Rearranged the studio walls today - we tried a cleaner look, and we like it -
Monday, June 21, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
work of art?
BRAVO network just started broadcasting it’s newest reality show, “Work of Art: The Next Great Artist” which could be good for working artists or have no impact on us whatsoever. Art business guru Alyson Stanfield asked a few questions about this show, stimulating a response from me which I’ve honed a bit and am posting here.
So far "Work of Art" is another formulaic "reality" show that doesn't actually reflect the true reality of being a working artist, which is too bad, but I hope that no one truly believes that any of this genre reflects real life. I find it interesting to watch other artists' creative process, even under duress, but I could live without the prefab drama of personalities that are destined to clash.
On the down side, competing artists on the show are given insanely short deadlines to create artworks that meet the week’s challenge, but it makes for good TV drama, so I'm sure that's why it's there. I also was looking at all the artists' portfolios on the website & I noticed that they're all very 'edgy' New York art scene style & there doesn't seem to be any traditional working artists on the show at all - what
does that tell the viewing public? Once again, it seems that many will be put in the 'decorative' pile for making work that employs traditional aesthetics, which is really too bad and personally rubs me the wrong way. And I certainly don't think this show will live up to it's name and find the next great artist, because the next great artist is too busy dedicating herself to her own work to stop and play these games.
I'm not sure what we might learn from this, though I did like Alyson’s comments about the first artist being eliminated because she couldn't verbally explain her work to the judges. I think many visual artists could stand to work on how to communicate what they’re doing to others if they want to make a living from their work. I was looking for a lesson to learn from this week’s show, and I'm still looking - at least the judges didn't eliminate anyone who was being pushed outside of their strengths by going from 2D to 3D. Maybe versatility can be a virtue? Or do we then become jack of all trades and master of none?
"Work of Art" certainly isn't killing our brain cells any more than any other television show, and might actually be stimulating a few more than the average by making even the average viewer imagine what they might do to meet the current channel. My husband, who is being forced to watch this with me, frankly came up with an idea for the materials that one of the artists was working with this week that I think was better than what she actually ended up doing. I was sitting there thinking, "That's pretty cool, why didn't I think of that?"
It remains to be seen what this show will do for fine art - does it denigrate it by creating challenges and asking artists to produce work? I don't think so - maybe it will help the general public see all the work that goes into a commissioned piece and the skill required to complete such a task.
And should we deprive ourselves of this guilty pleasure and stand up for pure art? Not at all - this is no more a guilty pleasure than any other TV show, which I don't watch enough of to feel guilty. As long as we don't obsess and let it take over our lives, let it entertain us and allow it to promote whatever part of the art world that it can. And what the heck is 'pure art' anyway? I create because I must; I express what I need to express and then I find others who connect with me through my art and it's a winning situation for all of us. Does pure art stay locked away in a studio somewhere or does it support the artist that creates it?
So far "Work of Art" is another formulaic "reality" show that doesn't actually reflect the true reality of being a working artist, which is too bad, but I hope that no one truly believes that any of this genre reflects real life. I find it interesting to watch other artists' creative process, even under duress, but I could live without the prefab drama of personalities that are destined to clash.
On the down side, competing artists on the show are given insanely short deadlines to create artworks that meet the week’s challenge, but it makes for good TV drama, so I'm sure that's why it's there. I also was looking at all the artists' portfolios on the website & I noticed that they're all very 'edgy' New York art scene style & there doesn't seem to be any traditional working artists on the show at all - what
does that tell the viewing public? Once again, it seems that many will be put in the 'decorative' pile for making work that employs traditional aesthetics, which is really too bad and personally rubs me the wrong way. And I certainly don't think this show will live up to it's name and find the next great artist, because the next great artist is too busy dedicating herself to her own work to stop and play these games.I'm not sure what we might learn from this, though I did like Alyson’s comments about the first artist being eliminated because she couldn't verbally explain her work to the judges. I think many visual artists could stand to work on how to communicate what they’re doing to others if they want to make a living from their work. I was looking for a lesson to learn from this week’s show, and I'm still looking - at least the judges didn't eliminate anyone who was being pushed outside of their strengths by going from 2D to 3D. Maybe versatility can be a virtue? Or do we then become jack of all trades and master of none?
"Work of Art" certainly isn't killing our brain cells any more than any other television show, and might actually be stimulating a few more than the average by making even the average viewer imagine what they might do to meet the current channel. My husband, who is being forced to watch this with me, frankly came up with an idea for the materials that one of the artists was working with this week that I think was better than what she actually ended up doing. I was sitting there thinking, "That's pretty cool, why didn't I think of that?"
It remains to be seen what this show will do for fine art - does it denigrate it by creating challenges and asking artists to produce work? I don't think so - maybe it will help the general public see all the work that goes into a commissioned piece and the skill required to complete such a task.
And should we deprive ourselves of this guilty pleasure and stand up for pure art? Not at all - this is no more a guilty pleasure than any other TV show, which I don't watch enough of to feel guilty. As long as we don't obsess and let it take over our lives, let it entertain us and allow it to promote whatever part of the art world that it can. And what the heck is 'pure art' anyway? I create because I must; I express what I need to express and then I find others who connect with me through my art and it's a winning situation for all of us. Does pure art stay locked away in a studio somewhere or does it support the artist that creates it?
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
