Work of Art Episode 8, “Opposites Attract,” offers a reasonable challenge balancing specificity and free reign – in itself a fitting representation of the parameters of this week’s project. The remaining six artists are paired in teams, and tasked with collaborating on dualities: male and female, Heaven and Hell, order and chaos.

There’s nothing new in conceptualizing opposing forces in art, literature, or film. We struggle with opposites in our own lives, and that’s reflected in our creative endeavors. But perhaps it’s only with maturing that we realize the breadth of opposing forces that we experience.

Cue the cameras! Here lies one of the major flaws in this competition.

“Next great artist?” We all know that’s absurd, and as much an issue in this Reality TV experiment as the problematic format. If we tossed that notion, maybe the producers would include more established artists who would fare better in terms of what they actually create. Participants with some years under their belts, more along the lines of the cheftestants on Top Chef.

The line-up:

So here we are, as the game show continues.

Behind Curtain Number One – Nicole and Abdi (order-chaos). As for Curtain Number Two – Mark and Peregrine (Heaven-Hell). Last (but least?), Miles manipulating Jaclyn (male-female) behind Curtain Number Three. Or should I say wall?

Nicole plunges in with ideas and Abdi looks lost. Mark tries to get Peregrine posing in the buff and she turns the tables. Miles gleefully celebrates his ability to maneuver Jaclyn as he sees fit (he wants her “nekked” again, and she obliges).

Their collaboration is the winning work, though I’m weary of Machiavellian Miles, and would also like to see him attempt something other than constructions and printmaking. Still, that boy can spin a tale and throw up a wall. He can slather (appropriated) tar on a surface, add his “out of control” punching (ridiculous), convince Jackie to paint herself masturbating as a sign of control (huh?) and it’s thumbs up.

Or is it just thumbs up compared to the other efforts? Right. That’s more like it.

And while we’re on the subject of Miles, why is it that I think he would’ve created the same wall and convinced Jackie to paint the same portrait if the challenge had been pleasure and pain, good and evil, or almost anything else?

And his wall? Nice hammering. Otherwise, junk.

Mark’s downfall (descent into Hell?)

I have to give it to Peregrine for not falling into the “let’s get the girls naked in the name of art” trick. Mark wanted a rear view of his partner in the nude, jumping in the air, with a ray of light in the background. To him, that is “heaven.” Um… cliché?

In fact, Mark tweets throughout the show’s airing (extra entertainment), and subsequently offers images of his artwork.  Check out this photograph on his Facebook page. It’s true to his original intention.

Honestly? It’s nice. Does “nice” cut it? Not so much.

What about Peregrine’s idea (just a way to say “not falling for it, buddy?”) – spotlighting Mark’s scar from a dramatic, life-threatening surgery, and creating a Heaven/Hell dichotomy from that? Let’s just say, it didn’t work either. And while it’s amusing (and gross) to watch Peregrine gather dirty cigarette butts on the New York City streets (to further adorn a paint dribbled, grommet bedecked enlarged photo of Mark with scar) – Heaven and Hell? That’s a stretch.

But Mark gets the boot because his half of the piece is deemed “too safe.” A big man baring his belly? That takes guts – pun intended. The image that results? It’s more compelling than Abdi’s – or the Miles wall, for that matter. Which brings me  to the lackluster duo of order and chaos. It pains me to say it, but I believe one of them should have gone home.

Abdi and Nicole

Nicole takes charge on this assignment, and Abdi is left to creative confusion. Giving a nod to the reality of editing and its heavy hand, Abdi nonetheless comes across (again) as uninspired. And by now, it’s obvious, what these judges are looking for are sparks of creative thinking and process. Whatever the result, at the very least, they expect a concept that shows reflection, technical competence with materials, or some tiny element with a possibility of wowing us – were there more time.

Nicole is a creative thinker. She dives in and makes things. Successful visually or conceptually? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. And that’s part of the artistic process. Likewise, whether we like him or not, Miles has ideas. And shouldn’t art start with ideas? In comparison, Abdi appears out of his element. And the result, an odd, colorful, large scale something – falls flat.

Abdi and Mark wind up in the bottom of the dwindling heap. I can’t see either one taking home the proverbial gold, but this week, it seems to me that Abdi deserves the gallery door.

Another invisible guest judge?

I remain underwhelmed at the footage of guest judge Ryan McGinnis, whose vibrantly colored paintings and installations are worthy of a mention.

But Bravo – why bother offering noted contemporary artists in the guest judge role if you don’t make a connection to the challenge, and you don’t show more than a glimmer of their work?

I won’t say this week was as much of a disappointment as the two prior episodes. We were privy to more art making footage (interesting to watch), tears from China Chow (huh?), and Jerry Saltz sounding more like Jerry Saltz (to Abdi: “I’m doubting your vision”). We had the guest judge inquiring as to whether or not Jaclyn pleasures herself standing up (again, huh?), a hesitant admission of yes (really?) – no doubt to ensure the authenticity of her naked painting.

More opposing forces? The show we love to hate?

But I’m a little confused (like Abdi) – wouldn’t verifying that Miles punches walls and Jackie performs private acts while standing be too literal? Weren’t the judges bemoaning the easy interpretations of light and dark around Heaven and Hell as too literal? Apparently, whether or not Jackie fingers herself in the upright position is relevant, as is Miles fisting the wall.

Returning to the rambling … um, “at hand,” we know Jaclyn has issues, and Miles has issues, and Peregrine has issues, and well, don’t we all have issues? But I’m back to my opening premise. Might we have more grownups next season, who are experienced artists, working out their dualities in more expressive and original fashion?

Images courtesy Bravo TV.


© D A Wolf

Big Little Wolf’s Daily Plate of Crazy

Work of Art Episode 7 may have been titled Child’s Play, but it should have been called Infancy. And that’s the perfect metaphor to address this show in its current state. Work of Art is, at best, a work in process in its infancy, in need of maturing if it’s to become what it could be – effective entertainment for the masses, that appeals to those who are genuinely interested in art, artists, their process, and the outcomes.

By outcomes, I mean fine art. Not arts and crafts, which is what we witnessed in an episode in which Nicole’s purple pipe cleaner glasses may well be the best work in the gallery.

Work of Art: This week’s Challenge

The assignment: call upon childhood to illustrate artistic beginnings, using materials on site at the Children’s Museum of the Arts.

Tools at the ready? Tiny scissors, pipe cleaners, pom poms, acrylic paints, colored pencils, construction paper, masking tape. Most of the artists seem confused; they create childish work, rather than adult work inspired by childhood experience.

It’s a potentially interesting challenge, one that is wide open despite the limitations of time and available materials. Yet it’s another FAIL on the part of most of the art-testants.

What’s the problem? Are they stymied by their surroundings? Traumatized by the teeny tiny chairs?

• Ryan’s scraps of scribbles are a mess, and I’m being kind. He gets points for opening up about religion putting a wedge in the relationship with his mother, but he brings nothing conceptually or visually. He was rightfully eliminated.
• Abdi’s offering? A variety of little drawings representing childhood – Superman, Nikes, and I forget the rest. Uh-oh. Not good. I forget the rest.
• Mark’s recollections of using office supplies as a child provides a cohesive tale that relates to what he produces – something between a comic and an artist book. I’m not impressed with the final product, and wish the judges had taken a moment to touch on the intimacy, diversity, and interactivity of artist books. Still, Mark gets a Pass.
• Nicole thinks with her head and her fingers. Her tiered styrofoam plate sculpture exhibits creativity, alludes to aspects of memory (obscured and layered), and looks interesting. Do I love it? No. Still, she continues to impress with her playful side and thoughtfulness. High Pass.

Jaclyn

Then there’s the girl we love to hate (editing for effect?) – Jaclyn. She struggled with this one, spoke of isolation, and vacillated in her choices. She allowed Simon to overly influence her work. Yet I found what she ultimately creates to have value. The judges comment that it is cold, but if your youth is about loneliness, then isn’t “cold” appropriate?

Furthermore, she paints trees as refuge, in keeping with her story. She uses two surfaces with space between them (two selves? searching for a way out?), and she ties the whole together with strings, pipe cleaners and pom poms that Simon encourages her to revisit. These elements add a bright child-like touch, visual interest, and while not a stellar result, I find it more intriguing than Mark’s, Abdi’s, or even Miles’ offerings.

Miles

While I admit it’s difficult to appreciate any of these constructions on television (or through photographs on Bravo’s site), Jaclyn, Peregrine, and Miles are the only participants who produced adult artwork. Miles skirted the rules and came up with a few colorful rubber band balls to add whimsy to his patterned surface. And most likely, he crafted a bullshit tale to accompany it. But at least it resembles art. And art is more than a story (with no visual), and more than a concept (supported by trash). Both message and aesthetic output need to “work.”

So like it or not – Miles gets a Pass.

Peregrine

Peregrine explores a childhood growing up in a community where children were exposed to dangerous drugs, unsafe sex, and an environment that recalls friends she’s lost to AIDS. She juxtaposes innocence and the seamier side of adulthood – ponies and candies meet cigarettes, condoms, and crack.

I can’t say I’m drawn to the piece, but the concept and the sculpture make sense. They are authentic. And compared to everything else, that’s a win.

Work of Art: The real challenge

This episode was tepid at best. Among other things, where was guest judge Will Cotton in all this? Cotton, whose work melds pop culture and fine art, frequently poses nude women with sticky sweet food in outlandish scenes. Cotton is an accomplished painter (regardless of what you think of his themes), yet in what aired, we got little of him or his artwork.

This is just one of many problems with Work of Art in its current format, or as I said at the outset – in its infancy. The producers are so busy stirring the personality pot behind the scenes, they’re missing opportunities to generate excitement around art and art making. Real excitement. And real controversy.  

Then there’s the dilemma of inconsistent talent, a poor sequence of artistic missions, insufficient time (even 12 more hours might help), and ineffective challenges. Top Chef, for example, ensures that its participants master basic skills – whether it’s cutting and chopping, cooking the perfect egg (no small task), or understanding the subtleties of an amuse-bouche.

Where are the challenges that show us these artists understand composition? Or color? Or paint? Then move on to themes, to concepts, to mixing it up in teams, to limiting their choices, to provocative sites and materials. And while we’re at it – with Will Cotton’s candy-inspired canvases, a food fight cum childhood reminiscence might have yielded tastier viewing.

All images courtesy Bravo TV.

© D A Wolf

Big Little Wolf’s Daily Plate of Crazy

Buzz over our favorite television shows, like reality TV. Buzz over Erik and Miles, name calling on Work of Art.

Controversy causes buzz; the public, revved up, riled up, and dealing with dashed expectations. It’s social media fodder. Word-of-mouth marketing. It spreads fast, attracts a wider audience, and puts issues out for debate.

Who would have thought that people would talk about art in any context, much less a competition concocted by reality TV?

Last week’s episode of Work of Art ignited the ire of many, with its talking smack, the dismissal of Erik from the show, and a rash of argumentation over the personalities, the format, the judging, the quality of the work.

Buzz – of any sort – over art?

Other than the sensationalism of a mega-multimillion dollar diamond-encrusted skull (hello, Damien Hirst), when is the last time that “regular people” talked about, blogged about, or argued over anything to do with contemporary art? So maybe it’s true – all press is good press?

People are talking – about art!

People are talking and writing about art. And no, not in the typical context of polite academic Artspeak. Or even the more cutting jargon of art criticism.

Take a look for yourself. There are more comments on Bravo TV’s Work of Art blogs than ever before, following last week’s show. And then there’s the Wall Street Journal’s Speakeasy blog, and Huffington Post Arts, and the LA Times. There are equally heated (and entertaining) conversations on specialized art sites like Art Fag City or Art Log, not to mention recaps by critic and show judge, Jerry Saltz, writing in New York Magazine.

Discussion is percolating outside this country’s metropolitan art centers. That’s BUZZ, people! And even bad buzz is good buzz, right?

All press is good press?

There are times when buzz can work against you – Sex and the City 2 had a great buildup. Avid fans of the HBO series always want more of the fabulous four. But the movie was disappointing. “Buzz kill” hardly seems sufficient, but I imagine that if there is a Sex and the City 3, we”ll flock to see it all the same.

Why isn’t the last episode of Work of Art a buzz kill?

Because there was nothing to lose. A start from ground zero. The subject of art is rarely on the mainstream radar. This is a win on many levels, even if not for the participating artists. On the other hand, who ever heard of Erik Johnson before this summer? It’s certainly a win. Just not the win.

Contemporary art – is it all subjective?

Whatever I may think of the format, the contradictions, the editing, the decisions, the level of talent brought together, this is PRESS. Publicity. Commentary on creativity, pop culture, contemporary artists. Perhaps not in the way the insular art world might prefer. But people are talking, looking, discussing – fine art education, the art market, the nature of criticism and competition. And yes, they’re even talking about the art itself.

Maybe Bravo knows what they’re doing after all – how to “influence” a situation in order to hold an audience, and yes – piss them off, if it gets them watching.

Tuning in, tuning out

Sure, the show could find more seasoned talent. The format could be tweaked to effect a variety of positive changes. Better challenges. Longer timeframes. Perhaps something more akin to Project Runway’s presentation of a collection among final contestants – an exhibition of a body of work that has allowed several months in the making.

Yet I stand by my belief that this is a good concept, and eventually – viable entertainment, with a side of education.

I love that discussion is dancing around the edges of the art world – viewers are arguing, blogging, taking sides. Engaged. It’s buzz. As for those who are so pissed off they say they won’t watch any longer? We’ll see. Maybe they won’t want to watch, but I suspect they will. People are curious about outcomes. A few may tune out, but far more – including me – will tune in.

© D A Wolf

Big Little Wolf’s Daily Plate of Crazy

There are certainly ways to accomplish a less irritating mix of high brow and low brow, but it will take tinkering with the format, a willingness for the producers to attempt it, and bottom line – the bottom line. If it isn’t profitable, it’s pack your palette knives and go – for the show.

Why has this week’s episode stayed with me, and stayed to the extent that even my dreams are flashing works of art I’ve seen and loved?

One of the primary reasons is a departing remark by Erik, suggesting that his Work of Art experience would mean he might no longer make art.

I find that statement ridiculous. Artists make art. Whether anyone approves, sees, or they never make a dollar at it. Just like musicians make music, and writers write.

The necessity of creating

Many years ago, an artist-poet friend said to me: “Can’t not.”

I recall smiling, because that phrase fits perfectly when it comes to pursuing our passions. Sneaking up into your attic studio to sketch and paint. Picking up the pen to jot your thoughts in the middle of the night, despite the arthritis, the early hour your work day begins, the stack of bills to attend to.

The artist in question has lived an unusual life, a jubilant struggle, a set of unconventional choices that few would make, sacrificing what most consider basic comforts so he may be free to travel, to paint, to write. He knows his passions. He lives them fully, whatever the cost.

My passion is language. My passion is art. My passion is learning.

• Do you know what your passions are?
• Do you allow them to breathe?
• Do you practice them, when and if you can?
• Do you own them, and your right to them?

Doing what you love, loving what you do

There are those who insist that if you are passionate about what you do, you will succeed at it. I believe life is more complicated than that. We can’t all “succeed” at what we love. That doesn’t mean we stop doing it.

I grew up in a household filled with books and funky art, and a mother who took me to art history lectures before I entered kindergarten.  Had I not been exposed to contemporary art as a child and teenager would it be a passion? I suspect the answer is yes, because I have always been attuned to the visual and the spatial. I am profoundly affected by it. In my immediate environment, and in the way I interact with the world.

If Work of Art has done nothing more than remind me how much I miss writing about art (yes, I used to do that regularly), sending me back to my favorite art texts for pure pleasure, then it is a “win” – for me. If Work of Art has done nothing more than remind me that I can no more walk away from the joy of writing (in all forms) than I could my children, then it is another “win.”

Passion is always a win, a reminder of life, a refilling of the personal well that allows us to learn what we love, pursue what we love (if we’re lucky), and contribute what we believe is important. Do we choose our passions or do they choose us? I have no answer, but I am grateful to recognize mine, and to find them still intact.

© D A Wolf

Big Little Wolf’s Daily Plate of Crazy

Yes, indeed. It wouldn’t be the formula we love to hate if we didn’t stir the pot, turn up the heat, and watch our favorite personalities go at each other under pressure. Last evening was the Erik and Miles show, with a little bit of Jackie in a supporting role.

Some of the lowlights?

Erik to Miles:

I’m not your fucking helper, dude.

Erik about Miles:

I’ve been around too much to have some stuck up art pussy tell me life lessons.

Erik on Miles’s idea for the sculpture:

And you built another homeless shelter.

I give Erik points on that one. At least, it started out part homeless shelter-quiet space, part tree house. And doesn’t succeed as either – for originality or finished product.

Open to the public?

I can’t say I enjoyed last night’s “Open to the Public” episode. I don’t care to watch adults act like 9-year olds. The challenge was worthy, and difficult – a sculpture or installation with a social message, for a public space, working in teams of four. (The Red Team – Nicole, Abdi, Ryan, Mark, and the Blue Team – Miles, Jaclyn, Peregrine, Erik.) There was a quick trip to LentSpace in Lower Manhattan, where the work would be installed, then two days to complete the task at hand.

The Red Team acted like adults (*sigh of relief*), but on the Blue Team, Erik and Miles get into it, the ladies try to break it up, Jaclyn passes a note to Erik (may I repeat – fourth grade?) and we have yelling, name calling, hurt feelings, and frankly – a crappy end result.

And speaking of end result, perhaps we should recall that the assignment is making art, taking inspiration from an exterior location, relating to the environment, and creating a public presence that people will interact with.

Public art that sticks and pleases

Public art is problematic, as guest judge Yvonne Force Villareal seems to point out, requiring many voices to agree, collaborate, and compromise. Yet public art enlivens both urban and rural landscapes.

A few examples that pop into my mind immediately:

• Robert Indiana’s 1967 LOVE sculpture
• Sol LeWitt’s 54 Columns in Atlanta
• Jonathan Borofsky’s towering Walking to the Sky in New York

Of course, the judges made mention of the Jeff Koons Puppy, displayed at Rockefeller Center, created with steel, soil, and plants, as an example of successful public art. Sorry. Not a fan. Give me Borofsky, Richard Serra, Sol LeWitt, or even Niki de Saint Phalle with her colorful, whimsical public sculptures.

Ah yes. Then there is the issue of social message. Public art should say something. Of course, some would say that all art should say something. (Time for me to be a heretic? And the Jeff Koons Puppy is saying what, again?) Quick! Call in the spin doctors!

The competition

Nicole got my vote for thoughtfulness when she first stretched out on the ground in order to get a better sense of the space, and to experience it. She picked up the gravel beneath her fingers. She felt it, looked at it, saw the beauty in the shapes. This is what inspired the design for the Red Team – a large geometric structure surrounded by several considerably smaller ones.

While I didn’t especially care for the result (Sol LeWitt geometrics meet 1960s Star Trek landscape?), I did enjoy watching the team at work – as they constructed their monolithic structure out of plywood, and surrounded it with smaller forms in cast concrete.

As for the battling Blues?

I didn’t like Miles’s initial idea (an urban tree house?) nor the finished product – a hodgepodge of wood and aluminum that reminded me of a playground apparatus gone bad.

Challenges of public art

The issues behind the challenge are more interesting – the complexity of commissioning, approving, siting, and creating any work for public consumption – the involvement of city planners, politicians, lawyers – who themselves must fight it out and eventually agree. There are concerns about a broad (essentially faceless) community responding to whatever is installed (residents and visitors), ensuring the work is structurally sound (safe), and minimizing the likelihood of vandalism.

The reality is that artists don’t work in a vacuum, though they may wish they did. Generally, they must interact with others who support their efforts – galleries or dealers who will assist with showing the work and selling it, critics who will like it and write about it, patrons who will purchase it.

More to probe?

Erik raised the perpetual debate typical among creative types – the need for formal training versus being self-taught. Have all great artists attended art school and studied art history? Of course not, but I dare say they don’t think it’s unimportant to learn – however you accomplish that, so you know what is innovative and what isn’t. What “works” and why.

What doesn’t work, for me? Watching so-called adults act like kids. If I want fourth graders, I’ll volunteer at the local elementary school, and teach a class on the value of working as a team.

© D A Wolf

Big Little Wolf’s Daily Plate of Crazy

Last evening’s episode of Work of Art featured the Audi Challenge, apparently the only sponsored challenge of the series. The participants were to experience their Audis, cruise the city, head to the showroom, and express what they gleaned from their drive through Manhattan. An exciting mission?

Not particularly.

Yet this challenge offered openness – anything to do with a car, with the city of New York, with the artist’s mindset while driving. That’s certainly a wide berth, and theoretically the results should seem less forced, yielding more “truth” of who these artists are and what they’re capable of. Pushing their comfort zone, or exercising smartly within it.

Mark’s Gridlock

It’s odd that Mark chose this time to step outside his usual (photographic) medium. The results were ho-hum – a layered grid painting with little visual interest. But he tried something different, and gets to stick around. It’s increasingly clear that the artists with more versatility in a breadth of mediums have a higher probability of lasting. Still, given guest judge Richard Phillips, whose work frequently dips into gritty imagery of human form, bad call, Mark.

Nicole’s Suspension Sculpture

I can’t say I loved Nicole’s interpretation of an automobile’s suspension, but it had a simplicity that I liked, and the idea was original. She also stayed true to herself and constructed something. She thinks three-dimensionally, and came up with a sculpture that catches our attention, albeit briefly.

That’s good enough to keep her hanging around, and helpful for Bravo’s promotion of the so-called flirt fest between Nicole and Miles.

Ryan and Abdi’s portraits

Both Ryan and Abdi returned to portraiture, which Ryan does in nearly every challenge.  “Are you a narcissist?” Simon de Pury jokes. Um, Simon… Do you know any artist who isn’t narcissistic, and needs to be in order to survive?

As for the bright portraits and the explanations concerning them? Abdi is more than adept at pleasing us with brilliant color, and Ryan pulled off another “nothing special.” With Philips’s strident manner of dealing with realistic human form, it’s no wonder Ryan got called on the carpet.

Jaime Lynn’s wheel of misfortune

Jaime Lynn’s consistently underwhelming performance continued. She is an illustrator, and she’s clearly out of her element. Her dancing girl wheel concoction? It might work in a children’s book, but given her weak showing to date, there was little question she’d be booted off the Bravo Island of Manhattan with this particular effort.

Jackie’s photo montage

Jaclyn’s departure from her usual self-absorbed strip-tease is what got the judges attention. Rather than saying “look at me” she said “I’m looking at you looking at me.  And by the way, look at yourself while you’re at it.”

There’s nothing original in obliterating faces – obscuring them, erasing them, splatting them with paint. But in using her vantage point from inside the auto showroom looking out, she remained true to her (conflicted?) themes of women’s bodies, while veering away enough to create an effective composition and offer a different point of view.

It was clever, and something we haven’t seen from her before.

Miles – one note?

This week Miles offered up a somber print and wooden stands. I liked the minimalism of the piece, and the fact that he took advantage of the inherent opportunity in this challenge, expressing nothing to do with cars, and everything to do with cities like New York, and Miles Mendenhall as he portrays himself.

Is he smartly staying within his comfort zone? So far, yes. Is he one of the more versatile and shrewd artists competing? I’m guessing, yes. So while I liked the work, he played it close to the vest.

Richard Phillips

Last evening’s judge, Richard Phillips, is an impressive move for this show. I find myself wondering what he would have done with this assignment. When I view a selection of Phillips’s paintings, drawings and prints on Artnet, I am also reminded how important it is to consider a body of work. Something we cannot have in a show of this format.  

As for Phillips, perhaps he was the most interesting part of this recent episode. His art hovers in that unsettling space of provocation: the image that seduces and repulses, the image that makes no bones about its dialog on art and pornography, art and media, art and contemporary society. I find his works to be imposing, disturbing, sometimes beautiful, rarely indifferent. I like some, love some, and dislike others.

Those are my judgments and only mine. After all, assessing art is ultimately subjective. We bring who we are, what we’ve lived, what we’ve seen, and our propensity for seeing more in each artwork. The more we see, the more we are able to see. Of the artist’s truths, and our own.

All contestant images are courtesy Bravo TV.

© D A Wolf

Big Little Wolf’s Daily Plate of Crazy

So how did the participants fare in last evening’s Work of Art, given the challenge of creating a piece intended to shock? With few exceptions, they did about what I would expect, resorting to childish interpretations of adult world no-no’s: using bodily excretions, genitalia, and the nude body to make their statements and their artworks.

Must “shock” be schlock?

I’m not a fan of shock art, with its stated intention to achieve social commentary through disturbing means. Nor am I a fan of Andres Serrano, known for his unusual materials – menstrual blood, urine, and excrement among them.

His 2008 exhibition, Shit, is case in point. If, as he says, everyone thinks their shit is the best shit, then I guess he makes his point. But I find it silly, walking away holding my nose, bothered by the fact that this is exactly the sort of thing that makes most traditional art viewers gag – literally – when confronted with contemporary art.

And that’s a shame. Because some “shock art,” including Serrano’s, is stunning. His 1987 work, Piss Christ, is an excellent example. It is an image of a plastic crucifix, photographed in a wash of urine. Obviously, it caused a stir when it was exhibited 20 years ago. And yet I do consider this art.

Why?

Piss Christ* is visually arresting, its bloody red and luscious gold tones are luminous, evocative, symbolic, and its impact is immediate, without knowing the artist’s process.

If you watched the show on Bravo last evening, you noticed not only this image but others in the background, their large scale and vivid colors magnifying their power. It’s hard not to be struck by their surreal quality, their in-your-face beauty, and yes – the provocative nature of their content.

Is Piss Christ offensive?

Some may find it to be, though consider this perspective:

Sister Wendy Beckett, an art critic and Catholic nun, stated in a television interview with Bill Moyers that she regarded the work as not blasphemous but a statement on “what we have done to Christ”: that is, the way contemporary society has come to regard Christ and the values he represents.**

In my opinion, “shock value” is a legitimate artistic tool to push our boundaries to examine social, psychological and other phenomena. Personally, I enjoy creative exploration that tackles uneasy themes. But the work of art itself must still “work,” with visual and sensory stature.

Smart or tart?

So why do I say that many of Work of Art’s contestants took the childish route? Artists using bodily fluids is nothing new; there is no particular appeal to Nicole’s blood, hair, and nail samples to create her science fair entry. Likewise, we shake our heads at Miles musing on the occasion of his first erection (Little Mermaid, go figure), followed by concocting a penis-patterned Disney Mickey topped off with the artist’s own semen.

Are we amused? Entertained? Grossed out? Yes, so we keep watching. But I found myself thinking, “Can’t you come up with anything better than this?”

As for other attempts at controversy, we have Jaclyn resorting to nudity (again), and there’s little originality when it comes to nudes in contemporary art or in art history. If anything, Nao in the nude would have been more shocking to American sensibilities, and Jaclyn posing in a performance piece would have been sufficiently out of character to surprise us.

Hot or not?

John’s Recluse (with its Outsider Art approach to auto-fellatio) had little shock value – except perhaps that Bravo TV blurred out the simplistically rendered penis. Nao’s almost-ran installation could have been effective, had she been more focused in her theme, and edited elements of the performance. (I admit, I’m sorry to see her exit so soon.)

I will give Ryan credit for creating a competent (if campy) painting, and Nicole’s effort, Vial (better titled Vile?) nonetheless reflects an interesting work process of molding hacked off body parts for her macabre display. As for Mark Velasquez, his concept was more mature – a triptych (three-part) of framed objects – the remnants of torn clothing, underwear, and a popped balloon – intended to provoke a disturbing reaction to the realities of child abuse.

Winning Work

So why did Abdi garner the winning nod?

His considerably quieter offering, I. E. D. (Improvised Explosive Device), a trio of small scale sculpted heads, draws us to them. Set directly on the floor, note that China Chow kneels in front of them, to get a closer look. They don’t shout their message, they invite us to examine it – even to bow down to it. They offer a consistent visual expression of the dark and tacit ways in which anger ferments, and ultimately may explode.

They work as art, not crap – literally and figuratively.

*Wiki: Andres Serrano
**Click here for a large image of Piss Christ

For more on Bravo TV’s Work of Art:

Miles to go before you sleep? (Wunderkind on Work of Art)
Work of Art works for me

© D A Wolf

Big Little Wolf’s Daily Plate of Crazy

When artist Miles Mendenhall is sleep-deprived, apparently he has a tough time of it. In this week’s episode of Bravo TV’s Work of Art, he sleeps through a critical part of the challenge – time during which the contestants are to salvage material from an appliance graveyard, with which to make sculptural works.

Fortunately, the 23-year old wakes in time to gather a few materials, and assemble a fascinating installation that is serene, textural, raw, rude, clever and elegant.

Eventually, he transforms installation (a platform bed and other objects) into performance, curling up on the bed during the gallery viewing.

The Task at Hand (Conceptual Art)

Creating a three-dimensional sculpture that incorporates “found objects” (electronics junk) is the assignment. Conceptual art. For those who are not familiar with what this is – basically – it’s idea art, typically dependent upon text, explanation, knowledge, or a concept.

Conceptual art needn’t come in the form of sculpture or installation, but it’s challenging in 3-D – especially for those who work in more traditional mediums like painting or photography, unused to hacking, cracking, smashing, trashing, and re-purposing materials to support a thesis or statement.

Unfortunately, the visual (and sensory) often get short shrift in conceptual art. That’s part of why it’s so off-putting to so many. The most effective art in this “genre?” A result providing a  fully satisfying combination of sight, sound, movement, use of space and emotion. At the very least, attention to the artwork should equal that paid to the idea. Otherwise? Conceptual FAIL.  

Bedroom versus Living room

Why did Miles’s installation sparkle, and Jaime’s bomb? Why was Trong exiting stage left?

Jaime is a painter, not a sculptor, and not a conceptual artist. Her living room arrangement possesses no nuance, no whimsy, no clout – though she makes a valiant attempt to recreate a narrative of 70s housewifery, while tying objects together by painting on them. Compare that to Miles’s deft handling of a simple concept – sleep – and there is no comparison.

A lesson in the power of opposites – sleep is hard to come by, yet so lush when we do. Then there’s the play on words inherent in the work’s title (Bravo’s idea or the artist’s?). “Worst Place” is a great riff on coming in last (though Miles places first), and apparently, the contestant quarters are not conducive to the artist getting sleep. Even less conducive? An installation of a bed in an open gallery. Yet that is exactly where Miles stretches out and takes a nap, in public.

Why “Worst Place” took First Place

More specifics on the brash and effective elements of Miles’s boudoir?

His interpretation offers originality, visual tension, and humor. I love the rawness of the pair of sculpted butt holes; they resemble 70s cushions inviting you to, well… sit on them. They look soft; we know they’re hard. Staged on either side of the bed they form a balanced composition, as if to frame the bed – itself a frame or platform, crafted by the artist and ultimately his platform. Not only for his talent, but for himself, quite literally.

Further pleasure points go for juxtaposed geometries – circular and rectangular forms playing off one another, which is visually satisfying. More delicious tensions appear in the hardness of the bed and its soft, stuffed comforter. At the head of the bed dangles (or stands?) yet another rectangular form with a blurred red circle, suggesting a window and morning sun. For modern art aficionados, Miles seemed to channel an Adolph Gottlieb Burst, or do we chalk this up to serendipity?

As if we need more, Miles creates an intricate screen-print of circuitry on the bed cover (what is normally hidden is brought to the surface), tying back the electronic components from the appliance salvage expedition. But the pièce de résistance is the artist’s audacity (or simple fatigue?) as he curls up on the bed to pseudo-snooze during the gallery showing itself.

Arrogance? Indifference? It hardly matters. The effect was remarkable – human, tender, and winning work – hands down.  

Where Trong went wrong

Don’t play it safe. Be courageous. Don’t get electrocuted!

Those were among the instructions of guest judge and mixed media sculptor Jon Kessler.

Trong, a conceptual artist, set up televisions watching each other in a human setting, using a timeworn trick of painting phrases and lettering across their screens. It was utterly unoriginal, from a curator-artist who lives and breathes “idea art.” I don’t wonder that the judges expected more, though I think Judith’s cable concoction left much to be desired and was a close contender for getting the boot.

As for Abdi, he created an accomplished and conceptually accessible sculpture: Boy-man, dependence on gadgetry and gaming; we get it. We respond to it.

Why is it not the winning work? It lacks the flagrant originality, sophistication and subtlety of Miles’s installation. As for Nicole, who also garners praise, her idea is well conceived and executed (discarded objects, the archaeology of waste embedded in the belly of a 1970s television). I suspect that it was more appealing in person than on the television screen (ironic), yet still, it lacks the daring and cagey charm of the wunderkind’s artwork.

Incidentally, according to Work of Art judge Bill Powers’ blog, Miles hid his unused electronics under the bed. How much more like a kid cleaning up can you get?

What’s next? Hard to say. But “cleaning up” just might be what Miles Mendenhall has in mind, when it comes to this competition.

© D A Wolf

Big Little Wolf’s Daily Plate of Crazy

Guerrilla Artist

By her own words, artist Lavanna Martin stares at people. At times  she refers to herself as a “Guerrilla Artist,” setting up in one of several local coffee shops in Austin, Texas. A possible subject of interest catches her attention, and she creates a quick portrait – a sketch or painting – achieving more than a likeness, but an essence of the individual.

When I stumbled across Lavanna’s story, I was intrigued. I could relate to her need to escape four walls, to work from life in the midst of it, while remaining unobtrusive in doing so. Those who recreate the world – on the canvas or the page – need to participate in it, even if from the sidelines.

Not only do I admire this artist’s work, but her process: I can only imagine the initial discomfort of packing up supplies, heading out the door, and feeling her way into the role of Guerrilla Artist.

It’s worth noting that Lavanna generally works freehand, on the spot, and without her subjects realizing. This is certainly not all that Lavanna does, but the spontaneity and speed required in this challenging process yield compelling results.

I invite you to explore her site and her work. Not only does she paint and sketch, but she adds text to accompany her portraits. It is illuminating and enjoyable to read.

Guerrilla Writer

As a writer, I’ve been struggling with issues of inspiration, needing a change of pace and location. Leaving town isn’t logistically possible very often, but that doesn’t mean I need to remain inside my house either. While I have a store of experiences to tap into, these days, they feel insufficient. And I’ve been thinking about Lavanna for some time, wanting to borrow a page from her (sketch) book, and hoping to become an occasional “Guerrilla Writer.”

Doesn’t the imagination need care and feeding? Don’t we write from life, taking mental notes and snapshots to provide the expressive details that transform our narratives into lively prose?

Lavanna started close to home at first. So did I, last week, which is how I found myself Friday evening at a neighborhood bar with notebook and pen in hand, surrounded by interesting characters…

We’ll see how my forays into the larger world progress, and what might bubble onto these pages for discussion, or simply as quick verbal sketches. Don’t we all need the opportunity for interesting encounters? To stretch ourselves – creatively and socially? To observe as well as to participate, pushing the boundaries of our comfort zones?

© D A Wolf

Big Little Wolf’s Daily Plate of Crazy

Last evening’s debut of Bravo TV’s Work of Art: America’s Next Great Artist was not an entertainment FAIL. Nor was it a creative FAIL. In fact, Episode 1 rates a surprisingly pleasant thumbs up from this viewer. Less of a surprise was producer Sarah Jessica Parker’s arrival on scene to graciously welcome the contestants. Perhaps one more bit of reassurance they will be treated with some small measure of dignity?

Certainly, the impressive line-up of hosts and judges (Simon de Pury, Jeanne Greenberg Rohatyn, Jerry Saltz, China Chow, Bill Powers) adds credibility to this venture. And to the stated desire to bring fine art to a wider audience through the guise of Reality TV, even as we know hijinks and fireworks await.

After all – it is entertainment, right?

Reality TV is formulaic, but effective

And the formula should work. Modeled after Top Chef, the timeframes will be  short, the challenges, implausible, and there’s no shortage of personalities present and already revealing their tics and quirks, exactly the way we like our Reality royals.

Crossing mediums, styles, and demographics, we have the self-proclaimed “hottie” (Jaclyn) who wields a rockin’ figure along with her figurative brush. There’s feral photog Mark Velasquez, “good guy” Erik (underwhelming with his first foray outside amateur status), and cocky, grating-on-our-nerves Nao. Who else but a performance artist to offer the one we love to hate, as foil to more established commodities like Peregrine Honig who are doing, well… what they do?

Quirks and quality

Unexpected discoveries? There’s the winning work of Miles Mendenhall, whose portrait popped on every dimension (for me), which suggests we might be in for a dose of quality with our quirky. And possibly some layers to his layers, with a few former rumors flying that he was adding a degree of performance art to his persona. Whether or not that’s just so much media noise, it’s an intriguing (and fitting) concept, and we’re likely to see worthy work from him, and many of the artists.

As for architect Amanda who was the first to pack her palette knives and go, I agree that her painting was a yawn, and unsuccessful as portraiture. But I bemoan the loss of an abstract painter so early in the game, crossing my fingers that more abstraction lurks among the lucky 13 who remain. And for ye who doubt the possibilities and power of abstract portraiture – might I simply say – Willem de Kooning?

Wait and see?

For now, I’m stymied by the relatively tender touch of the judges, yet relieved (this is only Round 1), and I’m pleased at the straightforward but effective first exercise. I’ll be sticking around for Episode 2, waiting for the inevitable explosions and increasingly involved challenges. It may be formulaic, but it’s a formula that works.

© D A Wolf

Big Little Wolf’s Daily Plate of Crazy