Bravo TV included in this summer’s extensive show listing a new reality series called “Work of Art: The Search for the Next Great Artist.” As an art history major with a particular interest in the modern and contemporary artistic endeavors, I was anxious to see the show’s portrayal of the art world through a reality show competition.
Structured almost exactly like Bravo’s “Project Runway,” “Work of Art” was a creative competition series among aspiring contemporary artists. Each week the artists were given a creative theme or subject and challenged to create a piece of work in varying mediums, such as painting, sculpture, photography, collage, and industrial design. The winner of the competition would secure a solo exhibit in the Brooklyn Museum and receive a $100,000 cash prize.
While the show guaranteed to be entertaining and drama filled as all of Bravo’s shows are, I questioned the artistic capacity and success that could come from a reality show. The result, as I saw it, was a clichÈd exploration of the significance behind being an artist. The inspiration and self-expression that is intrinsic to contemporary art seemed lost in the sense that these artists were creating work for the judges in order to make it through to the next round, not art for themselves or for an audience.
Rather than focusing on making a new statement in art, the cast was charged with dramatizing the process and attempting to live up to the creative starving artist stereotype. The contestants seemed to play it safe, going back to the masters and honing the traditional artistic techniques, as opposed to establishing their own artistic signatures. Again, it was art for the judges, not simply unique artistic expression. The struggle in meeting the assigned challenges while simultaneously making art that overcame the program’s emphasis on convention was apparent throughout the season, and inhibited the novelty of the work.
Emphasis on the avant-garde and on impulsivity seemed the intention throughout, yet the theme felt forced and uninspiring once it was made obvious. Personally, I believe that contemporary art is too ambiguous and individually subjective to be categorized, let alone judged and critiqued. The originality and obscurity of contemporary art is the motivating concept behind the movement, and while put under the pressure of a judged competition, true innovation and creative risk-taking was limited.
While the show served as an invaluable introduction to the NYC art scene for the contestants, it did little in fine-tuning their artistic capabilities and skills. A second season has not yet been announced or scheduled, but I look forward to seeing what, if any, changes are brought to the competition, and continue to question if the show’s ambition of creating “the Next Great Artist” is ultimately realistic in a reality television setting.
Emily Timmerman is an A&E editor for the Voice. She can be reached for comment at ETimmerman13@wooster.edu.