TV Question Qorner: Work of Art
Above, Abdi’s “Intruder Alert.”
I’ll grant that it’s functionally impossible for the show to do what its tagline says it will — find “The Next Great Artist” — but I think the attempt is really interesting. Yes, the field of potential NGAs is restricted to artists willing to appear on camera and submit to contrived challenges and awkward product placements. Yes, “art” encompasses many media, and it’s tough to draw meaningful comparisons among the works created in this context.
I still enjoy Work of Art, though, in part because I can’t execute a successful stick figure, much less begin to address a public-art challenge, so I like to watch that process developing. (My one issue there is that I wish the show followed a more documentary format; the adherence to a competitive/challenge configuration means that the process stuff I’d rather see ends up on the cutting-room floor, or that the artists don’t have time for it in the first place.) I like to see and analyze how narratives become (or fail to become), and with writing, it’s more literal, but it’s also sometimes harder to explain or parse how an idea turned into the story in front of you — or failed to turn into the story in mind.
A visual-art piece becomes in a different way, and because I don’t have that ability, it’s neat to watch, even when it doesn’t work. More so, in a way.
Even more interesting, to me, was the tension between Erik and Miles — art naïf vs. masterful crit BS-ing. I felt for Erik, because, again, it’s not exactly the same in a creative-writing workshop, but I saw it (and did it) myself: the polishing of a C-minus turd into something resembling a B based on the author’s ability to say the right things about the intent. I once saw a male classmate, arguably the most talented writer in the seminar but having an off week on the page, pass off a slapped-together cummings exercise as “exploring the historical silencing of women,” then dunk on the professor with a defeated shrug and “I guess I didn’t push it far enough.” And on the one hand, the balls, right? But on the other hand, nobody challenged him. MP and I exchanged a “…the balls!” look, but it’s kind of workshop code that, if you expect to sling the bullshit yourself, you’d better not hold your nose when anyone else is doing it.
I felt bad for Erik as he struggled with that. It’s a much, and rightly, lampooned part of artistic schooling that the narrative you put forward in crit or workshop is at least as important as the one being critiqued, and for outsiders or those new to it, it seems unfair, because it is unfair. But learning to talk about your and others’ work is important, not just because then you can play the game but because part of that game is also knowing the history, the references, what came before you. I did feel bad for Erik, but I also felt frustrated by his defensiveness; his work isn’t per se terrible all the time, but when it is, he doesn’t understand why, and he doesn’t want to hear criticism that could actually help him — that it’s derivative, that it presents clichés without investigating them. Technique is great, but if your eye isn’t paired with a voice, nobody’s going to care, and like the man said, you can’t send up what you don’t have down.
In other words, it’s about context, and while crit bullshitting takes it too far into the realm of “nothing but,” Erik didn’t seem to have any context for his work at all. I know how frustrating it is to wander back and forth over that line trying to find it, but on a reality show, in a medium I don’t work in, it’s kind of fun to see — particularly Jaclyn as the parodied side of it. I don’t think her male-gaze default is entirely bullshit; I think it started out sincerely, but years ago, and has since ossified into a reflex defense for an endless series of semi-nude self-portraits that don’t risk anything. It’s one thing to question the male gaze, although I have to admit that the phrase itself prompts an eye-roll — it just seems so ’90s and dully academic — but Jaclyn doesn’t really question it so much as report on passing muster with it, and it never really goes further. I don’t think she’s a bad artist, or dumb, but she thinks the (approving) male gaze is a means to the end of her art when it’s the other way around. If she flips the script, we might see something interesting, but I don’t know if that can happen within the confines of the show.
The real problem I have with the show, though, is that nobody I know is watching it. I finally managed to suck in my sister-in-law, but that’s it, and I would LOVE to talk about it with an actual visual artist. …Is…this thing on? Simon? Awesome? Anyone?
Tags: "fine" art Simon de Pury TV Work of Art
I’m not watching it, but I am following it via blogs (mostly Tom & Lorenzo’s recaps) – I know Abdi from Penn, so of course I’m entirely in his corner. I think the painting above was part of his senior thesis collection.
Hey Sars,
As an Art Teacher my hubs told me “You can’t not watch this.” So we have. And it’s been infuriating. I am a trained judge for youth art competitions that focus on “You don’t just MAKE art, you should be able to TALK about your art.” Loved your critique of Eric. His aversion to constructive criticism and defensiveness really put off my hopes that an untrained artist could bring a freshness to the proceedings.
Jackie’s insistence on treading the same territory over and over again is maddening, it KILLS me that the judges like her work so much. Fine artists have an absurd habit of devaluing any art that is even remotely commercial. It’s as though, if an artist makes something the public might actually like or understand they are terribly plebian and should put down the paint brush. How dare they make something beautiful, that the viewer might understand……
I’m watching it, too. I come to it having zero artistic ability. I think it’s fascinating to watch how the artist interprets each challenge. This week’s challenge was such an eye-opener – when Jaclyn wasn’t able to go to her default self-portrait, she completely shut down; and I have no idea what Miles was trying to do with his duct tape and rubber band piece, but it was clear from the outset that he had zero interest in this challenge and opted out – but, as you noted, because he has the ability to use the right language and context to explain his piece to the judges, he managed to sail through the challenge.
Okay, that’s Obama and…who?
Yup – I’m following it through TLo. :)
I watch it; I found it by accident and thought it was really interesting. But I am also not a visual artist. I felt the same way Sars did about wanting to see or hear more of the process along the way, or to hear more narrative during/about the creation. Part of my interest is seeing that design – in art, fashion, decorating, and even in engineering ( the part I know and understand) is somewhat similar. Seems like that should have been obvious, but it wasn’t. Because I don’t have the language of art, or knowledge of its history, I frequently can’t tell if the comments are insightful or pure BS. But, I’ve experienced that in engineering, too, at times.
@JS1: It’s Abdi, one of the artestants.
I’m so glad someone else is watching this show and writing about it! I’ve felt so alone.
I’ve been enjoying it, especially for the way that it highlights difference between experiencing the piece of art decontextualized and as audience members who’ve watched how it was made. What we see as repetitive or the result of aimless flailing, like Jaclyn’s work, comes across to the judges, plausibly I think, as coherency and the development a theme/issue. Except she’s going to run into the risk in that, which is that if she makes a piece that seems like a step backwards within that theme, she’s going home.
My least favorite is actually Mark, whose images are never not cliché. He just doesn’t seem to have any kind of point of view and is rewarded for his polish. He does not strike me as an artist at all, really, and he has kind of a superior attitude about it that’s off-putting.
My favorite is Nicole, who seems to have both a point of view and facility with multiple mediums without a lot of bullshit gumming up the works. Her pieces strike me as mysterious but not completely opaque, so it makes the viewer feel smart for teasing out the layers of meaning — not a bad trick for winning this kind of show.
I think Abdi might win, even though I think he can be awfully one-note or even vapid in his art. His work lacks the irony and wit that I associate with pop art.
My husband is a visual artist, and we are watching W.O.A. Just so you know you’re not alone.
I hate that no one gets called on their bullshit — Erik tried, but didn’t have the vocabulary. F-k you is not a cogent argument, unfortunately, and he did turn into kind of a jerk.
I like Nicole, but I don’t understand her art AT ALL.
After this last challenge, I am rooting for Peregrine. But isn’t she already a pretty successful artist? It’s very confusing. Bring back Project Runway.
Apparently I am going to have to watch this now. Non-artists still give me horrified looks when I describe graphic design classes: “You mean you worked so hard and then hung your work on the wall and people…. COMMENTED on it? In front of the whole CLASS? And then they don’t only say things that are nice? How could you handle it??”
After a few times, it gets easy. Nothing could have prepared me better for actually working in design every day (“That red does not work. Do it in blue. And make those logos bigger.”)
My only experience with fine art (painting 101) was similar, in that discussing your art, knowing your purpose, even defending the results when needed, was considered as important as the work itself. We had to have solid rationale in advertising design too, but the goals are more concrete: your work either sells the product/service or it doesn’t. Having a bunch of us design students in painting 101 led to a lot of self-entertainment, actually, because we would be taken seriously on bulldust that would *never* fly in design classes.
That’s no slam on fine artists, though. It’s much harder to convince a skeptic on the worth of your efforts when there’s no marketing metrics to cite for backup.
Sounds like an interesting show. I already wish they would ditch the Apprentice-style competition format though, it’s tired now and I can see how the best part of each artist’s process would get missed. Too bad.
I’m watching, but sort of reluctantly. Come Sunday night, I’ll check the Tivo and be like, “Oh this thing is still on there?”
I worked with Miles a few times in a previous job, and I was always impressed with how adept he was (compared to his fellow art student classmates) at reading a room and saying the right things. He knows how to do this – not just “make art” and express his ideas, but SELL that to others. As you say, it is an important facet of being an artist that a lot of people would rather ignore or deny. I mean, that’s cute, but you want to pay the bills? You better be good with people, or at least good at talking up your own work. Erik is neither, and his resulting defensiveness and anger was not fun TV. Also: Clown. Palette. That’ll do, pig.*
On a TV show level, I think my problem with WOA is that there is such a clear line between those who seem to be on a path to be Capital-A-Artists (Miles, Abdi, Peregrine, for example), and those who do not (even Mark or Jaime Lynn, who are skilled technicians with not a lot of innovative or provocative thinking behind their work). It’s like the seasons of Project Runway or Top Chef where there were like three ringers, and then these…other people who tried real hard. It gets tiresome to watch.
*(Come on, TN, let’s make this happen.)
I had to do a review of the show, and it’s basically “Project Runway” for artists. It’s a lousy way to actually find a real artist, as you note, but I’ve been compelled into DVR’ing it ever since that first episode. I am with you in wishing we saw more process, but I’ve really enjoyed seeing the process that we do get. Not sure if it should run another season, but this one has been interesting. Don’t you think Miles has it in the bag?
Oh, I’m so glad I’m not the only person watching this. I’ve been going crazy wanting to talk about it but have no one with which to do so.
I’m not what I would consider a ‘capital A’ Artist, more a very devoted hobbyist. As such, I’m almost entirely self educated which is why whenever Erik would defensively use that as an excuse for why his piece didn’t work and why he was incapable of talking about it I wanted to punch him through the television. It was especially infuriating during the group challenge because he would take the very useful advice Jaclyn was giving him and turn that into a snub. He saw the ability to promote one’s work, even if you are laying the bullshit on nice and thick, as something only art school idiots did. And just, no.
Art has always been something very personal to me, but at the same time I’m able to recognize that if it doesn’t resonate with someone, if I’m unable to articulate why this piece has meaning in a way that anyone can understand then it’s just a masturbatory exercise. And who wants to see that up on their walls?
And I totally feel you on the wanting to see more process. While I understand that this competitive format has been a cash cow for Bravo I just want to see this artists doing their work.
I’ve been watching faithfully since the first episode, but I’m not a visual artist or artist of any kind. I tend to the I-like-what-I-like-but-I-like-that-you-like-other-things-too school of thought, so it’s been very interesting for me to watch, particularly when my favorites or least favorites solicit comments that I find to be completely kaljdfkljadf and rife with wtfery.
I am really frustrated with Jaclyn, in particular, because her entire artistic statement seems to be “I’m really hot and shockingly there are both pros and cons to that!” which is not, in my opinion, terribly relevant or interesting. Though I’ve liked the visual presentation of the two pieces prior to the childhood challenge, it was mostly because a) someone else’s idea improved her go-to default of “look at me being hot!” and b) the Audi challenge presentation I found appealing simply for the physical arrangement of the images on the wall.
As far as Miles go, I can’t decide if the tortured artist bit is a self-aware line of bullshit, an oblivious line of bullshit, or part of his art itself.
I’m with you on the competition format not giving you enough of the process. For a season, they had Chef Academy on Bravo and I loved that format because you had 8 people that you followed throughout the entire season and you watch their thought processes change as they learn to become better cooks and I found that more riveting than any of the competition formatted show. Sadly, I don’t think they are bringing another season back, which speaks to what everyone else thinks about the format of that show…
I’m still not completely sold on the show itself. I saw the first episode and then didn’t pick it back up until the child art challenge. It just lags for me in a way that a lot of other challenge shows don’t.
I think the successful pieces (Miles’s bed w/ assholes, Jaclyn’s male gaze pieces) work as a comment on the process of being on the show itself. I do wish there were more process and less interpersonal drama (boring). I’d also like to hear more of the judges’ critiques. I am done done done with Nicole. I like Mark’s Mexican folk-art inspired pieces. I am interested by Miles’s art (though he persona is annoying). Also interesting: Peregrine, Abdi, and Jaclyn. I wish Nao were still on the show because I think she had an interesting perspective. On the whole, I’m enjoying the show.
I love this show — it is one of my favorites on right now. I’ve done a fair amount of art on and off over the years (but not professionally), and I have been really impressed by the challenges the show has generated. After the show each Wednesday, I’ll lie in bed and try to think of how I might have approached the challenge… And what I invariably come up with is: man, those challenges are hard. I loved the shock challenge, as being shocking is something that sounds easy to do, but to do it with artistic purpose is incredibly difficult… And loved this past week’s childhood challenge, as well as Peregrine’s piece.
The moment Peregrine won the challenge this week, the show transformed from a reality show to a comedy for me. The utter nonsense of the, “oh, and it’s about AIDS” story make me choke on Caffeine-Free Diet Dr. Pepper. I couldn’t believe they all bought into it. That was utter crap. I have enjoyed the show, but it has said nothing about art except that it attracts the most pretentious followers. And that is too bad, because that is not what all of art, or the art world, is about. As a reasonably serious collector, I have met and interacted with many great, open, and unselfconscious artists and gallery folk. I was hoping this show would move beyond the stereotypes, but it hasn’t yet. I am still holding my breath for the final challenge when Miles announces that the show itself has been his greatest piece of art and he is a really normal guy.
I think that part of the issue is that so many people these days assume that “criticism” means “bitter, sarcastic snark”. Stuff like TVTropes and Television Without Pity seem to be promoting that notion, so it’s not hard to understand why Eric might have immediate negative responses to criticism.
A recap that busts on the show and its participants isn’t at all the same as a workshop critique delivered by peers, or criticism of the art itself delivered by gallerists or art writers. The former is criticizing the show; regardless of the form that takes or its validity, an artist is justified in blowing that off as not relevant (and probably wise to do so).
But you’re going to have to hear criticism of your work, and you’re going to have to be able to talk about your work in those terms, because that’s the language of that world, and to get away with not speaking it requires an immense, unique, unmistakable talent. And Erik doesn’t have that. He’s not utterly talentless, I don’t think, but if he’s not interested in operating within, or even learning, the context for his work and everyone else’s, he’s not going to get anywhere.
Few people run full-speed into the arms of criticism, but I suspect he’s getting criticized for his behavior on the show BECAUSE he wouldn’t hear or incorporate criticism of his work.
Miles is from the Twin Cities and did an interview on a local radio station that I stumbled upon. I found him very self aware and intelligent and decided to check out the show. I’ve been sort of prejudiced towards him because of that interview.
He did say that he’s spent a bit of time over the years learning how to cope with his OCD so that he doesn’t just stop functioning. I also know a few people who have to sleep when they get overwhelmed. I think Miles has a combination of real problems and real talent. He also is sufficiently self aware to appreciate the performance art aspect of reality television.
I wonder how much Erik’s head injury influences his mental stability? I was struck when he stated that he started creating art after his accident sort of automatically. Like he doesn’t have any insight to it.
I’m watching sporadically, but one of the best things about this show is that Jerry Saltz (who is one of the judges) does the recaps at nymag.com and then responds to almost everyone in the comments. Some of the eliminated artists are commenting too. It really adds to the experience.
I got sucked into this show after randomly catching the last half of the first episode — I’ve never really been into Top Chef or Project Runway, but as someone who got a BA in visual art (& English lit) the “art school characters” aspect of it really resonated with me. I also appreciate that they take the top & bottom contenders for the weekly crit, which is nicely evocative of how real-life crits frequently work out: sometimes you’re disappointed because your work doesn’t get discussed at all, sometimes you’re elated because everyone loved your pieces, & sometimes it feels like the entire crit ends up being about how you could’ve executed things more successfully. I like that they carry through the ambiguity of being the center of attention.
there are definitely problems with the show’s execution, both the usual edited-for-storyline aspect that all “reality” shows have in common anymore, & the fact that they don’t really spend enough time showing the art in a way that allows the viewers to understand the pieces fully. but I really appreciate that Jerry Salz, & the other judges who blog, seem to have free rein to criticize the produced-for-TV-by-Bravo aspect of the exercise, & while the challenges can be silly, they’re not too far beyond what you’d see in a BA or MFA program. so on the whole, I’m a huge fan; I think it’s fascinating, & I really hope it ends up being picked up for future seasons.
Sars, thank you for so eloquently saying what I’ve been thinking about Jaclyn from day one. It’s obvious that she’s technically proficient and quite talented, but OMG please EVOLVE ALREADY, GIRL. Say something new!
Spoiler Alert:
I can’t BELIEVE those two won this week! This show just gets more and more frustrating…..
although I really don’t think any of them really addressed the challenge very well at all.