A while back a friend of mine asked me to blog about my opinions of the Bravo show Work of Art. He thought that, as an artist and curator, I might have some sort of insight into the show.
To be honest when I thought about it I was both skeptical and jealous. Jealous because when I first saw the show Project Runway, originally a Bravo show now on Lifetime, I immediately thought that there should be a similar art based show. So here was my idea and I wasn’t on it. Skeptical because I always saw it the show as a potential train wreck. Really, how could you explain the art making process of many different artists with different styles working in different media? The logistics of the studio alone seems imposing. But there it was.
When the show started I was in Italy teaching a study abroad class. I was able to download the first episode on ITunes but I never got around to watching it, a combination work, exhaustion and that green monster jealousy. That first episode was still sitting in my queue wanting to be watched.
Last night I took the plunge, reservations and all, now I’m hooked. I still have some of my initial reservations, more on that in a bit, but I did enjoy this first episode and I’m looking forward to the next one. This first episode was what it could be. The necessary introductions where made taking up time that keep the visuals of the contestants working to a minimum, something I would personally like to see more of. I thought the idea of the self-portrait introduction was a interesting and I enjoyed the contestants reactions as they walked through, I reacted much the same way as the contestant Nao did, mostly a dismissive “eh”. I found it curious to later find out she was a professor. I did have a reaction to her piece that reflected her reaction to Amanda’s piece, a
The first challenge, making an image that represented a randomly assigned fellow contestant, was a difficult assignment. Making work about someone you just met, and your competition in this case, is a challenge. That the pieces in the end spoke more about the artist making them than they did about the subject. It’s no surprise that they did come off that way, how could you know that much about someone after a gallery reception and thirty minutes of focus time. In fact this was the nagging flaw in the entire episode. I’m willing to accept the fact that the work was more about the artist than the subject but how could any juror truly judge a work based on the little they had seen of the artists. I’m sure they saw plenty of videos and read some on the contestants but they supposedly hadn’t met the contestants until the day of the crit. How could the judges make a determination about how well the artist had accomplished the goal of capturing their subject when they couldn’t know the subject that well themselves?
Some of my initial question and concerns have not been addressed yet. The time limitations of the first episode didn’t allow for the exploration of the dynamics between the contestants or various artist’s to their preferred media to be shown. The only example that shined through was Miles’s blown bulb. Miles, who seems a pretty sharp, works suing a photo-based screen printing process. He needs strong light bulbs to expose his screens. After one exposure his bulb blew leaving him without any method to complete his work in the form it was conceived. I like Miles, he’s my favorite so far but come on, shouldn’t an OCD be more prepared? I do hope these concerns are addressed in later episodes but for now I’m willing to give them a pass.
I had two concerns pop up during the show both which I see as big problems. The first was the presentation of the work in the “gallery.” The work was presented in a pretty weak way. Each piece was simply presented side by side with simple lighting. With all the curators standing around I would expect a better presentation, a good curator can make a good piece look great. The argument against that thought, none of the work should be emphasized so as to keep the critique process even, doesn’t stand muster here. If the curation was strong across the board evenness projects forward. The second concern was the critiques process itself. It wasn’t nearly as clean as what I expected having seen Project Runway’s process. I’d love to see the group critique, let everyone weigh in. Letting some, the bulk of the group, go without comment is too easy. Weighing in on only the good and the bad is also too easy. The jurors need to be held accountable for their opinions as much as the artists need to be held accountable visual.
So far this is a fun show. I love watching artists make work, seeing the process and I think it’s something that the public at large is often left ignorant of. So much of art is viewed as genius, ethereal muses or raw, born with. talent. Good art, at least long lasting art, can’t be made in a vacuum. Art isn’t like politics and sausage, it’s best to see it made warts and all. This is the ultimate potential strength of Work of Art, exposing the process of art for all to see.
