I was born in 1982. I've seen a lot of television programming. The only show that I can remember focusing on art in some twenty plus years of watching is that instructional show with that guy with the beard who talked about 'happy trees'. That is, up until I heard about Bravo Network's "Work of Art: The Next Great Artist".
I went to art school. I attended the University of Philadelphia, where I majored in acting. I did not take any visual arts classes; in fact, I rarely left the performing arts building. There were a few mandatory art history classes that seemed to cover the whole range - painting, photography, architecture, film, theater - from about the Renaissance period to maybe the 1940's. Needless to say, it was cursory at best.
My girlfriend and I watch Top Chef regularly. Why do we watch it? She likes to cook but hardly has any time to indulge - and I just like to eat. But watching a show about cooking without following the recipes at home seems a little silly, doesn't it? Top Chef is a classy show (although they have their missteps, i.e. the Josea and Leah hook-up) and it's fun to watch - but why? I guess it's just enjoyable to watch people who are good at their craft compete with each other. Since we aren't participating in the food prep or eating, we're just along for the thrill of competition.
She also watched Project Runway, and even went so far as to watch the Canadian version of that show (if you haven't seen it, it's great).
We skipped Shear Genius, a show that was about hairdressers... and I suppose it was for hair dressers, since I can't imagine anyone who isn't a hair pro being into. Although I must admit that my girlfriend did make me watch a few episodes of Tabitha's Salon Takeover, and I have to say it was better than okay.
But a show about art?
How could that even be made into a watchable show?
Art has no rules, no boundaries. In Top Chef, the idea is that a good chef has to have a variety of skills and creativity to produce an enticing, flavorful dish. They should be able to come up with a concept and execute it on a professional level.
An artist (and in this case, a visual artist) does the same thing, but how can you possibly create a challenge that is structured enough to be judged but not so structured that it interferes with the artists' tastes and creativity. For example, if someone told Salvador Dali to paint a realistic landscape, would he do it to humor them? Or would he say, "I'm sorry, I'm not the right guy for this job. I'm the guy that paints melting clocks. You want so-and-so down the street." So then you go to Jackson Pollock and you ask him to paint some melting clocks to compare to Dali's melting clocks and Jackson says, "no way pal. You got me confused with Sal. I'm the splatter guy." What if you had a Picasso and a Renoir and a Warhol in the same room, and someone asks you to pick the Greatest one of the bunch? It would be impossible to compare the paintings (although something tells me that Warhol would be eliminated first).
Most importantly of all, it has to make good television. That means it has to have drama. It can't be an hour of people hunched over their canvases. There has to be conflict.
We saw the commecials for Work of Art: The Next Great Artist during Top Chef. There are the questions I posed to my girlfriend, who merely shrugged and said, "if you don't think you want to see it, then don't watch it." But I did want to watch it, because I was obsessed with finding out how one makes a show about painters.
No comments:
Post a Comment