Bravo's "Work Of Art" episode 1
My first impression was that it fits in nicely with the other "reality" shows in which contestants have to be creative, such as Project Runway and Top Chef, among others. In fact, it's pretty easy to connect the roles of the hosts and judges to the Bravo formula: Simon de Pury is to WOA what Tim Gunn was to Project Runway ("Make it work!") and China Chow is our next Padma or Heidi. The judges are smart-but-tough representatives of the field -- Jerry Saltz, Jeanne Greenberg Rohatyn and Bill Powers. Contestants are given challenges, a deadline, roadblocks, and a final judging, and the only change in the formula is that this time, instead of dresses or dinner, they are making art.
Presumably, many in the core audience for this show are involved in the creative economy, and spend a lot of time around art, discussing it, thinking about it and making it, & have a fairly finely calibrated sense of the subtleties of media, diversities of expectations and approaches to process, the complexities of interpretation and the influences of art history. Granted, most of the general viewing audience won't be as concerned with the finer points, but given the popularity difference between food and fashion versus visual art, it seems that this show could go a long way toward helping more people engage with art, or alienate them forever. I hope they are careful about this, and don't "dumb it down" as a shortcut to making the ideas more accessible. All that will do, ultimately, is make art and artists seem "dumb", and make those who know otherwise change the channel.
So what happened in the first episode? (minor spoilers below)
The first assignment, to make a "portrait", was too vague to allow for anything but a mess of results. The works in the top 3 were all literal representations of their subject, traditional portraits in every sense. Two of the bottom 3 were non-literal, one being a more conceptual (albeit incredibly overdone) version of a portrait, the other being "abstract" (in a way that seems to be more of an excuse than a methodology).
The third of the bottom 3 reveals both the potential promise of this show, and also a major shortcoming. Untested artist Erik, who has no formal training and has never presented his work in public before, could be an interesting artist in the mix. He might prove to be a Henry Darger genius who rises above all of these snooty art-folks and proves that we all have creativity inside us and the right opportunity can make anyone a great artist. That would be a show worth watching! Instead he is another angry guy who bought his rebellion in the mall and makes paintings on the level of most high school students. His clown painting was an embarrassment to the producers of the show, really, more than to Erik himself. I have seen young artists in their fourth year of college, and even in grad school, break down and cry in the face of a tough critique. Erik gets to have his first tough crit come from Jerry Salz, on national television. That the judges didn't send him home can only mean they are hoping for him to become good tv, since he doesn't appear to have what it takes to make good art.
More generally, the concept that these people are going to make great "masterpieces" in 12 hours is silly. Edward Winkleman said it first:
The contestants are being judged on their rapid-response creativity, and that's not the same thing as making art. A work of art is completed when the artist says it is, not when the buzzer goes off. Time to fail, to make mistakes, and to correct them is built into the process. You wouldn't judge Michelangelo's David after only 12 hours of carving it, and in that respect the show needs to toss words like "great" or "masterpiece" (really?) around a bit more carefully in my opinion.
As "reality" tv goes, Work Of Art is off to a good start. There are some people that seem worth cheering for, a potential villain or two, some talented artists and a good set of hosts and judges. I'm in.
Image: the cast of Work Of Art via the Bravo website
|
