Bravo's 'Work of Art' -- reality TV or glorified Audi commercial?

If there was any pretentious name dropping to be heard in the latest episode of Bravo's "Work of Art," it didn't involve references to Van Gogh or Picasso or Warhol or Koons. The only high-toned name consistently spoken last evening was that of German car maker Audi.

The luxury automobile brand took the spotlight on Wednesday's installment of the the art-themed reality show. Auctioneer-host Simon de Pury woke the contestants at the crack of dawn so that they could drive themselves in a fleet of Audis to the car maker's Park Avenue showroom.

The challenge this week was to create art inspired by their vehicular journey through Manhattan and their visit to Audi's ultra-modern car-porn display.

Such prominent product placement seemed jarring for a show that has touted the power of the artistic spirit. The fact that none of the contestants questioned or remarked on Audi's presence made the marriage of art and corporate marketing even more awkward.

Faced with a relatively open-ended assignment, the contestants took a variety of different approaches. Jaclyn, whose good looks have been remarked on in past episodes, was inspired by the stares she received from passersby while standing in the Audi showroom and created an unconventional photo montage on the act of voyeurism.

Mark took inspiration from the streets of Manhattan to create an abstract painting filled with right angles and grid-like boxes.  Erik decided to create a portrait of his girlfriend with visual references to the city thrown in the background.

Ryan appeared to have the most difficulty finding inspiration and ultimately settled on yet another self-portrait, this one depicting him sitting in the driver's seat of a car. "Are you narcissistic?" De Pury asked him jokingly during a studio visit.

The cameras spent some time ogling Miles and Nicole, who appeared to be in the nascent stages of a romance. The two contestants spent time complimenting each other and helping one other with their projects. With their matching shabby-chic outfits and downtown haircuts, their friendship is shaping up as a love affair made in Alphabet City heaven. (Or Urban Outfitters heaven, according to one contestant.)

Erik emerged as the series' resident grouch, taking time to complain about his competitors. In last week's episode, he accused Jaclyn of taking credit for one of his ideas. This week, he criticized Miles as being a two-faced actor who manipulates his fellow contestants.

This week's winner will receive immunity in next week's challenge. (Spoilers ahead.)

Judges selected Jaclyn's offbeat photo montage as this week's victor. The work featured photos that the artist took of male passersby staring at her. Jaclyn covered their faces with blasts from paintballs and then arranged them in combination with a mirror so that observers could complete the work with their own voyeuristic gazes.

The runner-up was Miles' mixed-media installation that served as an oasis of meditation away from the New York's hectic .

Going home was Jaime Lynn, whose creation that featured dancing portraits of herself arranged around a pseudo-hubcap failed to impress the judges. Jaime Lynn, who often talks about her Christian faith, had poor showings in past episodes. Other bottom-rankers this week were Ryan's self-portrait and Mark's abstract grid painting.

Next week's episode appears to tackle public art, with contestants asked to fill a public space with an original creation.

-- David Ng

Photo: Jaclyn, in front of her creation. Credit: Bravo

RECENT AND RELATED

Shock art doesn't shock on Bravo's 'Work of Art' reality series

Bravo's 'Work of Art' tries for something novel, falls flat

Twitter checks in on Bravo TV's 'Work of Art'

Comments

[william wray]

The hard reality of a show budget really home with the clumsy Audi product placement. By just making it about the “inspiration” of driving the car becomes confusing when Audi didn’t at lest offer to use the art as an Ad or give them a car for their troubles. Nobody honestly answered the obvious question of how it them feel to drive the Audi: Poor and disappointed they didn’t get to keep the car.

Ahh the artist always has to give take it up their end in the art world until they are big enough to get paid. Obviously nobody is going to question the stasis quo and jeopardized their position on the show or their future in the art world by complaining. Why the reviewer would act surprised is beyond me when compliant ego- free artists are what galleries groom. The problem the producers must wrestle with is TV needs conflict driven by difficult personalities to be interesting. I thought Miles came closest to rejecting the premise; he was just smart enough to be passive about it. Jaclyn’s win seemed to be a little bit driven by an edge of political correctness of the undertone being we don’t like men leering at young girls even if they have implants and wear tight dresses showing them off in a store window. I got news anyone looks at you when you have a camera. Her sharing it makes her feel venerable was the information that trapped the judges to being sympatric or risk being thought of as uncaring and sexist. I though Miles won, but ultimately he will.

[Charles J]

I'm kinda at a loss on this one. It would have been cool if each contestant had been given an Audi, I guess, but that's a bit too real... Again, nothing knocked my socks off.
I think Miles is one of the better artists, but his work looked to me like a concrete box and the feeling I got was that of claustrophobia, not tranquil meditation. I even got a flash of Hitler's bunker.
Though I do think that he and Abdi are the most consistent ones as far as the quality of their work is concerned.

[Rich]

I hope this show comes back for future seasons. My sense is that our country has a lot of really talented artists; and this group does not reflect that. Also, the fact that they have to hurry so much to produce a piece of art almost ensures that the pieces won't be great. Nonetheless, talented people like Abdi and Miles have done some good work.

[Raymond]

Someone help me out here. Who, and I may be paraphrasing/botching, said "Advertising is the only true pornography?"

This quote might apply to this episode, and to "Work of Art" in general.

[william wray]

I don't think they the artists going to be allowed to indict the hand that feeds them. That’s the irony of the art world’s desire to sell the political posturing done by a few artists and the accompanying publicity they receive as a moral high ground that all artists must walk.
Most artists and dealers have to work with powerful commercial interests as sponsors or buyers. Can we stop playing a game there is any totally pure motivation involved in art today? I don’t have a problem with the notion of commerce running the world, just the hypocrisy of avoiding being real about it thus confusing communication as to what’s going on as we watch a show. Again, the problem is in this case Audi needed to give a car to the winner. If they are asked to sell out, stop teasing, buy them. It’s the American way.

[Charles J]

There's been a sharp drop in comments on this show, which is likely indicative of a similar drop in interest. I too am losing interest, though I plan to watch it through to the end. There's a flaw or two, and I'm not so sure it's just because of the hokey reality-show format. Perhaps it's mostly due to the deselection process being wrong. An artist who turns out a good work, even a 'winning' one, could turn out something that displeases the judges and get bounced on down the road. Such was the case with Traung, whose portrait in show #1 I thought showed a great deal of talent, but then he got cut with his weak TV stuff. Thus the middle-of-the-roaders whose works aren't good enough to win, nor bad enough to lose, stay in there, while others who have produced something worthwhile run the risk of getting cut later on. So the show could well end up having a winner who is neither very good nor very bad, but who has had the luck of not losing. There's also the possibility that with each new 'challenge', some of the artists are being forced to create something along lines that they couldn't care less about. (Imagine Henry Moore being told he had to create a work out of a pile of electronic junk. And yes, he being highly talented, would likely turn out something quite fascinating, but while yawning ferociously and rolling his eyes all the while… ‘Sorry, Henry, but your piece doesn’t match up to Picasso’s, Vermeer’s and Cezanne’s, so goodbye’.)
I'm hoping that there is someone in TV land out there figuring out a way to show artists in some sort of genuine situation.
I would greatly dig a show with artists simply told to turn out a single work over, say, a month or longer, i.e., with a single ‘challenge’: to produce a commendable work of art. Each weekly episode would just be showing them at work (in their own studio), commenting on what they’re doing, etc. Their final creation would then be trotted out before a panel of competent judges, who would then, for better or worse, decide on a ‘winner'. Granted, it could prove very difficult to determine whether a sculpture is ‘better’ than a painting, etc., but such is the artistic process, a gut feeling that one work is more creative than another.

[william wray]

I like a lot of what Charles is saying, but would add that you could still have the weekly challenge with winners and losers, but nobody goes home, the entire body of work is added up at the end. I also think there should be no restrictions on time, let them stay up all night. The Audi thing was so awkwardly done I think the show damaged itself badly, I hope it rallies.

[Charles J]

Thank you William! We agree that no one should be weeded out, that the Audi bit was a dud, and I think eliminating the time limit is a good idea. Well, on to tomorrow (and tomorrow and tomorrow).

[hairycarrion]

Television is designed around the advertising and product placement. It always has been. This, um, "reality" show is no different.

Get off the couch, away from the screen and GO SEE ART in person. Experience it, in person. Support real artists and the arts and stop supporting ADVERTISING.

[william wray]

True, but media promotion works hand in hand with getting people interested in going out and supporting art. More so that you demanding they go on this (smaller media) blog.

[BigLittleWolf @ DailyPlateOfCrazy]

Of course reality TV is commercial, and relies upon commercial sponsorship. Just as fine art is part of a commercial system, whether artists wish to admit it or not.

I considered the beginnings of this show to be worthy, and watch each week with increasing dismay.

I also like the suggestion to tweak the format, whereby the "losers" remain and continue to produce work, and collectively, a body of work is viewed at the end. This is closer to the last stretch in a Project Runway format, in which the finalists are allowed to go off and produce an actual collection. Perhaps the losers (each week) might get less air time, which would also allow for increased focus on the stronger artists and their work process.

Personalities? Conflict? Of course there has to be some of that. This is entertainment intended for a mainstream audience. Still, some of us believe finding a viable (and profitable) middle ground of highbrow-lowbrow in which to bring fine artists together is a valiant goal.

Don't we need to extend the reach of the importance of art beyond NYC, LA, Chicago and other art-savvy metro areas?

[Leigh-Ann]

So Simon accuses Ryan of narcissism, yet doesn't throw that same accusation at Jaclyn?! No one likes to be the center of attention -- whether in her art or during the creation of her art -- more than Jaclyn.