You’d think we were overdue for a reality-TV show about the art world. Watching people create art, must be fascinating, right? Or have we just been lulled into thinking that after seeing Hans Namuth’s hypnotic films of Jackson Pollock at work?
Bravo stepped into that void — if indeed it exists — last night, offering us Work of Art: The Next Great Artist. When it comes to splattering emotions like, Work of Art is like Top Chef in an exploding kitchen: controlled chaos. To be sure, each of 14 contestants arrived labeled – for example, there was Abdi, the “figurative artist”; Nao, the “performance artist”; Jaime Lynn the “illustrator”; and Erik, who gave us a clown painting that would be shoddy even by the standards of John Wayne Gacy. The egos roamed free: Jaclyn, a former studio assistant for the superlative hype-master Jeff Koons, said “people assume someone like me couldn’t be an artist” (why? because she’s hot-looking, one is left to assume) “and then I always surprise them with my work.” (That would be work which included a self-portrait of Jaclyn getting out of a car with a red star placed over her exposed vagina, a painting so poor that it was impossible whether she or Bravo placed the star over the private-part.) Assigned to do portraits of each other, Jaclyn has trouble rendering 60-something Judith, because she’s “a lot older than myself.” Ageism knows no artistic boundaries.
This challenge for the show itself is to make contemporary art palatable to a broad viewing audience. After all, after this week’s paint-a-portrait challenge, they have to grapple with abstraction or the conceptual stuff, don’t they? (I note a TV listing that says next week, the contestants must transform “trashed appliances” into art.)
Art is less Top Chef than Project Runway in its framework. Its Tim Gunn is Simon de Pury, who coaches and critiques the works-in-progress. As I pointed out in my review in the new issue of Entertainment Weekly, what Art needed was a judge with the wit and prickliness of Time Magazine’s Robert Hughes, host of one of the best TV art histories ever, the 1980 PBS series The Shock of the New. Or perhaps Dave Hickey, the most influential current art critic who also revels both pop culture and kitsch (and a TV fan, however, he’s no Renaissance man: his taste runs to Perry Mason reruns). Nonetheless, Work of Art‘s three-person judging panel is very lucky indeed to have Jerry Saltz, New York Magazine’s excellent art critic, who isn’t a showy personality, yet who offers the most succinct comments in the clearest language.
Work of Art confirms a few things. One is that when it comes to reality TV and prizes (in this case, $100,000 and a show at the Brooklyn Museum), few rebels remain rebellious for long. All the contestants, even the supposedly the performance-artist who doesn’t “do” representational art, turn meekly docile both when given and assignment and in accepting criticism of it. The ringer in this series, an early favorite to win — the Nicole Scherzinger of Work of Art, as it were — is Trong, a New York artist and curator who would seem to at the very least be attuned to the same sort of art and aesthetic shared by the judges. (Then again, that may be one reason they’ll eject him quickly if his work is deemed too derivative of that aesthetic.)
This show is ultimately an example of something The New Yorker art critic Peter Schjeldahl said as far back as 1985, that the differences between “art work and the art industry and the art business [have] collapsed. Which means that the younger generation now, depending on your point of view, is either corrupt or realistic.”
Me, I think the generation that forms the majority of the contestants here is a bit of both, and lacking in much of a sense of art history. Unless it was edited out, not one contestant had anything interesting to say about older portrait artists who might have inspired them, or could even articulate, in an art-historical context, what their work was trying to achieve. And I write as someone who actually enjoyed this show.
This week’s winner and loser were rather disappointing. Miles’ winning “death portrait” of Nao placed his subject in a pose strongly reminiscent of the portraits of Chuck Close, but no one remarked upon this. And loser Amanda — well, while it’s nice not to have to listen to any more of her nattering about the “journey” on which her art has taken her, was she really worse than Erik the clown painter, or did some combination of the judges and the producers conspire to keep that guy on because he’ll just do something even more laughably worse in the future?
I’ll be very curious to see what happens when Work of Art moves next week to its regular time period, 10 p.m. EST, after Top Chef D.C. (This week is was on at the same time as Chelsea Lately, which isn’t really fair.) I have my doubts as to whether pairing Chef and Art is a good idea — I’m not sure people want to watch two hours of shows that have similar narrative structures. On the other hand, there’s no way I’m not going to be front and center at least until the weeks when self-absorbed Jaclyn or the assiduously flamboyant Nao gets booted off. They may not make art, but they make good television.
Follow: @kentucker
I disagree about Miles. They outlined all the reasons on the show why he should have one, but if they gave it to either of the other 2 I would have also been pleased.
Amanda was a bore and had to go. I’m sure Erik is next. How could you not know anything about art and claim to be an artist? Ridiculous.
That should be “won” instead of “one”, haha
All respect, but that’s just silly. It is possible for an artist to be completely original and good and not know art history. In fact, you might argue that to be defined as a truly original artist you cannot have any exposure to other art, so that your work is not derivative of previous artists. One could see that from the slideshow they gave of his previous work.
Erik’s problem is that he’s only produced art for his own fulfillment, and with this show, he’s producing for the consumption of others. These are entirely different audiences.
I really enjoyed this show. As a self-taught photographer, I with several different artists. I, like Erik, have no formal training. I have read a lot on my own, but am learning what makes my work so successful. I will watch this whole series.
They’ll probably keep Erik on as the Everyman foil to the pretentious artsy types.
i watched. i’ll probably keep watching. its interesting enough for summer tv.
I think the judges are as corrupt/realistic as the artists in that they kept clown-man. Clearly an inferior effort, I suspect they gave that piece a pass because, well, y’know, at least it was a *portrait* ferpetessake! If they can’t accept the idea of an abstract portrait I don’t see how they are pushing anymore sophisticated of an aesthetic than the artists. I mean the clown thing… come ON.
I kind of thought the clown one should have gone not only because it was terrible, but also because it completely misrepresented the other artist’s personality. Amanda’s might not have been great of a portrait in the traditional sense, but at least it managed to capture some of the other artist’s aura. Whatever that means.
How can one write a recap of this program without mention of Judith’s “proud p**sy” portrait of Jaclyn? After all, uncomfortable exchanges and unintentional hilarity are what reality shows are all about.
I was shocked that Judith’s “portrait” of Jaclyn wasn’t in the bottom 3 along with the other 2 that weren’t actually portraits (Nao’s and Amanda’s). And then as much as I disliked Mao’s work AND egotistical pretentiousness, I would have sent Judith home. “Proud pu$$y” my a$$. I can’t for the life of me figure out how the judges had nothing to say about that tripe.
The really hilarious moment there was when Jaclyn declared herself aghast and wondered where Judith could have got the idea of her as a proud pussy! Cut to the star over her private parts in her self-portrait. Hilarious!
I agree with the judges falling leaves are not a PORTRAIT. That said I think the “clown” will be gone in a few weeks.
Me too. I don’t buy the “abstract portrait” concept. Isn’t that kind of an oxymoron. Neo’s was not a portrait either. But art is so subjective. I will keep watching. Like someone else said, it’ll work for summer tv.
I have to agree about the falling leaves. One of the judges said it best – it looked like pretty wallpaper, not a portrait. It is possible to create an abstract that is clearly a portrait (Modigliani, Picasso, etc.), but if you are going to take it to a different level, at least have an explanation that ties what you did to what you were asked to do. Amanda couldn’t even articulate how her wallpaper was supposed to represent her subject other than saying she was wearing lots of jewelry and flowers. WTF???? Come on, you entered a contest with a format, stick to the format (paint what is asked, in your own style) or go rogue and go home, which is what she did.
I have to say this and I’m not trying to cause drama, but Bravo shows tend to systematically weed out their female contestants very early on. On Top Chef, they usually get rid of half the female contestants in the first few weeks (minorities come first), then they move on to middle of the pack male minorities and then we get an arrogant white dude winning everything. The kickoff of Amanda over Erik makes me think they’re going to do it here too.
And since this does seem over the top of me to say, I guess I’m speaking directly about the last regular season of Top Chef. The boys vs girls theme was non-stop and odd all season and they just kept kicking off the women instantly and making them all look inferior in the way the editing was handled. It rubbed me the wrong way.
I agree entirely about Top Chef. That show is brutal on the women. Brutal.
But while Erik’s mess was a MESS, he stayed over Amanda because at the least he has a personality. I don’t think it was necessarily a woman thing this time, it was a “she is boring and boring doesn’t sell” thing.
While all that might be true, I must point out that Top Chef Masters had three different ethnicities in the finals (Chinese, Black, Caucasian), with the black Marcus Samuelsson crowned the winner.
Oh yeah, there was definitely good reason for Amanda to go over Erik (personality and story arc like you mentioned.) I’m for sure being over the top with my little observation, but at least with cooking shows (like Roma mentions below) there are some weird macho things that creep me out. Funny since cooking is still thought of by some as womanly. Maybe overcompensating. Still, it’s enough for me to root extra hard for women as well. This show will probably be different.
I find myself rooting extra for women for just the reason you’ve said, but I have to say, it’s all over. Ever watch FoodTV competitions? Chopped, for instance, has the women almost always out first. I think Erik stayed because at least he had a person on the canvas, hideous and badly done as it was. There was nothing “portrait” like about either Nao’s or Amanda’s works, Nao’s being “saved” by the teensy portrait almost behind her ridiculous line map. I really loved Abdi’s “red” portrait, I thought it was better than Miles’ representation of Nao. I found it a bit creepy how exactly Project Runway like this show is; they have a Heidi, they have a Tim Gunn (pale imitation nonetheless), they have their judged challenges, top three, bottom three, middle congratulated, etc. For a show celebrating art, and one would think by extension originality, this show has precious little of either.
I enjoyed the premiere and have high hopes for this show!
I hope that the homeless artist will surprise us.
Mr. Tucker, you REALLY need to be assigned an expert proofreader. Your writing is painful and difficult to digest at best.
I’m glad someone else noticed. Ken, usually I eat up your reviews. But this article seems like it somehow slipped through the editing process and made it to the site without so much as a once-over from either you or your editor.
I didn’t care for the winning art. I felt it was… boring. I liked Abdi’s portrait of Ryan, but I thought the win should have gone to Mark’s portrait of Erik (and the loss to Erik’s portrait of Mark.)
But my least favorite was actually Judith’s “Proud Pussy” portait of Jaclyn. That was no more a portait than “Random Dots” or “Falling Leaves” (I quite liked Random Dots, just not as a portrait) However, Jaclyn having no idea where Judith got the idea for Proud Pussy from… well that was too funny.
Overall, I enjoyed the show… I wasn’t even put off by the fact that the structure of the show was stolen directly from Project Runway… I just wish my cable network carried Bravo so I didn’t have to watch it the next day on the computer.
Interesting show. It is good to see art on TV. It was set up exactly like Project Runway except they didn’t get to go shopping. What is the artist’s equivalent of Mood? I don’t see how the performance artist is going to compete in other styles. She doesn’t seem to have a clue what to do outside of her own style.
Did anyone else think that Peregrine was getting WAY too excited (ahem) at the thought of painting Nicole in the nude? If I remember correctly, Peregrine asked Nicole if she could let her see her bare back, with the idea that the portrait would be of Nicole from behind. And then suddenly it seemed like Peregrine had painted a full frontal nude, I’m assuming from her imagination (because I saw no indication that Nicole had posed for her like that, and Nicole didn’t seem all that thrilled at the way the portrait turned out).
I watched 10 minutes of the show and it will be my last. Yes, it was that bad.
I guess I’m in the minority but I rather liked Eric’s portrait (clown painting). I found it interesting that the artist as the clown trapped in the pallet. It worked for me. It was crude in technique – but I still found it interesting unlike the “falling leaves” and “random dots and lines”. I am an artist and I try to respect different points of artistic view – but art being subjective – some I’ll like and some I won’t.
I agreed with the top 3 selections and would have been pleased with any gaining immunity. I would also have put the gals portait of the older artist in the mix. I really enjoyed the energy of her piece and the play of the grays off the orange. I thought it was telling that the subject of the piece did not see that expression as being hers. It’s always difficult to try and see yourself from someone else’s point of view.
I’m excited about the show and look forward to wathcing it. I truly hope they show more of the artistic process!