Yesterday was the finale of Work of Art and despite all that it had going against it on paper - produced by Sarah Jessica Parker, obvious Bravo cash in on their beloved "Top Stuff" platform, people who work with highly disparate mediums being judged against each other, the physical appearance of Sarah Jessica Parker on the show - I thoroughly enjoyed all of it.
A Project Runway/Top Chef spin-off dealing with art is sort of a no-brainer and I'm surprised it hasn't come to fruition until now. Simultaneously, like I said, this show is so bad on paper. Take away the frivolous aspects like Ole Foot Face's involvement and you're still left with a fundamental fault: judging completely different mediums. I realize that there are some sort of accepted taste standards in the art world which create a modicum of cohesion but I just don't really buy that this bond is strong enough to create a fair basic cable reality television competition.
I think Top Chef is a great comparison for WoA in this regard. If you argued that food is equally, if not more complex and subjective than visual art, I wouldn't disagree with you. However, I would assert that there are a great many more objective standards in place in the food world. Yeah, vast cultural differences exist but too much salt is too much salt and burnt ass shit is still burnt ass shit. It isn't a bullet proof theory but its still much tighter comparison to make than say, performance art* and drawing would be under the art umbrella.
What I mean is the world's greatest performance artist or photographer doesn't need to know shit about how to draw. The technical elements necessary to create a finished drawing, photo, or performance piece aren't even tangentially related. However, every chef needs to be proficient in similar areas; manipulating the food (chopping, cutting, butchering), manipulating time and temperature, these skills are needed across the cutting board. The differences in ingredients and actual cooking technique are just relative.
Enough about that. The bottom line here is I think Bravo finally just said "fuck it" and made the show because they're still in a post Project Runway vacuum, its the summer, and they've gotten very good (too good?) at airing garbage (What IS Bethany Getting Married??)
Anyway, the reason WoA was a success came down to two factors: the contestants were batshit and they were all pretty awful at creating art (Oh, and Simon de Pury is a great Tim Gunn-eque character).
The casting turned out rather brilliant. There was a crazy old elf lady, a pervy douchebag with OCD, a chick who got naked in every episode, a woman who wore Donnie Darko rabbit mask hoodies, etc. The refreshing part was that there wasn't too much drama or friction between the cast's personalities, they just let themselves be great (read: insane). Perhaps this was a happy mistake. Maybe Bravo thought if they put all these crazies in a room with chemicals and nails shit WILL go down but it never really did. Sure there was some bickering but it was minimal and inconsequential. Everyone seemed to be there to genuinely show America that they are the next great artist. They weren't
The overall quality of work produced on the show was incredibly bad. This is partially due to the combination of time and challenge constraints but generations of reality competition contestants before them were able to get on with it so I really think the WoA contestants were just not very good. This is evident in the judging. Nearly every week seemed to strain finding nice things to say about more than one or two pieces yet they spat hot fire at those on the bottom. Additionally, there were only a handful of times that I found myself personally drawn to pieces and probably half of those can be attributed to the eventual winner with most of the rest to the other finalists.
I'm not going to recap the entire season but I'll say that if you like laughing at unstable assholes, criticizing their methods and ideas, then seeing them get eviscerated by the judges, go ahead and just watch all the episodes.
I do have one last thought about the show and that's the finale leaving a bitter taste in my mouth. First of all, it was boring and anti-climatic, as the finales of these types of shows ofter are. I mean, we're often splitting hairs at this point in the competition. However, I think splitting a hair in the art world might mean a little more.
Abdi and Peregrine clearly presented the best two collections in the finale as well as the season as a whole. They both had horrible misses during the season but that is mostly due to Abdi trying to do too much and Perregrine being too wacky. The difficult part for me was that they're such polar opposites as artists (and thus bringing this rambling discussion of WoA full circle) and what the selection of the winner says about Bravo's view of what this show represents.
Both seemed proficient in several mediums and, personally, I would consider both great artists. The difference is in how they work and what their work represents. Abdi is VERY technically gifted, he paints and draws beautifully but he is VERY literal. This is not to say there is a complete dearth of depth and meaning in his work but if there had been a hypothetical challenge to depict a religious theme, he'd have just painted himself on the cross. It would no doubt have been masterfully executed but it would've still have been quite groan inducing.
Peregrine is nearly the opposite. Her work is highly symbolic yet comes across as very literal. She tends to work with existing objects and ideas then present them in a new light. Peregrine's work seems to exist in, of, and for herself and this works against her too. Sometimes Peregrine's pile of garbage is still a pile of garbage but the bottom line is that, for lack of a better term, her work is more artistic than Abdi's. In other words, Perregrine took us into her world with her art whereas Abdi simply showed us his idea of our world.
Okay, that is convoluted and I think I'm setting myself up to argue the merits of pop art so I'll stop.
I absolutely can't deny that Abdi deserved to win, he is a gifted artist and at 22, only has time to improve and grow. I just think his victory says something upsetting about the purpose of the show. With the dichotomous choice the judges (and producers, do not forget about them) were left with, it seemed like they were passing judgement on which type of art they can make more money off of; that was clearly Abdi. His work is very technically proficient and easily appreciable. Since this is evident to anyone with eyes, its sort of a win-win for the show to go ahead and say Abdi is the "best." I don't want to place morality on this and I don't want to sound elitist but I think the winner was chosen with the lowest common denominator viewer in mind.
So, farewell, WorkoFart! I'm not clear what your intentions were but I look forward another season.
*There was a performance artist on the show and she was horrendous. She had by far the most bombastic personality and I hope this is the only reason she was on the show because this is where I draw the line. Performance art just has NO place on this show. Sorry.
No comments:
Post a Comment