Bravo’s
“Work of Art: The Next Great Artist” is back for its second season. The formula
and prizes have changed not at all. Best of all, “mentor” Simon de Pury is
back, delightfully awkward as ever. I worried that viewings of last season’s
episodes would have rendered him stiltedly self-conscious, but lucky for us,
this has not come to pass. The sound of Simon saying “The Sucklord”—the
preferred name of one of the artists on the show—in that sing-songy, guttural
way of his is worth the price of admission. And the price is high.
The
work produced on this show is, with a few exceptions, awful. In a previous post, I surmised that the failure of “Work of Art” to catch on in
the manner of “Project Runway” or "Top Chef” might have something to do
with our inability to be satisfied by a work of art which is put together well,
and only that. The show’s formula, which demands that its artists produce works
very quickly and according to a given theme, all but guarantees that the end
results will be little more than well constructed, if that.
The
first episode asked the artists to take kitschy works of art—a painting of a
clown, a hideous collage—and to remake them according to their own styles. This
challenge underscores the fundamental contradiction of “Work of Art.” It is a
direct result and manifestation of our willingness to consider “lower” artforms
(television shows, for instance) alongside the kind of art that is typically
found in a Chelsea gallery. Yet, “Work of Art” stubbornly insists on clinging
to antiquated ideas about the status of “art”—that it is inherently better than
other kinds of visual expression (folk art, for instance); that one can create
a “true work of art” (this is the compliment bestowed on each week’s winner);
and that good art appeals primarily to the emotions. Michelle, the winner of
the first challenge, seems to have risen in the judges’ estimation when she
told them the sad story behind her work. Little has changed, it seems, since
the days of “Queen for a Day”—the saddest story still wins.
The
second episode of the season split the artists into two teams and asked them to
draw inspiration from the idea of “movement.” The winning team’s banal response
(after being pressured by Simon to abandon a more promising direction involving
digestion) was to create a “playground” filled with kinetic art which was not
actually kinetic (sure, the pieces could move, once you pushed them).
As
with all reality television, however, the real object of fun is not the bad
work, but the personalities which create them. In this case, Kathryn came in
for a drubbing for producing a piece which was, as Simon rightly noted, the
twin to her work of the previous week. It was fun to watch Kathryn get
defensive with Simon; it was also kinda great when she went to the roof to
chant; but the paydirt—the moment promo’d in all the commercials—was when she
cried the most uninhibited adult cry I’ve ever seen, and just like that, we
viewers became the mean kids on the playground.
“Work
of Art” might work better if it gave up its highfalutin pretenses and embraced
the kitsch. If “the only rule in art is what works”—as host and “subject, muse,
and connector” China Chow tells us every week—then this show needs to be
working a little harder. Will I continue to watch it even if it doesn't? Sadly,
yes, but it engages me at roughly the same level that all Bravo fare does,
despite its aspirations to something better.
