MovieChat Forums > Work of Art: The Next Great Artist (2010) Discussion > The (unwitting?) hypocrisy of the cuts.....

The (unwitting?) hypocrisy of the cuts...

posted 13 years ago by perfectpawn
15 replies | jump to latest

Noticed this last season, and it occurred to me again during this new season's premiere. Art is subjective, so the judges cover themselves with the lame line from the host: "The only rule for art is that it must work. Yours just didn't work for us."

Now...maybe I'm way off here, but where does it specify that art must "work" in a GOOD way? Because these judges spend like 5 minutes of screentime discussing the "bad" pieces, which is a heckuva lot longer than they spend discussing the "good" pieces.

In fact, the judges often ARGUE which piece is the worst, specifying certain elements. In other words, they are actively engaged in this piece of art. Hence, for better or worse -- it WORKS.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheApostle 13 years ago

You're way off base. I don't even know where to begin.

The judges aren't looking to "cover themselves" with that line, it's just the lame phrase they came up with to dismiss the loser. Most shows like this have a similar lame line.

Saltz said they spend about 45 minutes critiquing each piece. Just because there is a discussion about which piece is the worst doesn't mean the worst pieces are actually good.

[–] perfectpawn 13 years ago

I understand what you both mean, but that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, by the very fact that they so hotly debate each particular "bad" piece, that means ultimately that, for better or worse, that piece DOES "work."

If something can generate such heated debate, then that piece, whether "good" or "bad," DOES "work" on a certain level.

This has nothing to do with a piece being "good" or "bad." It has to do with if it "works," which is exactly the phrase they use.

Perhaps then they should just use another exit phrase -- "Your piece sucked," or whatever.

[–] TheApostle 13 years ago

I understand what you're trying to say but your premise is completely irrational.

Earlier, you quoted the lame phrase they use as, ""The only rule for art is that it must work. Yours just didn't work for us." That is not what China says. She says, "Your work of art didn't work for us." And again, this is just a catchy little line they came up with to reveal the person going home. After all, China uses the word "us" and there might be one judge who would have rather sent someone else home.

This has nothing to do with a piece being "good" or "bad." It has to do with if it "works," which is exactly the phrase they use.

Seriously? You're being pedantic. They are judging the merits of a piece and considering the rules of the challenge. They are judging what they think is good and what isn't good. Replace the word good with "works" if you want. There's no difference. You keep trying to put some importance on the exit line which uses the word "works" and argue that "works" is different than good or not good. There's no difference. There's no difference. There's no difference.

"What I'm saying is, by the very fact that they so hotly debate each particular "bad" piece, that means ultimately that, for better or worse, that piece DOES "work."

Again, there's no difference between a piece being good and "working".

There may be some elements of a piece that are good (or that work) and there may be one judge who disagrees with the others. But it makes no sense to argue that because there is a discussion over a piece that must mean that it's actually good.

[–] perfectpawn 13 years ago

>> But it makes no sense to argue that because there is a discussion over a piece that must mean that it's actually good.<<

I hope you can understand my frustration when I repeat -- this is NOT what I am saying!!

I think I wrote like three times above that I do not mean that ANY of these pieces are good! What I am saying is -- since they DO generate such heated argument among the judges, then they are to a certain level WORKING, are they not??

It boggles my mind that someone can call me "pedantic" and write such a long response and STILL not get the basic thrust of my argument!

Seriously, who are you an "apostle" to, the guru of Idiocy or something??

[–] TheApostle 13 years ago

"Seriously, who are you an "apostle" to, the guru of Idiocy or something??"

I've been working full time as an artist for 12 years selling my paintings. I have a BA in Art. I also have minors in Philosophy and Psychology.

I was trying to be polite and reply fully to your posts which, if you want the truth, are filled with idiotic statements, argumentative fallacies, and show a complete lack of understanding of art not to mention this show. In your OP you said, "Now...maybe I'm way off here..." And I've been trying to explain to you that yeah, you are way off.

"It boggles my mind that someone can call me "pedantic" and write such a long response and STILL not get the basic thrust of my argument! "

Don't act as though you've been trying to make some brilliant argument and I'm too dumb to get it. You say so many dumb things in one sentence that it takes a paragraph to respond.

Also, you've made false statements that I've had to correct, such as China's exit phrase, so don't act as though you just keep saying the exact same thing and I'm the idiot.

"What I am saying is -- since they DO generate such heated argument among the judges, then they are to a certain level WORKING, are they not??"

Whether a piece generates heated debate or not has NOTHING to do with whether it's "working" as a whole.

Whether a piece generates heated debate or not has NOTHING to do with to what level it's "working".

I can guarantee you that the judges who thought Ugo should be out would not say that NOTHING "worked" on any level about his piece. In other words, they would not say that there was NOTHING good about his piece.

When you say, "...then they are to a certain level WORKING, are they not", you keep trying to claim that "working" does not mean good. BUT AS I KEEP TRYING TO TELL YOU, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS IN THESE CRITIQUES.

These artists obviously have talent. Anything they create is going to have some elements that "work" or have elements that are good on some level (AGAIN IT'S THE SAME THING). For example, Ugo's piece showed construction skills, drawing skills, and knowledge of movement and composition. There are things about it that were good/that worked but overall the judges felt it had too many elements that did not work/where not good and that it was the weakest of the group given the parameters of the challenge.

So I'll say this again for you since you do not seem to be able to grasp the concept. The judges critique a piece and discuss the formal elements of art. They discuss what they see as the piece's weaknesses and failures.... they are discussing what they think is not good about the piece. They are discussing what does not work. They also discuss the piece's strengths and successes... they are discussing what they think is good about the piece. They are discussing what works.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RagnarD 13 years ago

This is kind of a stupid topic. What definition of "work" are you using? You keep saying that since the judges talk about a "bad" piece of art then it technically "works" because it generates a discussion. If that is your definition of "works" then fine, but it clearly is not the shows definition of "works".

You have not found some loop hole in the shows logic. As said before they use the term "works" because it is a play on the title of the show "WORK or art". They thought is was catchy. Every bravo show seems to use these catch phrases (Top Chef Desserts = "your dessert just didn't MEASURE up"...). Its catchy. That is it. They are not laying out the ground rules and criteria for the entire show in one opening line of the show. To think that is ridiculous.

The judges job is to discuss each piece of art. So they inevitably will discuss every piece of art (good and bad). Since they are required for the show to discuss each piece of art, it is not really a sign that any piece "works" or does not "work". They must debate each piece. The judges are subjectively choosing which piece of art they think is the worst and the best. If you cannot get that then we all might as well move on to other points of discussion.

I have to return some videotapes.

[–] perfectpawn 13 years ago

I appreciate your going to the trouble to explain the obvious to me. I of course understand all of this. If you read my posts again, perhaps you will moreso see it's just that I am annoyed with the whole "catchy" exit lines of these damn "reality" shows in general.

I want to stress again that I have never once argued that any of the pieces were "good" or whatever. Hell, after last night's episode I think they ALL should've been sent home.

My issue works more on the semantic level...and I think it's hilarious some of you are so passionately defending the judges positions when the judges themselves use the same sort of pedanticism as I am when they're making their cuts!

It's like Hakim Bey wrote, the greatest honor you could bestow a poet or artist is to throw him in jail. This has nothing to do with if his work was "good" or "bad;" it's that those in authority found it so unsettling/horrible/whatever that they locked the s.o.b. up.

I feel the same way about these people they send home...the critics argue over which is the worst with much passion (except for last night, when they all were in agreement that they all sucked). I will write this again because no one seems to get it -- ANY art that provokes a reaction -- whether good or bad -- IS a piece that works.

And others have defended that the judges talk about the "good" pieces for "hours" and etc...well, maybe they should play that up more. Because I have found that is a commonplace in these reality contest shows, the "losers" get more screentime than the winners do. It's all part of the forced drama of "reality TV."

[–] RagnarD 13 years ago

I get that you are fed up with the judges focusing more on the art they consider "bad" than on the "good". You are right, it is more dramatic or whatever to focus on "bad" art, or to show judges tearing something down, instead of praising it. That is why Simon Cowell is the draw for his shows.

And I further agree that everyone should have gone home last night.

I have never defended the judges positions, I am not sure if you were refering to me.

This is why I asked what your definition of "works" is. I assumed it meant that a piece of art generated some type reaction, and it seems that is your definition. And using your definition then ALL of the art last night "worked" (ignoring the fact that they are required to discuss their reactions to the art). But they still sent someone home, therefore it appears they are not using your definition of "works", and instead using that word in another way. Also the catch phrase ends with "... for us", showing that their definition of "works" is subjective and likely just means "good".

If your true intention was to bash reality show catch phrases in general you should have phrased your OP differently. Because it seems you are only arguing about this show not following your correct definition of works.

I have to return some videotapes.

[–] Seymour-Pats 13 years ago

IMO, this show has more problems than the catch phrase. I fully admit that I'm not an art critic or anything like that, and I'll defer to those more knowledgeable on the subject, but this is what (IMO) seems to be happening:

1. 90% of the stuff isn't very interesting or appealing (and, therefore, I assume much of it wouldn't be marketable);
2. The artists all have these pseudo-deep narratives about their pieces and the judges seem sucked in by those - but a narrative only matters if the viewers can get it without the artist standing there and explaining it; and
3. There really seems to be very little rhyme or reason behind the wins and the cuts, at least to me, an admittedly untrained person. For example, in last night's episode, I agree with the cut because she essentially did the same piece twice and seemed unable to wrap her mind around the possibility of doing anything else (so keeping her meant seeing another bloody intestine next week). But the piece that won was nothing - I'm pretty confident that I could have done it.

I'd be interested in what others think. I liked last season, but I find the art worse this season and the judges more unpredictable, so I'm thinking of bailing on this season.

[–] RagnarD 13 years ago

The art is FAR worse. I understand that art can take many forms, but this is ridiculous. Show me some paintings, drawings, sculptings, etc. I want to see some true skill, not a guy spinning around on a roof top. C'mon!!

I have to return some videotapes.

[–] perfectpawn 13 years ago

You are correct, I should have phrased my OP different. I appreciate your post and thanks for taking the time to see what I was trying to get at.

And you are correct in that the judges have some CYA there in the "for us" tag of their exit line.

It's really frustating because I do like Work of Art mostly because it's different than the average reality contest show -- I don't like the cooking shows, the home decorating shows, and you'd have to pay me to watch one of the "American Idol"-type shows. But I do enjoy seeing people get a chance to actually create something.

That said, I sometimes wonder what ulterior motives the producers have when casting. Oh, who am I kidding, they only care about "drama" or ratings. Hence they cast people like the current crop of Work of Art contestants...people who think saying "it looks so sperm-like" or using a dowel as a makeshift c@ck proves that they are an "artist." (Even better, the Jimenez girl in the first episode -- can't remember her first name -- who said her art was "psycho-sexual." Wow, how cutting edge. Not to mention that the displayed pieces of her past work looked very much like Ralph Steadman.)

And finally, this current group has mitigated my original argument -- that work which provokes a reaction is a piece that "works." I think now we are in a situation where the work presented is so bad the judges are having difficulty deciding which one to send home THIS week. But no fear -- there will always be more bad work next week.

[–] RagnarD 13 years ago

The casting directors ONLY care about drama. I told my wife that Sucklord will hang around awhile since there is a possible love interest between him and that girl. If you hook up with another contestant that is just a free pass to do crappy art for a few weeks.

The "artists'" attitude really annoys me. They think that if they have an "edgy" explanation or creative process for their art that it instantly is more artsy. Please. Just because there is feces or genitalia or blood in the art does not make it more worthy than a Norman Rockwell painting. My wife has a degree in fine arts and she said that these people are very typical of art school students. Not of people that have evolved as artists.

As for other shows...If you like to see people create or do more artistic stuff you should give Top Chef Desserts a shot. The other night they had to create a dessert that looked like a particular savory entree. For instance one girl made a dessert that looked just like a cuban sandwich. Also, there was a horror make up show on SyFy. That was very creative. I forget the name of it though. Hopefully it comes back for another season.

I have to return some videotapes.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]