as a member of the cast to be disappointing. (Doesn’t Disney identify their theme park employees as “cast members?”)
Simon de Pury,
If I’m being honest, you were the most interesting person on Work of Art. When checking in with the artists your criticism seemed a little hesitant, but I actually understand this because I try not to redirect my students when providing feedback and direction on work in progress. Jerry Saltz called you a “poodle.” I’m not sure why, but I’m pretty sure he was simply being cheeky. I think you would have made a better judge than anyone else on the show. You, more than anyone, gave the show dignity. But, much like the act and concept of Rauschenberg’s “Erased de Kooning” you were erased by the antics of China Chow and Jerry Saltz. Should there be a second season I, for one, hope your role is expanded. In addition, you were always impeccably dressed, but not in a way that was distractingly ludicrous as was Ms. Chow.
Fin…
As quickly as it began, it is now over. I had a great time watching and writing. My shenanigans have come to an end, here, but I am inspired to continue on in my blog in conjunction with other art topics. I also enjoyed reading everyone else’s comments. What an extraordinary experience!
By the way, for those of you who have asked, my real name is Bruce Mackh.
Yours sincerely, L’Art
No comments:
Post a Comment