The Black Von Scrolls

As much of the art world descends on to Bravo’s “Work of Art” new reality television program, I am off to the sidelines jumping up and down. Ewww! Does everything have to be on TV, and most of all - does this profession need to be chewed up and spit out by Bravo reality producers?

The stakes for this show are large, $100,000 plus a solo show at the Brooklyn Museum of Art (that could pay for about 8-10 years of studio space in NYC). Ages of applicants range from about 20-65, although most are under 30. As artists mature and come into their style and craft, so much changes in their early development. Watching over 50% of applicants compete as young people is a testament to the art world, entertainment industry and a Western cultural fascination with youth. For many of us, youth = freedom. Curators and gallerists flock to capture that spirit. This sells art (see the New Museum’s “Younger Than Jesus”). I get that. After watching the show, I thought the strongest piece (the challenge was to paint a portrait of a fellow contestant) was by Abdi Farah, just 23 (above). It didn’t win, but is a big, orange juicy portrait. Yet, it still felt commercial (not wrong in the slightest, but what IS this show looking for?). I am trying to figure out, how can so many artists from such diverse backgrounds be piled into a room and chosen as a WOA winner, and then given a solo show at the Brooklyn Museum of Art?

When applying for an art school, there are many different practices and theories behind each program. If someone chooses to study conceptual art, they do not apply for a technical school preparing students in commercial fields. So the pool of students are coming from a similar start point, which gives the critique sessions a basic foundation and philosophy behind each class.

Back in school, an artist friend (who attended Pasadena Art Center) would quake before her crits… did she put enough layers of wax and paint on her work? Was the construction pristine, the composition perfect? She was obsessed with all formal aspects of the art, while the content was the easy bit; loose references of symbolism (the project was an album cover for “Nine Inch Nails”). Meanwhile my art professors at UCLA could have cared less about process, or for that matter formalism. “What are you saying? Who is your audience? Would you display it outside? Should it turn into an installation? Have you noticed the negative space around your work? Train your eye!” It was all conceptual, the physical object and it’s execution became secondary. “Learn it on your own time!” a professor once said. Ah, education. 

My point is, art reaches vastly different areas, and “Work of Art” has plucked all different types to create a show. The desire for celebrity, prize money and a solo exhibit drive each contestant. The artists enjoy being filmed, while the judges look at the work and decide what they view as successful, even when the entire pool is totally vast. So as the judges vote for what seems to be the strongest piece (commercial versus conceptual versus minimalist versus outsider, eeek!), on what merit are they choosing? Probably what the producers want: great TV. Good personalities and catchy artwork which intrigue drama. Just like all of Bravo’s other reality shows, it’s spun to attract their base (creative, successful, affluent) and pull in good ratings.

Thanks but I’ll take my art without the meta. Although I’m a huge believer in high and low, “Work of Art” is so contrived it’s hard to take it seriously. Even though I think all of us could agree that Andy Warhol would have produced the damn show if he was still alive (instead the Obama appointed art advisor Sarah Jessica Parker), our society’s desire to become famous and a household word overrides art and it’s context. The art becomes lost in the tubes.

What is celebrity anyway and why do so many humans yearn for it? Is it basic insecurity, competitiveness or naval gazing which attracts us to fame? I think it’s vanity. And it’s  fine to call it what it is, but our society has a bit of a screw loose in running after it so desperately.

Celebrities create brands and tabloid content, breeding a mega industry beyond TV and film. The next time I flip through Star, will an attractive “Work of Art” contestant get one page feature? Will we find out about their love interests? Will their Twitter followers quadruple overnight? Will Golden paint make them a spokesperson?

Even TV documentaries, which expose a subject and their process (like PBS’s Art:21), often can’t capture the art. Although some are more successful than others (especially if an artist can speak clearly about their philosophy), at least this approach conveys a deeper exploration of not just the character and personal history, but of achievements and legacy. Many documentary filmmakers peel the onion and unveil the subject. But even then, who is their subject, the artist or the art? Whether it’s reality television or PBS, cameras fixate on personality. My favorite short of late is this Lawrence Weiner piece by Hillman Curtis. This series of shorts manage to educate and inspire (check out designer Paula Scher).

But ultimately art is to be experienced. Unless the actual work is film or video, go to the source: the work itself. I really don’t care how Bruce Nauman takes his coffee, but definitely hail his latest work “Days” as an incredible piece to be experienced in person. Go to the museums and the local galleries. Search for free public art, or pilgrimage to find earth art. Become a collector. Read about art. But don’t offer art by portraying artists in a quest for fame and accolades crafted by reality TV producers, because in the end it’s just a warped approach. In saying that, I fully support the writing of $100,000 checks to be given to artists for outstanding work, as this award is about the biggest grant funding out there today.