Carol Summers. Cairo’s Flag, 1979
10.19.2010
This past summer, an article in TIME Magazine claimed that the reality television show, Work of Art, had "ruffled art critics, who deride[d] the concept as puerile." The show features 14 contestants who complete a series of art commissions in hopes of winning $100,000 and a show at the Brooklyn Museum.
What makes Work of Art remarkable, however, was that it neither shocked nor ruffled anyone. Indeed, the process of discovering the next great artist was actually rather non-controversial, if not reasonable. As Christopher Bollen writes in his article, "Eyes on the Prize" (featured in this month's Artforum), a reality television show based on the moneyed, glamorous, and ridiculous art world actually makes a lot of sense -- perhaps even more sense than Sheer Genius ever did.
Bollen writes:
...what was evidenced by Work of Art was not that it reduced or jeopardized the vauntedly enigmatic status of the art world. Rather, the show demonstrated that we have wandered so far from any conception of an avant-garde operating beyond the boundaries of fast, star-making consumerism that programs like this one are no threat at all. The real shock might be that Work of Art didn't shock. Indeed, in the particularly ludicrous (and undeniably tame) episode dedicated to "shocking" art, the judges were reduced to critiquing a misspelling of fellatio.
What makes Work of Art remarkable, however, was that it neither shocked nor ruffled anyone. Indeed, the process of discovering the next great artist was actually rather non-controversial, if not reasonable. As Christopher Bollen writes in his article, "Eyes on the Prize" (featured in this month's Artforum), a reality television show based on the moneyed, glamorous, and ridiculous art world actually makes a lot of sense -- perhaps even more sense than Sheer Genius ever did.
Bollen writes:
...what was evidenced by Work of Art was not that it reduced or jeopardized the vauntedly enigmatic status of the art world. Rather, the show demonstrated that we have wandered so far from any conception of an avant-garde operating beyond the boundaries of fast, star-making consumerism that programs like this one are no threat at all. The real shock might be that Work of Art didn't shock. Indeed, in the particularly ludicrous (and undeniably tame) episode dedicated to "shocking" art, the judges were reduced to critiquing a misspelling of fellatio.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)