What do artists want? Fame, fame, more fame and then more of it after that. Otherwise, how to account for the hordes of eager artists willing to stand in line merely to have a shot at being on the new reality TV show (not yet named) about contemporary artists, being produced by Sarah Jessica Parker for Bravo TV? Perhaps actors longing for fame will do this sort of thing, but artists? Aren’t they supposed to be different? Aren’t they the ones who avoid the limelight in favor of hunkering down, all alone in their studios, to do their work?
A few years back, I watched an episode of “Artstar,” an earlier attempt at a reality TV show about contemporary artists. That show, which fell as flat as a blown-out tire (it was on one of those 4-digit channels that had about twelve viewers), confirmed for me my worst suspicions about artists. They’re more adept than used car salesmen at whipping up, and even believing in, absurd and frothy words bearing no connection whatsoever to what’s in front of them. It was mortifying to listen to artists ramble on incoherently about their art, in front of both real art jurors and a TV audience. I ended up switching off the TV.
But I missed the point. At the time, I thought that a reality show about contemporary artists competing for a place in the art world was incomprehensible. Contemporary art is a strange, closed little world where a whole lot of the money comes from peddling mystique. Yet think about it. If one concentrates on the artists, and not the art, contemporary art is actually a perfect match for reality TV.
A lot of artists lust naturally and deeply for fame. The only thing that traditionally separated artists from actors is that actors wanted personal fame, whereas artists wanted fame only for their art. Today, that’s all changed, and many artists yearn for celebrity status as much if not more than most actors. Furthermore, a lot of artists deceive themselves, liking to softly say, “The important thing is that my work be recognized for its contribution to art.” They wouldn’t dare shout out, “I want my name to be as famous as Picasso’s!”
Early this morning, my daughter, who’s twenty-six and ipso facto far hipper than I am, sent me an email inquiring (in jest) if I’d be standing in that long line for fame. (Does she understand me at all?) Later, when I talked to her about all of this, I asked, “Wouldn’t most people find what contemporary artists do way too esoteric for a reality TV show?” I was, of course, thinking of all the serious artists I know who spend days and weeks alone in their studios and would never dream of giving up a day in the studio to go stand on line to hawk their art.
“No, Mom, you don’t get it. People don’t watch these things to learn about the subject. They watch them to enjoy the freak show.” She said that with such reality shows as “Top Chef” and “Project Runway,” Bravo’s fare is a cut above that of MTV and VH1. “You may not like any of them,” she said, “but to win in ‘Top Chef’ takes some actual talent.”
OK, so how will the jurors in a reality show about contemporary artists, who engage in the most notoriously subjective endeavor known to human beings, manage to judge “talent”? She then explained the obvious. “It doesn’t really matter. All that’s needed are crazy characters—the weirder the better.”
You can bet your sweet bippy that a show about serious contemporary art would flop, but a show about contemporary artists and their longing for fool’s gold? Now there’s a possibility. With the large TV audience generated by Bravo eager to discover ever newer and weirder characters, and artists eager to play them, Ms. Parker’s show might well succeed.
2 Responses to Don’t Call Us, Pablo. We’ll Call You.
notevenanadjunct - July 27, 2009 at 10:16 am
I think you are being a little unfair to the artists who want to be on the reality show. The art world is tough and it’s incredibly hard to get noticed, so I understand someone trying for something as desparate and silly as a spot on this television program. It might raise a one in ten thousand chance of getting gallery representation to one in one thousand.
There are bazillions of young art hopefuls streaming into NYC every day, and most of them won’t have what they need to get ahead in Chelsea. This is the closest thing they’ll ever have to having a chance.
And it’s unfair to say they’re after fame, you don’t know that. They might be after security, a chance to live by selling their artwork – something which requires exposure to people who run the galleries that translate art into money.
And the carefully scripted train wreck that this show will become isn’t the product of the idiots on the show, it’s crafted by the producers. They are the people who will choose the particular set of morons which appear on the show, and goad and prod them off camera into pulling ridiculous stunts. They’ll shoot hundreds of hours of footage and then boil it down to half an hour of idiocy that is carefully edited just to entice people like your daughter. You could be a likeable genius and the editors can make you look like a craven ass, and they will if the producers think they can garner viewership by it.
I speak as someone who has familiarity with all three aspects of this situation: I’m an artist represented by a fancy gallery, I once went all the way through the reality show application process up to the point where I was accepted on a show but refused to sign the abusive contract, and my wife and I both support ourselves as editors within the video post industry – sometimes on reality shows.
Look with pity on the artists who want to be on this show, as a goodly number of them are desparate and hungry and lacking in that prime requisite of art world success: being independently wealthy.
notevenanadjunct - July 27, 2009 at 10:17 am
Ach. All my clever paragraphs have been run into one big mess. Sorry.