I will not argue that this show has one mildly positive feature and that is that it does get the average person who doesn't know a thing about art interested in it in some way.
Okay, that's the only positive, mostly this show is an embodiment of the worst most juvenile preconceptions of what people who don't know what it's like to be an artist think artists go through. I read one review by an artist who described this show as a joke, and likened it to memories he had of art class in high school. No self-respecting fine artists these days really does work, serious work, for anything but their own reasons, nor should they do them for any other reason. Real working fine artists don't usually get assignments that they need to finish in an hour only to then present it to a group of student teachers.
The show rips off it's format from project runway, this is okay for a reality show I guess, but let's face it, making art is a hell of a lot different than making a dress or singing a song. In the end, most people who know about art won't see or care about a person who won a one person show and $100,000 on reality TV. Winning might actually be more of a detriment to the artist who wins than anything, as they probably won't be taken seriously because most of the people in the art world don't take the show seriously, and the winner won't have gone through the personal turmoil and really challenge themselves the way a successful artist should. You can't really treat the arts like you would any other industry, because it's not really an industry, it's a cultural expression that just happens to have several businesses that leach off of it.
If you are going into the arts to make money or become famous, you should really quit. If you want to make a living you would be better off as a commercial artist, but even then you would still have to bleed and sweat for the entire rest of your life in order to be considered successful. Hell, even if you manage to make a living your work still may not be considered truly great or even good until after your dead. In short, a hastily thrown together show with a judges panel can't determine who will be considered a great artist and who won't be, the judges themselves probably know this and are most likely only there to get a paycheck.
In truth, my biggest problems with this show lie with the message it might be sending to the next generation of artists who might actually think that all you need to do to make it as an artist is to win a contest on Bravo. It cheapens what art is and what it means to be an artist and also reinforces the worst parts of the art market, which is really the "market" part and not the "art" part. You can tell this show was put together by people who are art collectors and not artists themselves. People who merely buy art usually don't really know what drives the artist, nor do they care. They see the artist and the art as a commodity to be bought and sold, they make an investment in the hopes that the art will be worth more than what they bought it for. Those who sell the art are usually just critics or gallery owners who make arbitrary decisions as to who is hot and who is not, when in truth it is history and society as a whole that will decide what is really and truly great and worth remembering.
reply
share
KrystelClaire
11 years ago
To be an artist you don't have to sell. Art is very subjective. I think that nowadays there is such a big disconnect between the people who can truly appreciate art and the people who can afford to buy it, for example. The fact that the winner may not be taken seriously in the future by art critics or buyers doesn't really tell me anything, really, because it doesn't tell me anything about the artistic value of that person's work as art. And who knows? Art is not usually understood in the own lifetime of the artist.
I quite liked the art of the winner throughout the first season; there were usually quite interesting concepts behind it, and the physical realization of the objects were good.
reply
share
califor123
11 years ago
REALLY? YOU WRITE LIKE YOU'RE ONE OF THE CRITICS ON THE SHOW, I.E. TOTAL GARBAGE, IN MY OPINION.
YOU WROTE: "Art is not usually understood in the own lifetime of the artist. "
WHAT A DUMB COMMENT. I GUESS ALL THOSE BUYING ART TODAY IN BEVERLY HILLS, SCOTTSDALE, SANTA FE, AND NEW YORK ARE WASTING THEIR MONEY, BECAUSE THEY MUST NOT "UNDERSTAND" THE ARTIST OF TODAY THAT THEY JUST SPENT THOUSANDS ON.
WHERE DID YOU GET YOUR ART KNOWLEDGE, CEREAL BOXES?
reply
share
califor123
11 years ago
YOU WROTE: "I will not argue that this show has one mildly positive feature and that is that it does get the average person who doesn't know a thing about art interested in it in some way."
GETTING THE 'AVERAGE PERSON' INTO SHT ART, DOESN'T HELP ANYONE. BY THE WAY, THEY'LL WIND UP THINKING THAT ALL ART MUST BE GARBAGE.
reply
share
thecoffeeisblack
11 years ago
Art in it's nature is subjective and therefore is always going to have someone who doesn't like it even if the rest of the world thinks it's the best thing they have ever seen, and while there is an element of education involved when it comes to appreciating art, it ultimately comes down to a person's opinion. It is entirely possible that someone who participates on a show like this might in fact have a lot of talent and be able to produce some great art, it is highly unlikely, but in a "million chimps banging away on typewriters" kind of way it is possible.
Saying that, you did see that I basically wrote a huge post bashing this show for it's failings, right? I do in fact hate this show and what it stands for, which is pretty much the worst parts of the art world, and ones that I gladly try to avoid myself as a working artist and illustrator.
I would still argue that anything that opens people up to the idea of art that isn't on a hotel wall or in a calender is something that is a positive. I would hope that a show like this would inspire people who want to know more to actually do some real looking on their own for truly great art to appreciate; in museums, galleries, books and the internet. If you have no experience with are other than this show and do a google search on art, you will probably find some good art in that search.
As long as what you find is something that speaks to you and you truly appreciate then it shouldn't matter if it isn't considered a masterpiece by the art world, since most of the people who are in that world aren't actually artists and don't truly know what they are talking about anyway when it comes to being any sort of authority on the matter. Most could probably look at a famous piece and tell you the history and why it should be a great piece, but it the person looking at it isn't moved by it in someway, then it would stand to reason there is no concrete definition for what truly "good" art is.
Regardless, the show is terrible, and people should feel bad for liking it and thinking that it has anything to do with art or what it is like to be an artist.
reply
share
shadowsonthewalls
9 years ago
My-my, you're a sensitive yet eager little beaver. I think it's highly presumptuous for you, one lone crusader behind the security of the Internet, to not only claim but argue to some extent how you of all people DO "understand" art and can somehow differentiate "good art" from "bad art".
Sincerely, share some links here or even drop a few names of art and artists that fit your wise and knowledgable palette of what constitutes as good art and bad art. Seriously! I am highly curious to experience the works that have moved you so much so to be an authority on the issue as well as an authority of the entire spectrum of what is and what is not, somehow, some way the proper and non-sh*t forms of art.
reply
share