Work of Art Episode Five: Art That Moves You

by Paddy Johnson on July 8, 2010 · 224 comments WANGA

A viewer in front of Jaclyn Santos' Male Gaze commentary art work

What’s Work of Art’s biggest failure so far? This show has so many problems there’s undoubtedly more than one right answer but last week’s challenge and resulting eliminations left me feeling like it was their ridiculous assignments. Nothing’s going to top the shock and awe challenge in the bad idea department, but this week’s Let-New-York-be-Your-Muse-With-Audi didn’t do much to convince me that assessment was inaccurate. That is, until the results started to roll in. Kudos to this episode’s guest judge, realist painter Richard Phillips for offering a much needed increase to the level of discourse, but not even he’s been able to put a crack in editing that makes Abdi Farah look like a voice of authority and Erik Johnson a wise man toughened by life.

Like Mile’s jab at Judith’s so-called sanity issues last week — a completely constructed narrative legitimizing her exit — the editors go out of their way to remind us they made the right decision. “There’s no room for error any more” Abdi earnestly tells the cameras now that five artists have been eliminated. I’ve heard this sentiment uttered by cast members on almost every other reality show, so if it weren’t for Abdi’s genuine belief in the show, I’d call this a planted line. He follows this sentiment with, “The more open the challenge the harder it is to come up with a good idea.” thus foreshadowing what I’m certain will be a poor solo exhibition should he be chosen as one of the final three contestants. Younger artists like Abdi seem to do better on this show, perhaps because school makes them more accustomed to following instructions.

As for the studio, with more artists eliminated, the show has time to follow a few more character narratives and disputes. Miles and Nicole flirt, Erik offers surprisingly fair character assessments while talking smack about other contestants (last week’s homophobic comments do not sit well with us), and Nicole, Jaclyn and Peregrine deal with sharing a new room together. Nobody has yet commented on Mark Velasquez predilection for making painfully obvious observations. “Either way, the group will be eight” opines Velasquez, as if inevitability of elimination weren’t already known. He’s also good for the off-handed criticism, “That’s amateurish”, a comment I’m not sure he even understands as he used it last week to describe Nicole’s baby penis-like thumbs.

In other delusional statements offered up this week, a studio scene showcases Jaclyn talking about her art school 101 project “the male gaze plus me in the Audi forum = the Panopticon” followed by Abdi’s ridiculous conclusion, “Jackie’s a great artist”. That Jaclyn remains on the show at all, signals the show’s utter disinterest in accurately assessing the cast member’s work.

SPOILER ALERT: So does the fact that she won this week’s challenge. “I think there’s some growth in your work” says Bravo judge Jerry Saltz generously, a sentiment that may have some truth in this instance, but seems a little less credible, when you remember that said “growth” has occurred over approximately six days on Bravo’s sets. Once again, when this show isn’t failing artists with its uninspired challenges, it does so in its assessment of the work. Speaking to this, the first person that needs to be eliminated on this show is China Chow. (kudos to c-monster for calling that one right off the bat) “This is just way too literal. I don’t get what you’re trying to say here.” she says of Ryan Shultz’s self portrait in a car. What she meant was that it was a painting with only a surface read, but she’s not the most brilliant speaker in the world so she produced a statement in which one clause contradicts the other. Not that we needed any further proof of the matter, but only a couple contestants later she demonstrates she’s also not a particularly deep thinker. “I don’t know what I’m looking at.” Chow complains of Jaime Lynn’s work, “Is it a hub cap, is it a record, it’s kind of all over the place.” That piece had a lot of problems, namely sloppy conceit and visualization, but not being able to identify what it was, isn’t one of them.

Thankfully, I doubt China Chow has too much sway in the actual judging, which sadly seems more heavily weighted in the hands of the producers than other shows. As per usual this episode’s list of winners and losers demonstrates this point. A few thoughts below.

Jaclyn Santos, "11-17"

THE WINNER

Why is Jaclyn Santos work in the top two? She photographed men looking at her, put paint blobs on their faces “as means of empowerment”, and added a couple mirrors to reflect the viewer’s gaze. This is art school male gaze 101. No matter. “I love the triangle you’ve created, where the viewer, they’re looking out at us, and you are the one who has to complete the pictures.” says Jeanne Greenberg Rohtayn. This doesn’t even make any sense.

Nicole Nadeau's "Suspension"

THE REAL WINNER

How is it no substantial conversation occurred about Nicole’s sculpture “suspension”, a light crusty object marked by the sounds of her journey. This piece is much better than most of the work I’ve seen on her website, much of which apparently was made in school. Nadeau’s been creating relatively strong work for this competition — it’s time to start talking about her a little more.

LEFT: Miles Mendenhall, "Untitled", RIGHT: Peregrine Honig, "Raudi"

THE RUNNERS UP

Miles Mendenhall and Peregrine Honig each created thoughful pieces.  Admittedly I have a difficult time with Honig’s illustration-y style, but at least all her work is intelligent, which is more than I can say for a lot of the remaining contestants.

LEFT: Abdi Farah's "Glory" RIGHT: Jaime Lynn Henderson's "Turn it Up"

THE ELIMINATED – JAIME LYNN HENDERSON

Fare enough. I suppose ten dancing Jaime Lynn’s on a wheel of New York is worse than Abdi’s hamy self portrait as a race car driver, but just barely. Jeanne Greenberg Rohtayn offers up the most valuable criticism of the piece saying, “It has no sex, it has no speed, and it has no status, all things you would get from the car or the rap music [you were listening to].”

Mark Velasquez, "From Above"

BEST ARTICULATED CRITICISM

“It’s important to make a declarative statement.” Richard Phillips tells artist Mark Velasquez who’s painting had earlier been described as boring hotel art. There’s probably room for debate on this point, but in this context, I’d argue this is a far better starting point for the evaluation of contemporary art than Bravo’s search for how it makes you “feel”.

  • http://www.MarkVelasquez.com Mark Velasquez

    Thanks as always for the comments, Paddy, but please, make sure to spell my name correctly. Save it to your spell check for future critiques of my sub-par work. Thanks!

    Mark VELAsquez.

    • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

      Sorry about that!

  • http://www.MarkVelasquez.com Mark Velasquez

    Thanks as always for the comments, Paddy, but please, make sure to spell my name correctly. Save it to your spell check for future critiques of my sub-par work. Thanks!

    Mark VELAsquez.

  • http://www.MarkVelasquez.com Mark Velasquez

    Thanks as always for the comments, Paddy, but please, make sure to spell my name correctly. Save it to your spell check for future critiques of my sub-par work. Thanks!

    Mark VELAsquez.

    • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

      Sorry about that!

  • http://www.judithannbraun.com judith Braun

    Agree about Nicole’s piece. I’m thinking, why are they giving more time to the bottom pieces, and no time to Nicole’s interesting piece that should have been on top. Really, what is the thinking there…what is the agenda? She is not there to be a prop for Miles!!

  • http://www.judithannbraun.com judith Braun

    Agree about Nicole’s piece. I’m thinking, why are they giving more time to the bottom pieces, and no time to Nicole’s interesting piece that should have been on top. Really, what is the thinking there…what is the agenda? She is not there to be a prop for Miles!!

  • Franke

    Women are not really on the agenda for this show. The female artists have had considerably less screen time on this show than men.

    The female artist who has had the most screen time is Jaclyn. Who is a one-trick pony with all her work being about her supposed issues with the male gaze… Easy. If you don’t enjoy the male gaze then don’t so aggressively beg for it.

    Sorry. She may be a very nice person and I don’t know her personally but she comes off as a boring barbie.

    • pinecode

      Is it possible for anyone to discuss Jaclyn without deferring to misogyny? Not just this comment, but any time she is discussed, she is dismissed for being too conventionally attractive or dressing too sexy. Seriously guys, seriously?

      • http://www.digitalmediatree.com/sallymckay/ L.M.

        Actually she’s being dismissed for the tedious garden-variety narcissism that informs her every move.

      • http://www.digitalmediatree.com/sallymckay/ L.M.

        Actually she’s being dismissed for the tedious garden-variety narcissism that informs her every move.

        • pinecode

          Saying she’s aggressively begging for the male gaze isn’t just about narcissism. I’ve been reading the Television Without Pity boards as well, and there is a ridiculous amount of dialogue about if her breasts are real, or her not being a feminist because she dresses procatively.

          • http://www.daingore.com/ Dain Q Gore

            Well if the board is called Television Without Pity, it sounds like it’s living up to its name!

      • Franke

        Come on… Really? Seriously?

        She is the one always deferring to misogyny but in such a banal way. I have no issue with a female artist using her body to bring cultural issues to the forefront but its really needs to be more thoughtful and a less default reaction. She’s not creating a feminist debate with her work or bringing a new perspective to it.

        An example of default would be the book cover challenge where she takes a sexy back photo of herself with a fedora. Take the time to read a few pages of the book or, at least, the book jacket to get a sense of the book. It had nothing to do with the book. She assumed that because it was a romantic book, per se, that it was about sex and not the themes of love, class, and respect.

        Jaclyn is a classic narcissist. Her work is trite, boring, unthoughtful, and uneducated (considering her past academic & educational experience).

        Blah, blah, blah…

    • pinecode

      Is it possible for anyone to discuss Jaclyn without deferring to misogyny? Not just this comment, but any time she is discussed, she is dismissed for being too conventionally attractive or dressing too sexy. Seriously guys, seriously?

    • apple-jack

      she’s much less sour than the people on this site!

  • Franke

    Women are not really on the agenda for this show. The female artists have had considerably less screen time on this show than men.

    The female artist who has had the most screen time is Jaclyn. Who is a one-trick pony with all her work being about her supposed issues with the male gaze… Easy. If you don’t enjoy the male gaze then don’t so aggressively beg for it.

    Sorry. She may be a very nice person and I don’t know her personally but she comes off as a boring barbie.

  • Franke

    Women are not really on the agenda for this show. The female artists have had considerably less screen time on this show than men.

    The female artist who has had the most screen time is Jaclyn. Who is a one-trick pony with all her work being about her supposed issues with the male gaze… Easy. If you don’t enjoy the male gaze then don’t so aggressively beg for it.

    Sorry. She may be a very nice person and I don’t know her personally but she comes off as a boring barbie.

    • pinecode

      Is it possible for anyone to discuss Jaclyn without deferring to misogyny? Not just this comment, but any time she is discussed, she is dismissed for being too conventionally attractive or dressing too sexy. Seriously guys, seriously?

      • http://www.digitalmediatree.com/sallymckay/ L.M.

        Actually she’s being dismissed for the tedious garden-variety narcissism that informs her every move.

        • pinecode

          Saying she’s aggressively begging for the male gaze isn’t just about narcissism. I’ve been reading the Television Without Pity boards as well, and there is a ridiculous amount of dialogue about if her breasts are real, or her not being a feminist because she dresses procatively.

          • http://www.daingore.com/ Dain Q Gore

            Well if the board is called Television Without Pity, it sounds like it’s living up to its name!

      • Franke

        Come on… Really? Seriously?

        She is the one always deferring to misogyny but in such a banal way. I have no issue with a female artist using her body to bring cultural issues to the forefront but its really needs to be more thoughtful and a less default reaction. She’s not creating a feminist debate with her work or bringing a new perspective to it.

        An example of default would be the book cover challenge where she takes a sexy back photo of herself with a fedora. Take the time to read a few pages of the book or, at least, the book jacket to get a sense of the book. It had nothing to do with the book. She assumed that because it was a romantic book, per se, that it was about sex and not the themes of love, class, and respect.

        Jaclyn is a classic narcissist. Her work is trite, boring, unthoughtful, and uneducated (considering her past academic & educational experience).

        Blah, blah, blah…

    • apple-jack

      she’s much less sour than the people on this site!

  • Peregrine

    nicole made a beautiful piece- jerry called it a sleeper at one point. nicole’s piece had a quiet beauty and it was innovative. our time and materials were so limited- she slipped a fast little dream into the mix.

  • Peregrine

    nicole made a beautiful piece- jerry called it a sleeper at one point. nicole’s piece had a quiet beauty and it was innovative. our time and materials were so limited- she slipped a fast little dream into the mix.

  • http://www.patrickcollier.com Patrick

    Judith asks, “Really, what is the thinking there…what is the agenda?” I’ll take her question out of context a bit to say that clearly thinking is way down on the list of priorities for air time.

    And what’s with JGR’s proclivity for shouting? Does it make what she has to say more important ‘sounding’?

    The only good thing I can say about this show is that maybe, just maybe a few non-artists are watching, and even though minimal exposure is given to thought and work processes, it may get those people interested enough to visit museums and galleries.

    Otherwise, when do we get to see a couple of them in bed together?

    • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

      I keep thinking Jeanne is such a horrible judge, but when I go back over the episodes, she’s not as bad as she comes across. I think a lot of it is as you say — she sounds like she’s yelling all the time.

      I find it interesting that Mark is trying to “push” himself by departing from photography. This show does nothing but reward those working in that medium.

    • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

      I keep thinking Jeanne is such a horrible judge, but when I go back over the episodes, she’s not as bad as she comes across. I think a lot of it is as you say — she sounds like she’s yelling all the time.

      I find it interesting that Mark is trying to “push” himself by departing from photography. This show does nothing but reward those working in that medium.

  • http://www.patrickcollier.com Patrick

    Judith asks, “Really, what is the thinking there…what is the agenda?” I’ll take her question out of context a bit to say that clearly thinking is way down on the list of priorities for air time.

    And what’s with JGR’s proclivity for shouting? Does it make what she has to say more important ‘sounding’?

    The only good thing I can say about this show is that maybe, just maybe a few non-artists are watching, and even though minimal exposure is given to thought and work processes, it may get those people interested enough to visit museums and galleries.

    Otherwise, when do we get to see a couple of them in bed together?

  • http://www.patrickcollier.com Patrick

    Judith asks, “Really, what is the thinking there…what is the agenda?” I’ll take her question out of context a bit to say that clearly thinking is way down on the list of priorities for air time.

    And what’s with JGR’s proclivity for shouting? Does it make what she has to say more important ‘sounding’?

    The only good thing I can say about this show is that maybe, just maybe a few non-artists are watching, and even though minimal exposure is given to thought and work processes, it may get those people interested enough to visit museums and galleries.

    Otherwise, when do we get to see a couple of them in bed together?

    • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

      I keep thinking Jeanne is such a horrible judge, but when I go back over the episodes, she’s not as bad as she comes across. I think a lot of it is as you say — she sounds like she’s yelling all the time.

      I find it interesting that Mark is trying to “push” himself by departing from photography. This show does nothing but reward those working in that medium.

  • http://www.residualscars.com Erik

    first i’m a “child hater” and now i’m a “homophobe”

    …i’m guessing years ago some tough guy with tattoos broke your heart… was his name “dad” by any chance?

  • http://www.residualscars.com Erik

    first i’m a “child hater” and now i’m a “homophobe”

    …i’m guessing years ago some tough guy with tattoos broke your heart… was his name “dad” by any chance?

    • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

      Ha! Perhaps you can better explain what you meant last week then when you made the connection between priests and pedophiles and how you’d read that Catholithic priests have AIDS? It sure sounded like you meant that gay people molest little boys.

      • Erik

        i totally understand how, after editing, my piece came across that way. i’m surprised that you didn’t see that i addressed this considering the amount of time you spend stalking my facebook page. that piece had to do with bad parenting. it was about parents who are too embarrassed to talk to their children about sex run the risk of something like that happening to their child because the child may not have any idea what is going on…even that it may be wrong. the point i was making is that preaching abstinence is not sex education. also how two words can change the meaning of a photograph. you’re such a fan of analyzing a piece of art to death, i’m really surprised that you weren’t smart enough to think about that for a few seconds and “get it”

        priests are dying of aids at a rate 4 times higher than the rest of the population. by no means was i saying that being gay is the same as being a child molester, or even gay people have aids. that is pretty irresponsible of your thinking if it was the first thought that popped in your head…but then again you do use the word “fag” quite a bit.

        • http://www.jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com Jesse P. Martin

          What’s being questioned/criticized isn’t your “piece,” but what you said early on in the episode about why you were making it. It stood out to me because I’m gay and I’m sensitized to when people make erroneous (and dangerous) statements that conflate/trade-off certain words when discussing gay people, AIDS, etc. Maybe it wasn’t intentional, and I’m sure that it being isolated as a soundbyte didn’t help, but it did register as careless and homophobic. I’m sure that we’ve all misspoken like this before, but it’s important to be able to acknowledge one’s words and clarify their meaning, especially in a case like this. Words are extremely powerful (often more than images, I think), especially when it comes to discussing and defining specific “groups.” I mean, just look at the survey just released by the Pentagon (to those enlisted) regarding gays in the military: http://bit.ly/a5elCE

          Also, your above “explanation” is more of an “analyzing a piece of art to death” than when people want to question, criticize, dialogue with, or elaborate upon a specific thing that you said. Even though these may feel like unwarranted attacks on you and your work, it’s still a tremendous luxury (and curse, I’m sure) to have these aspects of your practice discussed by the public. Isn’t this what artists do/want? I’m not on a reality show, but I’m routinely held accountable for and asked to explain the things I do/write/say. This can be extremely challenging and uncomfortable at times, but it’s absolutely worth the effort to engage.

        • http://www.jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com Jesse P. Martin

          What’s being questioned/criticized isn’t your “piece,” but what you said early on in the episode about why you were making it. It stood out to me because I’m gay and I’m sensitized to when people make erroneous (and dangerous) statements that conflate/trade-off certain words when discussing gay people, AIDS, etc. Maybe it wasn’t intentional, and I’m sure that it being isolated as a soundbyte didn’t help, but it did register as careless and homophobic. I’m sure that we’ve all misspoken like this before, but it’s important to be able to acknowledge one’s words and clarify their meaning, especially in a case like this. Words are extremely powerful (often more than images, I think), especially when it comes to discussing and defining specific “groups.” I mean, just look at the survey just released by the Pentagon (to those enlisted) regarding gays in the military: http://bit.ly/a5elCE

          Also, your above “explanation” is more of an “analyzing a piece of art to death” than when people want to question, criticize, dialogue with, or elaborate upon a specific thing that you said. Even though these may feel like unwarranted attacks on you and your work, it’s still a tremendous luxury (and curse, I’m sure) to have these aspects of your practice discussed by the public. Isn’t this what artists do/want? I’m not on a reality show, but I’m routinely held accountable for and asked to explain the things I do/write/say. This can be extremely challenging and uncomfortable at times, but it’s absolutely worth the effort to engage.

          • Woody Tanaka

            Well, I must say that when I read in this post that Erik had supposedly made a homophobic remark, I had to click the link because even after seeing the episode twice, I could not think of what that comment might have been.

            I took the comment as making a statement about the hypocrisy of a supposedly celibate profession having such a high rate of a sexually-transmitted disease.

            You can disbelieve Erik’s explanation and think that this was some kind of “code words” or some such nonsense; that’s your prerogative. But it seems pretty clear to me that you are imposing things upon his statements things and meanings which are not there and that your self-admitted sensitivity is making you hear things which were not said.

          • http://jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com/ Jesse P. Martin

            @Woody: Not sure what you mean by “code words,” but it doesn’t take an overly-sensitive person to interpret Erik’s statements as problematic (or at least in need of further elaboration, which Erik has endeavored to provide here). And if you recall the episode, Erik first explains that he’s had no personal experience with any of these issues – I’m actually still curious as to where he got his information regarding priests having AIDS (and that they’re “dying… at a rate 4 times higher than the rest of the population”). Still, you’re right that his glib remark could also refer to the “hypocrisy” of sexually-active priests, but that’s assuming that sex is the only way to contract AIDS. I mean, couldn’t that also suggest that priests are raging smack addicts, and that they’re using dirty needles?

            And even if I disagree with the well-known homophobic stereotype, there is still a widespread association made between AIDS and gay sex. I’ve decided to believe that Erik didn’t intend to make these associations, but that doesn’t mean that his original comments didn’t resonate as such. The sheer fact that he only described/represented priest-pedophilia as sleeping with little boys (but with the little boy hysterically played by Jaclyn) seems to support these assumptions.

          • Woody Tanaka

            @Jesse: By “code words” I meant what you described as Erik’s supposed “subtle associative logic” which ended in the not-so-subtle conclusion that Erik was suggesting that these priests are “GAY AND GAY PEOPLE HAVE AIDS AND MOLEST LITTLE BOYS!” That is to say, you seemed to assert that Erik’s mention of AIDS in the context of pedophile priests had to mean that he was making a link or equivalence between gay men and pedophiles. That’s what I meant by “code words” and apologize if I wasn’t clear.

            And while I agree that, given the vicious slander that many homophobes assert equating homosexuality and pedophilia, Erik’s statement could make a reasonable person seek further elaboration or might justify questioning what exactly he meant. But what I reacted to was seeing, here, not a call for further elaboration, but a blanket statement that Erik’s comment was homophobic. (In fact, Paddy referred to it not as something requiring additional elaboration, but flat-out as an “unaddressed ragingly homophobic comment.”)

            I guess my point is that if the comment requires elaboration, one should just request elaboration or assert that it is a troubling statement in need of elaboration and not simply assume that everyone is who mentions AIDS is necessarily referencing gay men or trying to make a dig at gay men, especially when there has been no indication that the person making the statement is in any way bigoted against gays.

            Finally, my interpretation of the statement regarding priests’ hypocrisy does not require sex to be the only way to contract AIDS, but merely one way. I would have received the statement the same way if instead of AIDS, Erik had mentioned gonorrhea, syphilis or any other STD. And since there is no doubt that AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease, I didn’t see it as implying anything other than the fact that these supposed celibates were contracting STDs.

          • http://jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com/ Jesse P. Martin

            @Woody: I agree that, in most civilized conversations, one should simply “request elaboration” if they feel it would help to clarify things. Unfortunately, what we’re dealing with here is neither “civilized” nor a “conversation,” but shredded blips beamed to us weekly as an art-world-reality-show-competition. You have no idea how many times I wanted to reach through the t.v. and ask people to ‘splain theyselves, but when people choose to (or are beholden to) communicate via heavily mediated formats, you can’t expect the rules of polite conversation to be maintained. Of course, some of the WANGA contestants have endeavored to engage their viewers (however confidentiality-agreement-stilted their contributions might be), and that’s great. But to suggest that people shouldn’t react (or overreact) to what they’re seeing/hearing isn’t good, either. I love it, but (reality) television is a problem. So’s reality. We’re trying to navigate the yawning abyss between the two, and it’s going to be fraught with folly and error.

            Again, Erik’s statement struck me (and others) as homophobic (maybe not “ragingly” to your ears, but the magnitude of this kind of thing is highly subjective, and I’m personally not interested in teasing out how “subtle,” “mild,” or “spicy hot” any homophobic statement or act might be). I presented my concerns about this in forums relevant to the show, clearly because I wanted feedback. The fact that Erik himself responded to these concerns directly is wonderful, but it’s unrealistic to always expect people to emerge from the ether to respond directly to our thoughts about their heavily-mediated words/actions. This state of mediated, delayed, and otherwise indirect communication is such a part of contemporary life, but we’re still befuddled by it and tend to use it badly. The internet complicates things further, but at least “conversations” can be (potentially) more direct (although still highly mediated and, usually, abbreviated).

            So, before I wander further into a dissertation on “The Problems of Modern Communication & Reality Television,” let me say that Erik appears to not be a raging homophobe, and that it’s good that we untied that knot a little here, however (perhaps hypocritically) liberal in our words we may have been to do so.

          • Woody Tanaka

            @Jesse: I agree completely that we’re dealing with something that’s not the same as face-to-face conversation, so while the rules of civilized conversation don’t fully apply in light of the artificiality of reality television, I think it’s wise to remember that those rules are in place in polite conversation in part because the communication is between real people and communication is, itself, ripe for misunderstanding and folly.

            But where I would disagree with you is your statement: “But to suggest that people shouldn’t react (or overreact) to what they’re seeing/hearing isn’t good, either.” I think that when one is presented with blatantly manipulated communication (I mean, come on, you can sometimes hear the edits in mid-sentence), it is absolutely wise for people not to overreact to what they’re seeing/hearing, because one should be sophisticated enough to understand that what they are seeing/hearing is most likely inaccurate or manipulated and therefore, the reaction/overreaction that the producers and editors created is false. As was the case here as Erik confirmed that he was not saying what you inferred from his statement.

            When the choices are 1) “the person on the reality show is evil, a bigot, etc.” and 2) “I’m being manipulated by skilled television professionals to believe that the person on the reality show is evil, a bigot, etc.,” the answer is usually 2.

          • http://www.jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com Jesse P. Martin

            @Woody: Again, although Erik’s comment was an edited portion (as, on some level and technically speaking, are all spoken addresses we see/hear on television, the radio, the internet, etc.), it was not clearly and ridiculously cut-up like a glitchy, stuttering Max Headroom diatribe. For better or for worse, it read as a an otherwise discrete statement. We can agree to disagree here, but I will stand by my belief that his phrasing warranted a pointed reaction.

            I appreciate your level-headed and logical approach to how we should approach and analyze mediated and manipulated communication. And we’re all still learning how to navigate, interpret, and engage with things in a more responsible and ethical manner. Maybe there are better and worse ways to engage – and maybe we “should be (more) sophisticated” about how we engage – but I don’t feel that there is any single “correct” or clear way in which one should/can do this. Dealing with reality requires a polymorphous approach, so it stands to reason that dealing with the polymorphousness of reality television should require that we do the same.

        • http://www.digitalmediatree.com/sallymckay/ L.M.

          i wish i had seen your psa because my parents are too embarrassed to talk about sex so i slept with a priest and now i prbably have the extra deadly priest-aids or something worse but maybe he wasn’t a priest but just lied LOL! to get me into bed but i didn’t think anything was wrong also

          • Erik

            you’re probably not sick with anything… you just need to jump up and down until your head falls out of your ass and i’m sure you’ll be fine.

            try fucking yourself next time and you won’t have to worry about “priest aids”

          • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

            This argument ends here. If you can’t keep it civil your comments won’t be approved.

      • http://www.jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com Jesse P. Martin

        Actually, he never used the term “gay,” but instead seemed to use this statistic of Catholic priests having AIDS as a stand-in to signify “gay.” Which is where things got offensive. It’s also interesting how Ryan (and John too, I suppose) also used an “abject” signifier of homosexuality to illustrate “shocking,” but… who cares, right?

        I raged about Erik’s comment on Saltz’s latest “recap” (he claims that Erik is being unfairly vilified and is “actually very sweet”), but people seem inclined to scapegoat Bravo’s editing for everything the contestants are legitimately being criticized for (including their unedited statements, like in Erik’s case here). So, unlike the rest of us poor schmucks, WANGA’s contestants are somehow being absolved of having to take responsibility for their words/actions *because* they’re on a reality-show. And their mostly unremarkable, generally schlocky art is being granted wildly excessive and undue (though entirely sophomoric) praise and consideration *because* it’s on a reality-show. W… T… F…?

        I kind of wish that I never watched/commented on this show in the first place, because I think the only thing fueling my comments at this point is anger. WANGA makes me WANGRY!

      • http://www.jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com Jesse P. Martin

        Actually, he never used the term “gay,” but instead seemed to use this statistic of Catholic priests having AIDS as a stand-in to signify “gay.” Which is where things got offensive. It’s also interesting how Ryan (and John too, I suppose) also used an “abject” signifier of homosexuality to illustrate “shocking,” but… who cares, right?

        I raged about Erik’s comment on Saltz’s latest “recap” (he claims that Erik is being unfairly vilified and is “actually very sweet”), but people seem inclined to scapegoat Bravo’s editing for everything the contestants are legitimately being criticized for (including their unedited statements, like in Erik’s case here). So, unlike the rest of us poor schmucks, WANGA’s contestants are somehow being absolved of having to take responsibility for their words/actions *because* they’re on a reality-show. And their mostly unremarkable, generally schlocky art is being granted wildly excessive and undue (though entirely sophomoric) praise and consideration *because* it’s on a reality-show. W… T… F…?

        I kind of wish that I never watched/commented on this show in the first place, because I think the only thing fueling my comments at this point is anger. WANGA makes me WANGRY!

        • Erik

          Jesse, i totally apologize if what i said seemed homophobic, or anything else anti-gay. those interviews last about 2 hours… you can imagine how much my explanation was cut out.. but if you could see all of the footage you’d know that i never even mentioned the word “gay” in my piece at all. nor did i even imply that having aids, means someone is gay, or being gay means they’ll molest a child… these three things are unrelated, and i’m just not irresponsible enough assume otherwise. i gave my explanation, forgetting that everything we said was in the hands of the editors. honestly if we talked face to face, you’d probably think i’m a really nice guy and we’d probably end up being friends. i know some of the contestants are saying that they’re being portrayed poorly in the edit, but outside of a few things (especially my explanation during the shock challenge) i’ve been portrayed pretty accurately. whatever anyone thinks of me or my personality is just NONE of my business. it’s ok for someone to get confused about the meaning behind my piece, but calling me “homophobe” is really just uncalled for. there’s really no secret as to how one could get in touch with me, and i’ve responded to every single person so far. i had quite a few people contact me with the same concern about the sex education piece and after i explained it they all said “hey thanks for explaining it, i understand now” and then we’re cool.

          besides i think a lot of the personal attacks from people are only because they think i’m a shitty artists. i just don’t understand why people can’t stick to bashing my art WITHOUT calling me “child hater” or “homophobe”

          paddy johnson never did offer up any advice for what i should have told my 13 year old niece when she read online that some woman named paddy called me a “douche bag” and said that i’m a bad artists and that i hate children…

          • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

            Hi Erik,

            I’m glad you clarified what you’ve meant here, but the suggestion that I should check with you to be sure Bravo’s represented you fairly before posting an opinion isn’t how criticism works. The show is a finished product and we all respond to what’s presented.

            I think we’d all be a little happier if Bravo was more about the art than it is, but frankly were that the case half the participating artists would never have been cast on the show. WANGA is also about personality, so that kind of critique is also fair game. It’s unfortunate that the repercussions for some aren’t always positive, but that’s part of what you signed up for.

            Now, to be clear, the supplemental biography you’re referring to was written by Liza not myself, but honestly I wouldn’t have said much different. The show has portrayed you as a tell-it-like-is personality, and from everything I’ve seen that seems to be more or less accurate. This has it’s pluses and minus. I’ve seen you call out people who deserve to be called out and I’m really glad you’ve done that. I’ve also seen you proudly report that when a twirling child fell and hurt themselves that they deserved it. That’s not very generous IMO and really pretty of douche-y.

            As for your art, though I’m generally fairly critical of it, I will say that had you received a crit this episode someone would have told you this was the best piece you’ve produced this season. It suffers from an overly sentimental treatment, but it’s better composed and rendered than some of your other works, which often need work in that regard.

          • http://www.jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com Jesse P. Martin

            Thanks for the explanation. You’re probably not a “child hater” or “homophobe,” but I hope you can see how certain things that you’ve said/posted could be construed as such.

            I think this show is a hydra-headed train-wreck for more reasons than I can count, and the “art” that’s being made on/for it is entirely overwhelmed by the distracting meta shit-storm that it’s being presented within/alongside. I guess one could argue that the same is true for the “art world,” but for some reason WANGA seems like a new level of OMFG.

            I actually passed right by disgraced Trong in Chelsea the other day, and I felt as if a rip in the space/time continuum was dragging in his wake…

    • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

      Ha! Perhaps you can better explain what you meant last week then when you made the connection between priests and pedophiles and how you’d read that Catholithic priests have AIDS? It sure sounded like you meant that gay people molest little boys.

    • Anonamoose

      Reading these articles.. I always picture the reviewers as scrunchy faced and angry at the world.

      • patpatpatpat

        Duuuude, maaaaaan. If your face is not scrunched when watching this show then you should immediately adjust it. Everyone is Wangry. This is competing with Lebron leaving Cleveland on reasons why I should be upset today.

    • Vinness Clemsahn

      erik, maybe you didn’t *mean* to come off as a homophobe, but your (ahem) shallow stab at discourse/shock coupled with your naivety sure made it seem that way. sawwy!

      also, tattoos in this day and age are definitely not a signifier of tough guy/outsider/cool. they are for normies who think they are too cool to wear ed hardy.

      and i hardly think that your smack talking about miles and several of the other contestants means that you’re now the WANGA “bad boy”. more like a whiny grotsky little beeyotch.

      wow, i really don’t like you, huh?

    • Vinness Clemsahn

      erik, maybe you didn’t *mean* to come off as a homophobe, but your (ahem) shallow stab at discourse/shock coupled with your naivety sure made it seem that way. sawwy!

      also, tattoos in this day and age are definitely not a signifier of tough guy/outsider/cool. they are for normies who think they are too cool to wear ed hardy.

      and i hardly think that your smack talking about miles and several of the other contestants means that you’re now the WANGA “bad boy”. more like a whiny grotsky little beeyotch.

      wow, i really don’t like you, huh?

      • Erik

        no, i don’t think it’s me that you dislike… i think it’s you. at least that’s how you come across.

        if you are a woman, well then…… you probably have a lot of cats.

        if you are a man, i hope i get the chance to meet you in person someday so we can see which one of us is the tough guy.

        you’re probably a woman though… that’s what your writing sounds like.

        • http://www.jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com Jesse P. Martin

          I apologize: Erik IS “actually very sweet,” clearly. Saltz is as good of a judge of character as he is of art!

        • http://www.jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com Jesse P. Martin

          I apologize: Erik IS “actually very sweet,” clearly. Saltz is as good of a judge of character as he is of art!

        • pinecode

          Wow, dude, wow.

        • pinecode

          Wow, dude, wow.

        • Vinness Clemsahn

          It seems to me that as an “amateur artist” (Bravo’s words, not mine), this would be a great opportunity for you to get some perspective on your work–not only do you have the judges on the show (gallerists, established artists and a popular art critic) telling you what they think of what you’ve done each week, you also have the opinions of your peers on the show–many of whom are practicing artists, as well as the “blogosphere” and the general public offering critiques of your work and your process. This is invaluable. It would be to your advantage to try to not to be so defensive when people misinterpret your work or critique it–use it instead as an opportunity to learn. If you took a second to think about what people are saying instead of deferring to personal insults, maybe you’d gain some insight into how your work is perceived by a broad spectrum of people. OR, maybe you’d decide that we are all wrong, and that’s fine too. Every artist has been slammed at one point or another, it’s just part of the deal.

          In response to your reply to me, as I don’t know you personally, I can’t say that I dislike you, but I do dislike your work. Don’t take it personally, it’s just the opinion of a woman with “lots of cats”.

    • http://www.judithannbraun.com Judith Braun

      Hi Erik…Weren’t you one of the people who thought “all press is good press?”
      Just askin’…not trying to start a dialogue about it again. Judith

    • http://www.judithannbraun.com Judith Braun

      Hi Erik…Weren’t you one of the people who thought “all press is good press?”
      Just askin’…not trying to start a dialogue about it again. Judith

      • Erik

        Judith.. i still think that.. but this isn’t press, this is a jealous ugly woman named paddy who is going to say whatever she can to make me look like a bad guy..

        and please… don’t start a dialog with me about this.. that is why i had to block you on facebook. you can never just seem to pretend i don’t exist and keep your opinions to yourself.

      • Erik

        Judith.. i still think that.. but this isn’t press, this is a jealous ugly woman named paddy who is going to say whatever she can to make me look like a bad guy..

        and please… don’t start a dialog with me about this.. that is why i had to block you on facebook. you can never just seem to pretend i don’t exist and keep your opinions to yourself.

        • http://www.judithannbraun.com judith Braun

          I never wrote to you on facebook. I wrote on our private GROUP threads…thinking we were all gonna have an intelligent dialogue. Wow… Why are YOU so angry at ME?

        • http://www.digitalmediatree.com/sallymckay/ L.M.

          Paddy is also 5′ 1″ and weighs 400 lbs. That fact should not be disregarded when discussing her critical skills.

          (I wonder if the little butterball will even approve this comment!)

          • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

            You’re not doing yourself any favors by discounting this blog as press. Vanity Fair linked to this blog early in the season, The New York Observer took you and Mr. Shultz to task for photoshopping pictures of me, and there’s more mainstream coverage of these recaps in the pipes. You look like a bad guy because you’ve done and continue to do stupid things. I can see that you regret some of them which is great, but don’t mistake your missteps for my jealousy.

        • Bella

          Why bring looks into it? You’re just making yourself look like an even bigger jackass than you do on the show–where you come off as untalented and bitter. Oh, and incredibly ugly (inside and out). Your comments here clearly show that you’ve got some serious woman-hating issues. Your girlfriend must have zero self esteem to stick with an angry, talentless chauvinist like you.

          • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

            Just a reminder to everyone that name calling is not acceptable in the comment threads, tempting as it may be.

  • http://www.residualscars.com Erik

    first i’m a “child hater” and now i’m a “homophobe”

    …i’m guessing years ago some tough guy with tattoos broke your heart… was his name “dad” by any chance?

    • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

      Ha! Perhaps you can better explain what you meant last week then when you made the connection between priests and pedophiles and how you’d read that Catholithic priests have AIDS? It sure sounded like you meant that gay people molest little boys.

      • Erik

        i totally understand how, after editing, my piece came across that way. i’m surprised that you didn’t see that i addressed this considering the amount of time you spend stalking my facebook page. that piece had to do with bad parenting. it was about parents who are too embarrassed to talk to their children about sex run the risk of something like that happening to their child because the child may not have any idea what is going on…even that it may be wrong. the point i was making is that preaching abstinence is not sex education. also how two words can change the meaning of a photograph. you’re such a fan of analyzing a piece of art to death, i’m really surprised that you weren’t smart enough to think about that for a few seconds and “get it”

        priests are dying of aids at a rate 4 times higher than the rest of the population. by no means was i saying that being gay is the same as being a child molester, or even gay people have aids. that is pretty irresponsible of your thinking if it was the first thought that popped in your head…but then again you do use the word “fag” quite a bit.

        • http://www.jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com Jesse P. Martin

          What’s being questioned/criticized isn’t your “piece,” but what you said early on in the episode about why you were making it. It stood out to me because I’m gay and I’m sensitized to when people make erroneous (and dangerous) statements that conflate/trade-off certain words when discussing gay people, AIDS, etc. Maybe it wasn’t intentional, and I’m sure that it being isolated as a soundbyte didn’t help, but it did register as careless and homophobic. I’m sure that we’ve all misspoken like this before, but it’s important to be able to acknowledge one’s words and clarify their meaning, especially in a case like this. Words are extremely powerful (often more than images, I think), especially when it comes to discussing and defining specific “groups.” I mean, just look at the survey just released by the Pentagon (to those enlisted) regarding gays in the military: http://bit.ly/a5elCE

          Also, your above “explanation” is more of an “analyzing a piece of art to death” than when people want to question, criticize, dialogue with, or elaborate upon a specific thing that you said. Even though these may feel like unwarranted attacks on you and your work, it’s still a tremendous luxury (and curse, I’m sure) to have these aspects of your practice discussed by the public. Isn’t this what artists do/want? I’m not on a reality show, but I’m routinely held accountable for and asked to explain the things I do/write/say. This can be extremely challenging and uncomfortable at times, but it’s absolutely worth the effort to engage.

          • Woody Tanaka

            Well, I must say that when I read in this post that Erik had supposedly made a homophobic remark, I had to click the link because even after seeing the episode twice, I could not think of what that comment might have been.

            I took the comment as making a statement about the hypocrisy of a supposedly celibate profession having such a high rate of a sexually-transmitted disease.

            You can disbelieve Erik’s explanation and think that this was some kind of “code words” or some such nonsense; that’s your prerogative. But it seems pretty clear to me that you are imposing things upon his statements things and meanings which are not there and that your self-admitted sensitivity is making you hear things which were not said.

          • http://jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com/ Jesse P. Martin

            @Woody: Not sure what you mean by “code words,” but it doesn’t take an overly-sensitive person to interpret Erik’s statements as problematic (or at least in need of further elaboration, which Erik has endeavored to provide here). And if you recall the episode, Erik first explains that he’s had no personal experience with any of these issues – I’m actually still curious as to where he got his information regarding priests having AIDS (and that they’re “dying… at a rate 4 times higher than the rest of the population”). Still, you’re right that his glib remark could also refer to the “hypocrisy” of sexually-active priests, but that’s assuming that sex is the only way to contract AIDS. I mean, couldn’t that also suggest that priests are raging smack addicts, and that they’re using dirty needles?

            And even if I disagree with the well-known homophobic stereotype, there is still a widespread association made between AIDS and gay sex. I’ve decided to believe that Erik didn’t intend to make these associations, but that doesn’t mean that his original comments didn’t resonate as such. The sheer fact that he only described/represented priest-pedophilia as sleeping with little boys (but with the little boy hysterically played by Jaclyn) seems to support these assumptions.

          • Woody Tanaka

            @Jesse: By “code words” I meant what you described as Erik’s supposed “subtle associative logic” which ended in the not-so-subtle conclusion that Erik was suggesting that these priests are “GAY AND GAY PEOPLE HAVE AIDS AND MOLEST LITTLE BOYS!” That is to say, you seemed to assert that Erik’s mention of AIDS in the context of pedophile priests had to mean that he was making a link or equivalence between gay men and pedophiles. That’s what I meant by “code words” and apologize if I wasn’t clear.

            And while I agree that, given the vicious slander that many homophobes assert equating homosexuality and pedophilia, Erik’s statement could make a reasonable person seek further elaboration or might justify questioning what exactly he meant. But what I reacted to was seeing, here, not a call for further elaboration, but a blanket statement that Erik’s comment was homophobic. (In fact, Paddy referred to it not as something requiring additional elaboration, but flat-out as an “unaddressed ragingly homophobic comment.”)

            I guess my point is that if the comment requires elaboration, one should just request elaboration or assert that it is a troubling statement in need of elaboration and not simply assume that everyone is who mentions AIDS is necessarily referencing gay men or trying to make a dig at gay men, especially when there has been no indication that the person making the statement is in any way bigoted against gays.

            Finally, my interpretation of the statement regarding priests’ hypocrisy does not require sex to be the only way to contract AIDS, but merely one way. I would have received the statement the same way if instead of AIDS, Erik had mentioned gonorrhea, syphilis or any other STD. And since there is no doubt that AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease, I didn’t see it as implying anything other than the fact that these supposed celibates were contracting STDs.

          • http://jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com/ Jesse P. Martin

            @Woody: I agree that, in most civilized conversations, one should simply “request elaboration” if they feel it would help to clarify things. Unfortunately, what we’re dealing with here is neither “civilized” nor a “conversation,” but shredded blips beamed to us weekly as an art-world-reality-show-competition. You have no idea how many times I wanted to reach through the t.v. and ask people to ‘splain theyselves, but when people choose to (or are beholden to) communicate via heavily mediated formats, you can’t expect the rules of polite conversation to be maintained. Of course, some of the WANGA contestants have endeavored to engage their viewers (however confidentiality-agreement-stilted their contributions might be), and that’s great. But to suggest that people shouldn’t react (or overreact) to what they’re seeing/hearing isn’t good, either. I love it, but (reality) television is a problem. So’s reality. We’re trying to navigate the yawning abyss between the two, and it’s going to be fraught with folly and error.

            Again, Erik’s statement struck me (and others) as homophobic (maybe not “ragingly” to your ears, but the magnitude of this kind of thing is highly subjective, and I’m personally not interested in teasing out how “subtle,” “mild,” or “spicy hot” any homophobic statement or act might be). I presented my concerns about this in forums relevant to the show, clearly because I wanted feedback. The fact that Erik himself responded to these concerns directly is wonderful, but it’s unrealistic to always expect people to emerge from the ether to respond directly to our thoughts about their heavily-mediated words/actions. This state of mediated, delayed, and otherwise indirect communication is such a part of contemporary life, but we’re still befuddled by it and tend to use it badly. The internet complicates things further, but at least “conversations” can be (potentially) more direct (although still highly mediated and, usually, abbreviated).

            So, before I wander further into a dissertation on “The Problems of Modern Communication & Reality Television,” let me say that Erik appears to not be a raging homophobe, and that it’s good that we untied that knot a little here, however (perhaps hypocritically) liberal in our words we may have been to do so.

          • Woody Tanaka

            @Jesse: I agree completely that we’re dealing with something that’s not the same as face-to-face conversation, so while the rules of civilized conversation don’t fully apply in light of the artificiality of reality television, I think it’s wise to remember that those rules are in place in polite conversation in part because the communication is between real people and communication is, itself, ripe for misunderstanding and folly.

            But where I would disagree with you is your statement: “But to suggest that people shouldn’t react (or overreact) to what they’re seeing/hearing isn’t good, either.” I think that when one is presented with blatantly manipulated communication (I mean, come on, you can sometimes hear the edits in mid-sentence), it is absolutely wise for people not to overreact to what they’re seeing/hearing, because one should be sophisticated enough to understand that what they are seeing/hearing is most likely inaccurate or manipulated and therefore, the reaction/overreaction that the producers and editors created is false. As was the case here as Erik confirmed that he was not saying what you inferred from his statement.

            When the choices are 1) “the person on the reality show is evil, a bigot, etc.” and 2) “I’m being manipulated by skilled television professionals to believe that the person on the reality show is evil, a bigot, etc.,” the answer is usually 2.

          • http://www.jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com Jesse P. Martin

            @Woody: Again, although Erik’s comment was an edited portion (as, on some level and technically speaking, are all spoken addresses we see/hear on television, the radio, the internet, etc.), it was not clearly and ridiculously cut-up like a glitchy, stuttering Max Headroom diatribe. For better or for worse, it read as a an otherwise discrete statement. We can agree to disagree here, but I will stand by my belief that his phrasing warranted a pointed reaction.

            I appreciate your level-headed and logical approach to how we should approach and analyze mediated and manipulated communication. And we’re all still learning how to navigate, interpret, and engage with things in a more responsible and ethical manner. Maybe there are better and worse ways to engage – and maybe we “should be (more) sophisticated” about how we engage – but I don’t feel that there is any single “correct” or clear way in which one should/can do this. Dealing with reality requires a polymorphous approach, so it stands to reason that dealing with the polymorphousness of reality television should require that we do the same.

        • http://www.digitalmediatree.com/sallymckay/ L.M.

          i wish i had seen your psa because my parents are too embarrassed to talk about sex so i slept with a priest and now i prbably have the extra deadly priest-aids or something worse but maybe he wasn’t a priest but just lied LOL! to get me into bed but i didn’t think anything was wrong also

          • Erik

            you’re probably not sick with anything… you just need to jump up and down until your head falls out of your ass and i’m sure you’ll be fine.

            try fucking yourself next time and you won’t have to worry about “priest aids”

          • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

            This argument ends here. If you can’t keep it civil your comments won’t be approved.

      • http://www.jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com Jesse P. Martin

        Actually, he never used the term “gay,” but instead seemed to use this statistic of Catholic priests having AIDS as a stand-in to signify “gay.” Which is where things got offensive. It’s also interesting how Ryan (and John too, I suppose) also used an “abject” signifier of homosexuality to illustrate “shocking,” but… who cares, right?

        I raged about Erik’s comment on Saltz’s latest “recap” (he claims that Erik is being unfairly vilified and is “actually very sweet”), but people seem inclined to scapegoat Bravo’s editing for everything the contestants are legitimately being criticized for (including their unedited statements, like in Erik’s case here). So, unlike the rest of us poor schmucks, WANGA’s contestants are somehow being absolved of having to take responsibility for their words/actions *because* they’re on a reality-show. And their mostly unremarkable, generally schlocky art is being granted wildly excessive and undue (though entirely sophomoric) praise and consideration *because* it’s on a reality-show. W… T… F…?

        I kind of wish that I never watched/commented on this show in the first place, because I think the only thing fueling my comments at this point is anger. WANGA makes me WANGRY!

        • Erik

          Jesse, i totally apologize if what i said seemed homophobic, or anything else anti-gay. those interviews last about 2 hours… you can imagine how much my explanation was cut out.. but if you could see all of the footage you’d know that i never even mentioned the word “gay” in my piece at all. nor did i even imply that having aids, means someone is gay, or being gay means they’ll molest a child… these three things are unrelated, and i’m just not irresponsible enough assume otherwise. i gave my explanation, forgetting that everything we said was in the hands of the editors. honestly if we talked face to face, you’d probably think i’m a really nice guy and we’d probably end up being friends. i know some of the contestants are saying that they’re being portrayed poorly in the edit, but outside of a few things (especially my explanation during the shock challenge) i’ve been portrayed pretty accurately. whatever anyone thinks of me or my personality is just NONE of my business. it’s ok for someone to get confused about the meaning behind my piece, but calling me “homophobe” is really just uncalled for. there’s really no secret as to how one could get in touch with me, and i’ve responded to every single person so far. i had quite a few people contact me with the same concern about the sex education piece and after i explained it they all said “hey thanks for explaining it, i understand now” and then we’re cool.

          besides i think a lot of the personal attacks from people are only because they think i’m a shitty artists. i just don’t understand why people can’t stick to bashing my art WITHOUT calling me “child hater” or “homophobe”

          paddy johnson never did offer up any advice for what i should have told my 13 year old niece when she read online that some woman named paddy called me a “douche bag” and said that i’m a bad artists and that i hate children…

          • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

            Hi Erik,

            I’m glad you clarified what you’ve meant here, but the suggestion that I should check with you to be sure Bravo’s represented you fairly before posting an opinion isn’t how criticism works. The show is a finished product and we all respond to what’s presented.

            I think we’d all be a little happier if Bravo was more about the art than it is, but frankly were that the case half the participating artists would never have been cast on the show. WANGA is also about personality, so that kind of critique is also fair game. It’s unfortunate that the repercussions for some aren’t always positive, but that’s part of what you signed up for.

            Now, to be clear, the supplemental biography you’re referring to was written by Liza not myself, but honestly I wouldn’t have said much different. The show has portrayed you as a tell-it-like-is personality, and from everything I’ve seen that seems to be more or less accurate. This has it’s pluses and minus. I’ve seen you call out people who deserve to be called out and I’m really glad you’ve done that. I’ve also seen you proudly report that when a twirling child fell and hurt themselves that they deserved it. That’s not very generous IMO and really pretty of douche-y.

            As for your art, though I’m generally fairly critical of it, I will say that had you received a crit this episode someone would have told you this was the best piece you’ve produced this season. It suffers from an overly sentimental treatment, but it’s better composed and rendered than some of your other works, which often need work in that regard.

          • http://www.jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com Jesse P. Martin

            Thanks for the explanation. You’re probably not a “child hater” or “homophobe,” but I hope you can see how certain things that you’ve said/posted could be construed as such.

            I think this show is a hydra-headed train-wreck for more reasons than I can count, and the “art” that’s being made on/for it is entirely overwhelmed by the distracting meta shit-storm that it’s being presented within/alongside. I guess one could argue that the same is true for the “art world,” but for some reason WANGA seems like a new level of OMFG.

            I actually passed right by disgraced Trong in Chelsea the other day, and I felt as if a rip in the space/time continuum was dragging in his wake…

    • Anonamoose

      Reading these articles.. I always picture the reviewers as scrunchy faced and angry at the world.

      • patpatpatpat

        Duuuude, maaaaaan. If your face is not scrunched when watching this show then you should immediately adjust it. Everyone is Wangry. This is competing with Lebron leaving Cleveland on reasons why I should be upset today.

    • Vinness Clemsahn

      erik, maybe you didn’t *mean* to come off as a homophobe, but your (ahem) shallow stab at discourse/shock coupled with your naivety sure made it seem that way. sawwy!

      also, tattoos in this day and age are definitely not a signifier of tough guy/outsider/cool. they are for normies who think they are too cool to wear ed hardy.

      and i hardly think that your smack talking about miles and several of the other contestants means that you’re now the WANGA “bad boy”. more like a whiny grotsky little beeyotch.

      wow, i really don’t like you, huh?

      • Erik

        no, i don’t think it’s me that you dislike… i think it’s you. at least that’s how you come across.

        if you are a woman, well then…… you probably have a lot of cats.

        if you are a man, i hope i get the chance to meet you in person someday so we can see which one of us is the tough guy.

        you’re probably a woman though… that’s what your writing sounds like.

        • http://www.jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com Jesse P. Martin

          I apologize: Erik IS “actually very sweet,” clearly. Saltz is as good of a judge of character as he is of art!

        • pinecode

          Wow, dude, wow.

        • Vinness Clemsahn

          It seems to me that as an “amateur artist” (Bravo’s words, not mine), this would be a great opportunity for you to get some perspective on your work–not only do you have the judges on the show (gallerists, established artists and a popular art critic) telling you what they think of what you’ve done each week, you also have the opinions of your peers on the show–many of whom are practicing artists, as well as the “blogosphere” and the general public offering critiques of your work and your process. This is invaluable. It would be to your advantage to try to not to be so defensive when people misinterpret your work or critique it–use it instead as an opportunity to learn. If you took a second to think about what people are saying instead of deferring to personal insults, maybe you’d gain some insight into how your work is perceived by a broad spectrum of people. OR, maybe you’d decide that we are all wrong, and that’s fine too. Every artist has been slammed at one point or another, it’s just part of the deal.

          In response to your reply to me, as I don’t know you personally, I can’t say that I dislike you, but I do dislike your work. Don’t take it personally, it’s just the opinion of a woman with “lots of cats”.

    • http://www.judithannbraun.com Judith Braun

      Hi Erik…Weren’t you one of the people who thought “all press is good press?”
      Just askin’…not trying to start a dialogue about it again. Judith

      • Erik

        Judith.. i still think that.. but this isn’t press, this is a jealous ugly woman named paddy who is going to say whatever she can to make me look like a bad guy..

        and please… don’t start a dialog with me about this.. that is why i had to block you on facebook. you can never just seem to pretend i don’t exist and keep your opinions to yourself.

        • http://www.judithannbraun.com judith Braun

          I never wrote to you on facebook. I wrote on our private GROUP threads…thinking we were all gonna have an intelligent dialogue. Wow… Why are YOU so angry at ME?

        • http://www.digitalmediatree.com/sallymckay/ L.M.

          Paddy is also 5′ 1″ and weighs 400 lbs. That fact should not be disregarded when discussing her critical skills.

          (I wonder if the little butterball will even approve this comment!)

          • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

            You’re not doing yourself any favors by discounting this blog as press. Vanity Fair linked to this blog early in the season, The New York Observer took you and Mr. Shultz to task for photoshopping pictures of me, and there’s more mainstream coverage of these recaps in the pipes. You look like a bad guy because you’ve done and continue to do stupid things. I can see that you regret some of them which is great, but don’t mistake your missteps for my jealousy.

        • Bella

          Why bring looks into it? You’re just making yourself look like an even bigger jackass than you do on the show–where you come off as untalented and bitter. Oh, and incredibly ugly (inside and out). Your comments here clearly show that you’ve got some serious woman-hating issues. Your girlfriend must have zero self esteem to stick with an angry, talentless chauvinist like you.

          • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

            Just a reminder to everyone that name calling is not acceptable in the comment threads, tempting as it may be.

  • Daniel

    lol….I’m really enjoying that most of the people commenting on these episode updates are the contestants themselves.

  • Daniel

    lol….I’m really enjoying that most of the people commenting on these episode updates are the contestants themselves.

  • Daniel

    lol….I’m really enjoying that most of the people commenting on these episode updates are the contestants themselves.

  • Michelle P

    I would have liked to have heard more about Nicole’s and Peregrine’s work this week.

    Question – since so many contestants are writing here – what is your lifestyle like during the show? Do you have one challenge per week or every three days? Do you have any free time outside of the studio?

    I had a problem with this week’s challenge, because I don’t have a driving relationship with New York City. I walk, bike and take the subway. It would have been interesting for me to see if some of the artists would have taken some time to go back out onto the streets to develop their ideas. This may be one reason why I found Jaclyn’s work to be OK. She kept the viewer at street level.

    Peregrine made a comment about not having her magazine stash handy. I am wondering if the artists are not getting enough time to gather resources. The art supply store is only one place to get materials. Would some of the participants on the show elaborate please? Thanks.

    • Nicole Nad

      Michelle P: Here’s an article I wrote on my experience on the show. We had no resources except what was in the “studio”, utretch, and our own cameras.
      http://www.womanityglobal.us/?section=walldetails&mediaid=1213712&cpdocid=24797991

      • Michelle P

        Thanks! Ouch – tough program for all of you.

    • Erik

      we didn’t have access to magazine’s, newspapers, etc… we also weren’t aloud to go back out to the street to develop our ideas..that would have been great if we could have. it was my first time in new york so i think going for a walk would have been really nice.

      • Your Mom

        ALLOWED*

    • Matthew Choberka

      Michelle, this is a good point you make about the “driving in NY” premise of the challenge. There are few ways to more inappropriately frame the experience of New York, and the only purpose here seems to be a painfully awkward product placement (I myself have purchased three Audis in the wake of this episode, as have many artists, I expect). New York is a city of sidewalks, of conversations on the train.

  • Michelle P

    I would have liked to have heard more about Nicole’s and Peregrine’s work this week.

    Question – since so many contestants are writing here – what is your lifestyle like during the show? Do you have one challenge per week or every three days? Do you have any free time outside of the studio?

    I had a problem with this week’s challenge, because I don’t have a driving relationship with New York City. I walk, bike and take the subway. It would have been interesting for me to see if some of the artists would have taken some time to go back out onto the streets to develop their ideas. This may be one reason why I found Jaclyn’s work to be OK. She kept the viewer at street level.

    Peregrine made a comment about not having her magazine stash handy. I am wondering if the artists are not getting enough time to gather resources. The art supply store is only one place to get materials. Would some of the participants on the show elaborate please? Thanks.

  • Michelle P

    I would have liked to have heard more about Nicole’s and Peregrine’s work this week.

    Question – since so many contestants are writing here – what is your lifestyle like during the show? Do you have one challenge per week or every three days? Do you have any free time outside of the studio?

    I had a problem with this week’s challenge, because I don’t have a driving relationship with New York City. I walk, bike and take the subway. It would have been interesting for me to see if some of the artists would have taken some time to go back out onto the streets to develop their ideas. This may be one reason why I found Jaclyn’s work to be OK. She kept the viewer at street level.

    Peregrine made a comment about not having her magazine stash handy. I am wondering if the artists are not getting enough time to gather resources. The art supply store is only one place to get materials. Would some of the participants on the show elaborate please? Thanks.

    • Nicole Nad

      Michelle P: Here’s an article I wrote on my experience on the show. We had no resources except what was in the “studio”, utretch, and our own cameras.
      http://www.womanityglobal.us/?section=walldetails&mediaid=1213712&cpdocid=24797991

      • Michelle P

        Thanks! Ouch – tough program for all of you.

    • Erik

      we didn’t have access to magazine’s, newspapers, etc… we also weren’t aloud to go back out to the street to develop our ideas..that would have been great if we could have. it was my first time in new york so i think going for a walk would have been really nice.

      • Your Mom

        ALLOWED*

    • Matthew Choberka

      Michelle, this is a good point you make about the “driving in NY” premise of the challenge. There are few ways to more inappropriately frame the experience of New York, and the only purpose here seems to be a painfully awkward product placement (I myself have purchased three Audis in the wake of this episode, as have many artists, I expect). New York is a city of sidewalks, of conversations on the train.

  • Vinness Clemsahn

    i would love it if the producers gave less airtime to simon de pury’s studio visits and more time to the judge’s discussion of the works up for ‘crit’. it seems like the critiques have been edited down to one sentence soundbytes that really do nothing to illuminate why certain pieces are praised or slammed.

    i’d like some behind the scenes scoop. there were some comments on jerry saltz’ blog about artists being approached/asked to be on the show outside of the tryout process. i want names. it would give insight into how the producers are trying to package this show. i’m also curious as to who else we can expect to see as a guest judge/artist.

    honestly though, this show REALLY lost me when nao and john parot got voted off, along with judith. not that i was particularly fond of their work, but these three seemed to me to be among the few contestants who actually have artistic credibility. mark velasquez and erik are just terrible (i can’t believe mark has the audacity to call somebody else’s work “schlocky and amateurish” hello, pot-kettle-black!)

    • lalala

      well said, agreed.

    • lalala

      well said, agreed.

      • Saskia

        I also agree.

      • Saskia

        I also agree.

    • patpatpatpat

      The crits make me sad. The editing boils everything said down into “I like it” and “I didn’t like it.” Then stupid trivial shit is given lots of airtime such as “who’s idea was it?” Then we get to hear what Mark’s real opinion is about other contestants work. Everyone obviously wants to hear his blunt and empty criticism… Forget it.

      I agree.

  • Vinness Clemsahn

    i would love it if the producers gave less airtime to simon de pury’s studio visits and more time to the judge’s discussion of the works up for ‘crit’. it seems like the critiques have been edited down to one sentence soundbytes that really do nothing to illuminate why certain pieces are praised or slammed.

    i’d like some behind the scenes scoop. there were some comments on jerry saltz’ blog about artists being approached/asked to be on the show outside of the tryout process. i want names. it would give insight into how the producers are trying to package this show. i’m also curious as to who else we can expect to see as a guest judge/artist.

    honestly though, this show REALLY lost me when nao and john parot got voted off, along with judith. not that i was particularly fond of their work, but these three seemed to me to be among the few contestants who actually have artistic credibility. mark velasquez and erik are just terrible (i can’t believe mark has the audacity to call somebody else’s work “schlocky and amateurish” hello, pot-kettle-black!)

    • lalala

      well said, agreed.

      • Saskia

        I also agree.

    • patpatpatpat

      The crits make me sad. The editing boils everything said down into “I like it” and “I didn’t like it.” Then stupid trivial shit is given lots of airtime such as “who’s idea was it?” Then we get to hear what Mark’s real opinion is about other contestants work. Everyone obviously wants to hear his blunt and empty criticism… Forget it.

      I agree.

  • http://klisaanne.typepad.com Lisa Klow

    Paddy: Under BEST ARTICULATED CRITICISM you forgot my new favorite word!
    “Painter-bation.” Thank you Richard Phillips.

  • http://klisaanne.typepad.com Lisa Klow

    Paddy: Under BEST ARTICULATED CRITICISM you forgot my new favorite word!
    “Painter-bation.” Thank you Richard Phillips.

  • http://klisaanne.typepad.com Lisa Klow

    Paddy: Under BEST ARTICULATED CRITICISM you forgot my new favorite word!
    “Painter-bation.” Thank you Richard Phillips.

  • Pingback: Jeremy Wood’s GPS Art Map: the Cartography of Experience | Tech News Daily

  • http://www.ellenbcutler.com lnwyd

    I think Nicole’s been shortchanged twice now–once with the television tomb, and now with “Suspension.”

    As far as Mark’s efforts: there is too much thought going in to “what The Jury wants” and too little about significant form and content and the skills and strengths each artist brings to the challenges. I appreciate what Mark did–and, in fact, he seems extremely good within his realm. I think that the same is true of all the artists–yes, even Jaci and Jamie Lynn and Erik. They best results in every episode, though, have come from artists playing to their strengths, however remote the challenge is to their experiences.

    But I’m on record as believing that Miles will take the prize home.

  • http://www.ellenbcutler.com lnwyd

    I think Nicole’s been shortchanged twice now–once with the television tomb, and now with “Suspension.”

    As far as Mark’s efforts: there is too much thought going in to “what The Jury wants” and too little about significant form and content and the skills and strengths each artist brings to the challenges. I appreciate what Mark did–and, in fact, he seems extremely good within his realm. I think that the same is true of all the artists–yes, even Jaci and Jamie Lynn and Erik. They best results in every episode, though, have come from artists playing to their strengths, however remote the challenge is to their experiences.

    But I’m on record as believing that Miles will take the prize home.

  • http://www.ellenbcutler.com lnwyd

    I think Nicole’s been shortchanged twice now–once with the television tomb, and now with “Suspension.”

    As far as Mark’s efforts: there is too much thought going in to “what The Jury wants” and too little about significant form and content and the skills and strengths each artist brings to the challenges. I appreciate what Mark did–and, in fact, he seems extremely good within his realm. I think that the same is true of all the artists–yes, even Jaci and Jamie Lynn and Erik. They best results in every episode, though, have come from artists playing to their strengths, however remote the challenge is to their experiences.

    But I’m on record as believing that Miles will take the prize home.

  • http://www.bernardklevickas.com Bernard Klevickas

    So much of the show seems targeted to an imagined audience and involves many selective, overly edited, critical commentary choices that are too simplified. There are numerous strong points worth talking about with Nicole’s piece: suspension, multiple bases, literalism (as in literal words) transferred into abstraction. It balances many readings very well. But there has been a continued shyness of talking about formal qualities and abstraction. Instead, over the head bluntness in a direct conceptual manner with straightforward solutions gets the attention.
    I also think some people here are cruel with their comments, the edited is creating simplified stereotypes, don’t confuse that with the real people.

    • http://www.jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com Jesse P. Martin

      Nicole’s piece looked like a design-y paperweight suspended between two alarmingly pert/stylized pairs of breasts.

    • http://www.jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com Jesse P. Martin

      Nicole’s piece looked like a design-y paperweight suspended between two alarmingly pert/stylized pairs of breasts.

      • http://www.digitalmediatree.com/sallymckay/ L.M.

        I truly believe that good art work can handle a bit of ridicule and teasing, but Jesse’s comment did remind me that there was a flaw in Nicole’s piece. I don’t feel the need to articulate it, because I’m not a critic (and I’m lazy), but as an artist I keep on trying to come up with a better solution than the pert breasts. Of course that’s never good news for another artist as my solution would probably involve sparkly kittens, but there is something in that piece that I find really engaging, and like many people I wanted to see more of it.

        • http://www.jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com Jesse P. Martin

          Her piece also looks like it was too influenced by Miles’ penchant for making symmetrical, monochromatic altarpieces. I don’t like the arrange-y, “it’s-meaningful-because-it’s-minimal” aesthetic either. Sparkly kittens would be an incredible addition, but I think that would require the use of the intrazone-webbing-net (and, as Nicole informed us, the contestants were deprived of such arcane futuristic amenities).

          Since the episode revealed a possible burgeoning love-affair betwixt Nicole and Miles, perhaps the similarity between her piece and Miles’ (and the alert breast-like supports) reflects a kind of aesthetic-mirroring/artistic-mating-dance?

          • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

            I don’t buy this. Miles doesn’t have a license on symmetry and if anything the endless triangle formations he’s making are a crutch. Nicole’s work has been a lot more varied, even if it swings too heavy on the design side of things.

          • http://jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com/ Jesse P. Martin

            I agree that Nicole’s work has been more varied than Miles’ (and of course he doesn’t have “license on symmetry”), but her piece still appeared to have the same general formula/arrangement that his Audi piece (and “junk” piece) did. It’s not just his “triangle formations” (though Nicole did mimic that somewhat in “Suspension,” and the four triangle-breasts further punctuate this similarity), it’s his mostly-monochromatic (white) pieces that have some central “main” element that’s flanked (“caryatid-ed”) by some mirrored extraneous elements. Generally speaking, “Suspension” shares these formal qualities.

            And Miles’ work is design-y, too. I don’t think work can survive on this show if it’s not.

            I also don’t think that romantic-aesthetic-osmosis is necessarily a bad thing. And shows that ask us to compared the work of artists made during their courtships/relationships can be revealing, like the John Wesley & Jo Baer show currently at Matthew Marks http://bit.ly/bscEmg

  • http://www.bernardklevickas.com Bernard Klevickas

    So much of the show seems targeted to an imagined audience and involves many selective, overly edited, critical commentary choices that are too simplified. There are numerous strong points worth talking about with Nicole’s piece: suspension, multiple bases, literalism (as in literal words) transferred into abstraction. It balances many readings very well. But there has been a continued shyness of talking about formal qualities and abstraction. Instead, over the head bluntness in a direct conceptual manner with straightforward solutions gets the attention.
    I also think some people here are cruel with their comments, the edited is creating simplified stereotypes, don’t confuse that with the real people.

  • http://www.bernardklevickas.com Bernard Klevickas

    So much of the show seems targeted to an imagined audience and involves many selective, overly edited, critical commentary choices that are too simplified. There are numerous strong points worth talking about with Nicole’s piece: suspension, multiple bases, literalism (as in literal words) transferred into abstraction. It balances many readings very well. But there has been a continued shyness of talking about formal qualities and abstraction. Instead, over the head bluntness in a direct conceptual manner with straightforward solutions gets the attention.
    I also think some people here are cruel with their comments, the edited is creating simplified stereotypes, don’t confuse that with the real people.

    • http://www.jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com Jesse P. Martin

      Nicole’s piece looked like a design-y paperweight suspended between two alarmingly pert/stylized pairs of breasts.

      • http://www.digitalmediatree.com/sallymckay/ L.M.

        I truly believe that good art work can handle a bit of ridicule and teasing, but Jesse’s comment did remind me that there was a flaw in Nicole’s piece. I don’t feel the need to articulate it, because I’m not a critic (and I’m lazy), but as an artist I keep on trying to come up with a better solution than the pert breasts. Of course that’s never good news for another artist as my solution would probably involve sparkly kittens, but there is something in that piece that I find really engaging, and like many people I wanted to see more of it.

        • http://www.jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com Jesse P. Martin

          Her piece also looks like it was too influenced by Miles’ penchant for making symmetrical, monochromatic altarpieces. I don’t like the arrange-y, “it’s-meaningful-because-it’s-minimal” aesthetic either. Sparkly kittens would be an incredible addition, but I think that would require the use of the intrazone-webbing-net (and, as Nicole informed us, the contestants were deprived of such arcane futuristic amenities).

          Since the episode revealed a possible burgeoning love-affair betwixt Nicole and Miles, perhaps the similarity between her piece and Miles’ (and the alert breast-like supports) reflects a kind of aesthetic-mirroring/artistic-mating-dance?

          • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

            I don’t buy this. Miles doesn’t have a license on symmetry and if anything the endless triangle formations he’s making are a crutch. Nicole’s work has been a lot more varied, even if it swings too heavy on the design side of things.

          • http://jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com/ Jesse P. Martin

            I agree that Nicole’s work has been more varied than Miles’ (and of course he doesn’t have “license on symmetry”), but her piece still appeared to have the same general formula/arrangement that his Audi piece (and “junk” piece) did. It’s not just his “triangle formations” (though Nicole did mimic that somewhat in “Suspension,” and the four triangle-breasts further punctuate this similarity), it’s his mostly-monochromatic (white) pieces that have some central “main” element that’s flanked (“caryatid-ed”) by some mirrored extraneous elements. Generally speaking, “Suspension” shares these formal qualities.

            And Miles’ work is design-y, too. I don’t think work can survive on this show if it’s not.

            I also don’t think that romantic-aesthetic-osmosis is necessarily a bad thing. And shows that ask us to compared the work of artists made during their courtships/relationships can be revealing, like the John Wesley & Jo Baer show currently at Matthew Marks http://bit.ly/bscEmg

  • Erik Davis-Heim

    Nice review!

    I’d like to hear more about Nicole’s pieces too, they look good and seem like they might be able to offer up some new discussions more interesting than the one’s the show’s currently generating. Miles continues to make competent sexy looking work seemingly out of thin air and good taste, while Jaclyn follows up a watery-interactive-feminist-photo based-installation.

    Miles seems like the clear winner for the show based on his apparent intelligent understanding of art theory and game show politics, plus his ability to regularly churn out passable to strong pieces. Even when his stuff is bland it still feels like “Art”.

    I think Peregrine and Nicole both need more air time- they’ve both made a piece at least as poetic as Miles’ most recent one, and they also strike me as more honestly invested in their work. Miles’ work and tv character feel a little empty and just a tad too savvy to be likeable at times.

    Miles, Peregrine, or Nicole all seem like good options to me at this point- I hope they keep it up

  • Erik Davis-Heim

    Nice review!

    I’d like to hear more about Nicole’s pieces too, they look good and seem like they might be able to offer up some new discussions more interesting than the one’s the show’s currently generating. Miles continues to make competent sexy looking work seemingly out of thin air and good taste, while Jaclyn follows up a watery-interactive-feminist-photo based-installation.

    Miles seems like the clear winner for the show based on his apparent intelligent understanding of art theory and game show politics, plus his ability to regularly churn out passable to strong pieces. Even when his stuff is bland it still feels like “Art”.

    I think Peregrine and Nicole both need more air time- they’ve both made a piece at least as poetic as Miles’ most recent one, and they also strike me as more honestly invested in their work. Miles’ work and tv character feel a little empty and just a tad too savvy to be likeable at times.

    Miles, Peregrine, or Nicole all seem like good options to me at this point- I hope they keep it up

  • http://erikdavisheim@blogspot.com Erik Davis-Heim

    Nice review!

    I’d like to hear more about Nicole’s pieces too, they look good and seem like they might be able to offer up some new discussions more interesting than the one’s the show’s currently generating. Miles continues to make competent sexy looking work seemingly out of thin air and good taste, while Jaclyn follows up a watery-interactive-feminist-photo based-installation.

    Miles seems like the clear winner for the show based on his apparent intelligent understanding of art theory and game show politics, plus his ability to regularly churn out passable to strong pieces. Even when his stuff is bland it still feels like “Art”.

    I think Peregrine and Nicole both need more air time- they’ve both made a piece at least as poetic as Miles’ most recent one, and they also strike me as more honestly invested in their work. Miles’ work and tv character feel a little empty and just a tad too savvy to be likeable at times.

    Miles, Peregrine, or Nicole all seem like good options to me at this point- I hope they keep it up

  • Gina B

    You can’t have a show, with any relevance, about contemporary art without allowing the artists to access the internet…that’s really bugging me. Maybe that’s why (along with host of other reasons!) the work looks so tired?

  • Gina B

    You can’t have a show, with any relevance, about contemporary art without allowing the artists to access the internet…that’s really bugging me. Maybe that’s why (along with host of other reasons!) the work looks so tired?

    • Woody Tanaka

      Maybe. But I don’t see anyway around the potential legal problems which such access might create. (See, e.g., Associated Press v. Shepard Fairey). So, I can understand why Bravo, Pretty Matches and Magical Elves would want to be sure that they don’t end up being sued if one of the contestants decides to swipe an image or two.

      • Gina B

        Hence the problem with a show about contemporary art. It just doesn’t work. I just went to a talk last night and all of the artists on the panel use the internet to some extent, for images. I think if Bravo had any appreciation of the significance of the internet they might take a more nuanced approach. I mean they blocked out John’s image of huge penis, they could do the same for images that were too close to the original (Shepard Fairey is an extreme example, most sources are not that obvious).

        • Woody Tanaka

          Oh, I agree it is a problem. My point was merely a guess that this particular solution was not borne of a creative choice, but of a business one. (I would be surprised if the producers’ insurance policy made coverage contingent upon this limitation, for example.)

          As far as whether the show “works”, I think it does for some subset of the audience. Obviously, for many in the art world, or who have had experience with it and who are comparing the show to those experiences, it probably doesn’t.

          But for those who are interested outsiders, especially those who don’t live in New York or a big city, (especially those unfortunate souls who live in the areas of the country where most of the neighbors see Thomas Kinkade as representing fine art) even a stilted, manufactured, incomplete look at contemporary art — but one which enthusiastically embraces it — is doing a good thing, even with all the show’s faults and failings.

  • Gina B

    You can’t have a show, with any relevance, about contemporary art without allowing the artists to access the internet…that’s really bugging me. Maybe that’s why (along with host of other reasons!) the work looks so tired?

    • Woody Tanaka

      Maybe. But I don’t see anyway around the potential legal problems which such access might create. (See, e.g., Associated Press v. Shepard Fairey). So, I can understand why Bravo, Pretty Matches and Magical Elves would want to be sure that they don’t end up being sued if one of the contestants decides to swipe an image or two.

      • Gina B

        Hence the problem with a show about contemporary art. It just doesn’t work. I just went to a talk last night and all of the artists on the panel use the internet to some extent, for images. I think if Bravo had any appreciation of the significance of the internet they might take a more nuanced approach. I mean they blocked out John’s image of huge penis, they could do the same for images that were too close to the original (Shepard Fairey is an extreme example, most sources are not that obvious).

        • Woody Tanaka

          Oh, I agree it is a problem. My point was merely a guess that this particular solution was not borne of a creative choice, but of a business one. (I would be surprised if the producers’ insurance policy made coverage contingent upon this limitation, for example.)

          As far as whether the show “works”, I think it does for some subset of the audience. Obviously, for many in the art world, or who have had experience with it and who are comparing the show to those experiences, it probably doesn’t.

          But for those who are interested outsiders, especially those who don’t live in New York or a big city, (especially those unfortunate souls who live in the areas of the country where most of the neighbors see Thomas Kinkade as representing fine art) even a stilted, manufactured, incomplete look at contemporary art — but one which enthusiastically embraces it — is doing a good thing, even with all the show’s faults and failings.

  • FGW

    It’s a reality show on the same network as the Real Housewives franchise (which I love). But its a shame that this show isn’t riffing on Top Chef, in which contestants are on the top of their game–as opposed to random contestants who make “art.” I doubt Top Chef would have amateur chefs on the show. In this light, I think Peregrine is by far the most qualified at the moment, alongside Nicole and Miles.
    I just don’t understand why Nao and John Parot were eliminated, given that Eric–sloppy–and Jamie Lynn–please get her a revival tent–were allowed to qualify. There is not consistency here and I”m surprised the judges are not eating into them as contestants–its too touchy-feely in its criticisms and that’s a disservice to the critical process. At least Top Chef slams into the contestants creations (they discuss how the food was cooked as well as how it tastes, something Work of Art refuses to do–get into the artistic process, whether technical or conceptual).

    But that being said, the producers obviously have chosen that “anybody” can make art and its interesting to see how the judges are constantly at odds to find a context for the contestants, whether as professional artists or personal individuals. They don’t know them and their work doesn’t really speak to anything other than qualifying for a challenge, I’m surprised one of the contestants hasn’t picked a potato bag and ran through the gallery on exhibition night to critique the critiques, especially as it relates to the artistic process.

  • FGW

    It’s a reality show on the same network as the Real Housewives franchise (which I love). But its a shame that this show isn’t riffing on Top Chef, in which contestants are on the top of their game–as opposed to random contestants who make “art.” I doubt Top Chef would have amateur chefs on the show. In this light, I think Peregrine is by far the most qualified at the moment, alongside Nicole and Miles.
    I just don’t understand why Nao and John Parot were eliminated, given that Eric–sloppy–and Jamie Lynn–please get her a revival tent–were allowed to qualify. There is not consistency here and I”m surprised the judges are not eating into them as contestants–its too touchy-feely in its criticisms and that’s a disservice to the critical process. At least Top Chef slams into the contestants creations (they discuss how the food was cooked as well as how it tastes, something Work of Art refuses to do–get into the artistic process, whether technical or conceptual).

    But that being said, the producers obviously have chosen that “anybody” can make art and its interesting to see how the judges are constantly at odds to find a context for the contestants, whether as professional artists or personal individuals. They don’t know them and their work doesn’t really speak to anything other than qualifying for a challenge, I’m surprised one of the contestants hasn’t picked a potato bag and ran through the gallery on exhibition night to critique the critiques, especially as it relates to the artistic process.

  • FGW

    It’s a reality show on the same network as the Real Housewives franchise (which I love). But its a shame that this show isn’t riffing on Top Chef, in which contestants are on the top of their game–as opposed to random contestants who make “art.” I doubt Top Chef would have amateur chefs on the show. In this light, I think Peregrine is by far the most qualified at the moment, alongside Nicole and Miles.
    I just don’t understand why Nao and John Parot were eliminated, given that Eric–sloppy–and Jamie Lynn–please get her a revival tent–were allowed to qualify. There is not consistency here and I”m surprised the judges are not eating into them as contestants–its too touchy-feely in its criticisms and that’s a disservice to the critical process. At least Top Chef slams into the contestants creations (they discuss how the food was cooked as well as how it tastes, something Work of Art refuses to do–get into the artistic process, whether technical or conceptual).

    But that being said, the producers obviously have chosen that “anybody” can make art and its interesting to see how the judges are constantly at odds to find a context for the contestants, whether as professional artists or personal individuals. They don’t know them and their work doesn’t really speak to anything other than qualifying for a challenge, I’m surprised one of the contestants hasn’t picked a potato bag and ran through the gallery on exhibition night to critique the critiques, especially as it relates to the artistic process.

  • James

    This is ridiculous. Jaclyn’s winning art is far beyond “art school 101″ and it has generated more discussion on the internet than anything the others have done combined. She deserved the win fair and square.
    What exactly do you even find interesting about Nicole’s piece? She wrote notes from a silly private conversation and crumbled it up and cast it, then stuck it on top of another sheet of paper. Her work is boring, and she may be a decent designer but she’s a mediocre artist.

    • http://www.jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com Jesse P. Martin

      And what a “discussion” it’s been! I don’t know what’s worse: that people are badly rehashing decades-old art-school buzzwords in these “conversations,” or that it’s happening because a “male gaze/panopticon” supplemented, Audi-inspired piece of ninth-tier, derivative, reality-show-competition schlock was thrust into our three-second-attention-spans by a rather conservative/prudish patriarchy-snack of an artist. All I see are weekly, episodic (and therefore amnesiac), pseudo-relevant comment-thread feeding-frenzies loosely based on whatever prepackaged puke WANGA flashed out for forty or so minutes.

      I also love that the contestants were sequestered and couldn’t use the internet. The “reality” of this show and its relationship to contemporary issues and art practices is staggering. I’ve noticed that Saltz and Nicole both “revealed” the internet-kibosh the same week. Are there certain aspects of the show’s absurdly restrictive structure that contestants/judges are “allowed” to release after a certain time? Is it possible to have a real “discussion” about art (or with the artists) if they’ve been beholden to weird lifestyle-channel confidentiality agreements the whole time?

    • http://www.jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com Jesse P. Martin

      And what a “discussion” it’s been! I don’t know what’s worse: that people are badly rehashing decades-old art-school buzzwords in these “conversations,” or that it’s happening because a “male gaze/panopticon” supplemented, Audi-inspired piece of ninth-tier, derivative, reality-show-competition schlock was thrust into our three-second-attention-spans by a rather conservative/prudish patriarchy-snack of an artist. All I see are weekly, episodic (and therefore amnesiac), pseudo-relevant comment-thread feeding-frenzies loosely based on whatever prepackaged puke WANGA flashed out for forty or so minutes.

      I also love that the contestants were sequestered and couldn’t use the internet. The “reality” of this show and its relationship to contemporary issues and art practices is staggering. I’ve noticed that Saltz and Nicole both “revealed” the internet-kibosh the same week. Are there certain aspects of the show’s absurdly restrictive structure that contestants/judges are “allowed” to release after a certain time? Is it possible to have a real “discussion” about art (or with the artists) if they’ve been beholden to weird lifestyle-channel confidentiality agreements the whole time?

    • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

      Oh man, not another “It generated a lot of discussion therefore the piece must be good” sentiment. What a bunch of bullshit. People talk about all kinds of garbage that isn’t any good.

      http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0806/p09s01-coop.html

      To be fair to Jaclyn, this is the best work she’s created thus far. I still don’t think it’s very good, but it is photography, which is what the judges seem to respond to best.

      Nobody’s going to be writing home about Nicole’s work, but like Bernard, I really appreciate the use of abstraction. In this show, that’s about as transgressive as an artist can be without facing elimination.

    • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

      Oh man, not another “It generated a lot of discussion therefore the piece must be good” sentiment. What a bunch of bullshit. People talk about all kinds of garbage that isn’t any good.

      http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0806/p09s01-coop.html

      To be fair to Jaclyn, this is the best work she’s created thus far. I still don’t think it’s very good, but it is photography, which is what the judges seem to respond to best.

      Nobody’s going to be writing home about Nicole’s work, but like Bernard, I really appreciate the use of abstraction. In this show, that’s about as transgressive as an artist can be without facing elimination.

      • http://www.daingore.com/ Dain Q Gore

        I think #4 on your linked list is a lot of the reason why we’re so clearly seeing the growing pains of a television show about art and artists…it’s really pretty new territory. Hell, art in general has a hard enough time to get a skillfully-written, page-long review (cliche-free) in our local papers and free magazines, let alone created, explained, shown and judged on a nationally televised program!

        if you think back, the audience for Top Chef and Project Runway has slowly become savvy to terms that they had not heard before (cuisine gastronomique, par exemple)…over time, we may slowly see more exposition; more development of terms, trends and concepts. Maybe the public will even start to intuit the “good” from the “bad” as they do with other shows; that is, if it renews for a second season.

        • http://www.bethwhitney.com Beth

          And #1 of negates our ability to talk about the art itself (at least as any quasi self-contained object) much at all, hence the desire to talk mainly about the context of its making and the personalities of its makers.
          Excellent concise list, Paddy, and bookmarked for use as shorthand in future arguments about art. If only I had a dollar for every “controversy= value” assertion I’ve heard about complete dreck.

  • James

    This is ridiculous. Jaclyn’s winning art is far beyond “art school 101″ and it has generated more discussion on the internet than anything the others have done combined. She deserved the win fair and square.
    What exactly do you even find interesting about Nicole’s piece? She wrote notes from a silly private conversation and crumbled it up and cast it, then stuck it on top of another sheet of paper. Her work is boring, and she may be a decent designer but she’s a mediocre artist.

    • http://www.jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com Jesse P. Martin

      And what a “discussion” it’s been! I don’t know what’s worse: that people are badly rehashing decades-old art-school buzzwords in these “conversations,” or that it’s happening because a “male gaze/panopticon” supplemented, Audi-inspired piece of ninth-tier, derivative, reality-show-competition schlock was thrust into our three-second-attention-spans by a rather conservative/prudish patriarchy-snack of an artist. All I see are weekly, episodic (and therefore amnesiac), pseudo-relevant comment-thread feeding-frenzies loosely based on whatever prepackaged puke WANGA flashed out for forty or so minutes.

      I also love that the contestants were sequestered and couldn’t use the internet. The “reality” of this show and its relationship to contemporary issues and art practices is staggering. I’ve noticed that Saltz and Nicole both “revealed” the internet-kibosh the same week. Are there certain aspects of the show’s absurdly restrictive structure that contestants/judges are “allowed” to release after a certain time? Is it possible to have a real “discussion” about art (or with the artists) if they’ve been beholden to weird lifestyle-channel confidentiality agreements the whole time?

    • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

      Oh man, not another “It generated a lot of discussion therefore the piece must be good” sentiment. What a bunch of bullshit. People talk about all kinds of garbage that isn’t any good.

      http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0806/p09s01-coop.html

      To be fair to Jaclyn, this is the best work she’s created thus far. I still don’t think it’s very good, but it is photography, which is what the judges seem to respond to best.

      Nobody’s going to be writing home about Nicole’s work, but like Bernard, I really appreciate the use of abstraction. In this show, that’s about as transgressive as an artist can be without facing elimination.

      • http://www.daingore.com/ Dain Q Gore

        I think #4 on your linked list is a lot of the reason why we’re so clearly seeing the growing pains of a television show about art and artists…it’s really pretty new territory. Hell, art in general has a hard enough time to get a skillfully-written, page-long review (cliche-free) in our local papers and free magazines, let alone created, explained, shown and judged on a nationally televised program!

        if you think back, the audience for Top Chef and Project Runway has slowly become savvy to terms that they had not heard before (cuisine gastronomique, par exemple)…over time, we may slowly see more exposition; more development of terms, trends and concepts. Maybe the public will even start to intuit the “good” from the “bad” as they do with other shows; that is, if it renews for a second season.

        • http://www.bethwhitney.com Beth

          And #1 of negates our ability to talk about the art itself (at least as any quasi self-contained object) much at all, hence the desire to talk mainly about the context of its making and the personalities of its makers.
          Excellent concise list, Paddy, and bookmarked for use as shorthand in future arguments about art. If only I had a dollar for every “controversy= value” assertion I’ve heard about complete dreck.

  • http://www.thebestrevenge.info joshua weibley

    I’ve only seen the first episode but I’m enjoying watching the saga unfold through art fag city because of the site’s comments pages: exchanges between the show’s stars on posts about it are honestly much more interesting than the show itself.

    • http://www.angelawatters.com Angela Watters

      I agree. The real drama is on AFC.

      • wwiiggss

        I know. I love “Mad Men”.

  • http://www.thebestrevenge.info joshua weibley

    I’ve only seen the first episode but I’m enjoying watching the saga unfold through art fag city because of the site’s comments pages: exchanges between the show’s stars on posts about it are honestly much more interesting than the show itself.

    • http://www.angelawatters.com Angela Watters

      I agree. The real drama is on AFC.

      • wwiiggss

        I know. I love “Mad Men”.

  • http://cwroelle.com CW

    As disappointed as I am with this show, I still have to admit that I’m excited that it exists and hope that it or something like it happens again. Fine art is pretty much ignored by everyone without a vested interest in it, not out of any ill will but simply because it isn’t on their radar. That’s not sustainable and I believe has a big part to do with the short life expectancy of any commercial gallery, especially outside of NYC. My local daily newspaper for instance has an Arts section once a week that almost always has no fine art related articles in it (mostly music and travel), and the only time I’ve ever seen art mentioned on a television news program was when it had been stolen. Imagine if Art recieved a quarter of the attention that Sports gets. So I’m hungry for anything at this point.
    As for the show itself, and this has already been mentioned, but it’s suffocating under it’s format. It’s doubtfull any good work will come from people given lame direction with very limited supplies (including referance material) and no time at all, a shocking twist to the show would be someone actually making anything worth keeping under these circumstances. Ideally, I would think that a good show would be finding the best artists possible (no comment on the current cast) and giving them 3 or 4 months to put together a small body of work for a show, then having a big crit-down for that work and everyone is sent off and given another number of months to build on what they had done given how the crits went, oh but wait, that’s like the real world in a way, and unless it’s edited right would bore it’s audience back to the E channel. Something like that would only work on PBS.

  • http://cwroelle.com CW

    As disappointed as I am with this show, I still have to admit that I’m excited that it exists and hope that it or something like it happens again. Fine art is pretty much ignored by everyone without a vested interest in it, not out of any ill will but simply because it isn’t on their radar. That’s not sustainable and I believe has a big part to do with the short life expectancy of any commercial gallery, especially outside of NYC. My local daily newspaper for instance has an Arts section once a week that almost always has no fine art related articles in it (mostly music and travel), and the only time I’ve ever seen art mentioned on a television news program was when it had been stolen. Imagine if Art recieved a quarter of the attention that Sports gets. So I’m hungry for anything at this point.
    As for the show itself, and this has already been mentioned, but it’s suffocating under it’s format. It’s doubtfull any good work will come from people given lame direction with very limited supplies (including referance material) and no time at all, a shocking twist to the show would be someone actually making anything worth keeping under these circumstances. Ideally, I would think that a good show would be finding the best artists possible (no comment on the current cast) and giving them 3 or 4 months to put together a small body of work for a show, then having a big crit-down for that work and everyone is sent off and given another number of months to build on what they had done given how the crits went, oh but wait, that’s like the real world in a way, and unless it’s edited right would bore it’s audience back to the E channel. Something like that would only work on PBS.

  • Pingback: Jeremy Wood’s GPS Art Map: the Cartography of Experience | Everything's Social

  • kelli williams

    Who the hell is China Chow?

    • Molly

      The daughter of some 1980s NYC art collectors/scenesters. Her mother was Tina Chow, notable for being one of the first straight women to die from AIDS.

  • kelli williams

    Who the hell is China Chow?

    • Molly

      The daughter of some 1980s NYC art collectors/scenesters. Her mother was Tina Chow, notable for being one of the first straight women to die from AIDS.

  • http://www.cameandwent.com/tgnprojects.html Trong from the Outside

    Okay, I can’t get over that there is such an inflation of angry energy around this show, with individuals acting completely defensive and insulting for all the worse reasons. But I guess that has always been my problem with WANGA as well, that this type of non-constructive emotional aggression gets the better of substance.

    Nobody here really knows one another, so the personally accusative stuff is obnoxious to read.

    I told someone a few weeks ago that I partially did the show just for the fun of it, and his narrow response was something like “how is it that your aspirations are to just have fun?” I responded with “It was a few days out of my life. I would hardly consider that much of investment towards my aspirations as an artist.”

    Jesse Martin.. I didn’t know I looked so “disgraced” walking around Chelsea…. Please say hi next time, and you might enlighten yourself. It wasn’t the Magical Elves space and time continuum I was dragging behind me, it was just my ass.

    Point being, is it so impossible to have a serious discussion and not lighten up a little? Bravo edits the hell out of everyone on the show… So please, don’t confuse real world personalities with reality tv personalities.

    • http://jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com/ Jesse P. Martin

      @Trong: The “inflation of angry energy” is called WANGER. And I agree: it is a strange, unwieldy, and altogether unnecessary force.

      You did not look the least bit “disgraced” (I said “disgraced Trong” in complete jest, as if being voted-off of WANGA was like being excommunicated or dishonorably discharged). And the space/time continuum was, admittedly, a total fabrication (but you were on your cell phone, which is sorta like a rip in the space/time continuum?). I will high-five you and seek enlightenment if fate crosses our paths again.

      I’m actually having a lot of “fun” writing on these comment-threads (Saltz just compared my WANGER to tea-bagger rage because I told Sheila Pepe that WANGA was “a hope-vampire”), and I like how the tone shifts from frighteningly angry and serious to academic to completely absurd. I’m looking at this mostly as a bizarre (if not entirely useless) writing exercise.

      • http://www.cameandwent.com/tgnprojects.html Trong from the Outside

        Thanks for the clarification Jesse… I wasn’t totally sure:-) But had a suspicion you were a fair person… And don’t expect much on my end in regards to any actual enlightenment when we inevitably run into one another:-) Though a high five is in total order…

        WANGER is too much to harbor, but getting WANGRY every once in a while at injustices is okay:-)

  • http://www.cameandwent.com/tgnprojects.html Trong from the Outside

    Okay, I can’t get over that there is such an inflation of angry energy around this show, with individuals acting completely defensive and insulting for all the worse reasons. But I guess that has always been my problem with WANGA as well, that this type of non-constructive emotional aggression gets the better of substance.

    Nobody here really knows one another, so the personally accusative stuff is obnoxious to read.

    I told someone a few weeks ago that I partially did the show just for the fun of it, and his narrow response was something like “how is it that your aspirations are to just have fun?” I responded with “It was a few days out of my life. I would hardly consider that much of investment towards my aspirations as an artist.”

    Jesse Martin.. I didn’t know I looked so “disgraced” walking around Chelsea…. Please say hi next time, and you might enlighten yourself. It wasn’t the Magical Elves space and time continuum I was dragging behind me, it was just my ass.

    Point being, is it so impossible to have a serious discussion and not lighten up a little? Bravo edits the hell out of everyone on the show… So please, don’t confuse real world personalities with reality tv personalities.

    • http://jessepatrickmartin.blogspot.com/ Jesse P. Martin

      @Trong: The “inflation of angry energy” is called WANGER. And I agree: it is a strange, unwieldy, and altogether unnecessary force.

      You did not look the least bit “disgraced” (I said “disgraced Trong” in complete jest, as if being voted-off of WANGA was like being excommunicated or dishonorably discharged). And the space/time continuum was, admittedly, a total fabrication (but you were on your cell phone, which is sorta like a rip in the space/time continuum?). I will high-five you and seek enlightenment if fate crosses our paths again.

      I’m actually having a lot of “fun” writing on these comment-threads (Saltz just compared my WANGER to tea-bagger rage because I told Sheila Pepe that WANGA was “a hope-vampire”), and I like how the tone shifts from frighteningly angry and serious to academic to completely absurd. I’m looking at this mostly as a bizarre (if not entirely useless) writing exercise.

      • http://www.cameandwent.com/tgnprojects.html Trong from the Outside

        Thanks for the clarification Jesse… I wasn’t totally sure:-) But had a suspicion you were a fair person… And don’t expect much on my end in regards to any actual enlightenment when we inevitably run into one another:-) Though a high five is in total order…

        WANGER is too much to harbor, but getting WANGRY every once in a while at injustices is okay:-)

  • Erik

    ahhh… perfect example of why i should have taken a friend’s advice to type a reply and wait a day to click “send”

    it’s probably no secret that i have a temper, and that how i start posting things that can turn mean quickly. i mean no disrespect to anyone. it’s a really strange thing going from nobody ever seeing my art to having it on television. i honestly never anticipated any of the attention because i didn’t think i’d ever get on the show. i’m trying to grow “thicker skin” as fast as i can. i totally realize how my comments can come across more amateur (better yet, immature) than my work so i’ll learn from this.. along with everything else.

    thank you.

    • http://www.judithannbraun.com Judith Braun

      Erik, This is a good note and it takes courage. I hope this implies that you won’t be treating/talking to me like your enemy anymore either. I don’t think I’ve ever said one mean spirited thing about you personally to anyone. Judith

      • Erik

        thanks Judith.. you’ve always been TOTALLY nice to me, and i love talking to you in person… i just get frustrated with typing cause there’s no emotion to it… sometimes i say things that are supposed to be harmless goofing around and they just don’t read that way… :)

  • Erik

    ahhh… perfect example of why i should have taken a friend’s advice to type a reply and wait a day to click “send”

    it’s probably no secret that i have a temper, and that how i start posting things that can turn mean quickly. i mean no disrespect to anyone. it’s a really strange thing going from nobody ever seeing my art to having it on television. i honestly never anticipated any of the attention because i didn’t think i’d ever get on the show. i’m trying to grow “thicker skin” as fast as i can. i totally realize how my comments can come across more amateur (better yet, immature) than my work so i’ll learn from this.. along with everything else.

    thank you.

    • http://www.judithannbraun.com Judith Braun

      Erik, This is a good note and it takes courage. I hope this implies that you won’t be treating/talking to me like your enemy anymore either. I don’t think I’ve ever said one mean spirited thing about you personally to anyone. Judith

      • Erik

        thanks Judith.. you’ve always been TOTALLY nice to me, and i love talking to you in person… i just get frustrated with typing cause there’s no emotion to it… sometimes i say things that are supposed to be harmless goofing around and they just don’t read that way… :)

  • http://qotile.net Paul Slocum

    The most appropriate thing you could say about this show is to completely discontinue coverage of it.

    • http://hexane.org Patrick May

      Here here. It’s not good art. Unless you are planning a series on crummy undergraduate senior seminars, I recommend ending the search for the diamond in the rough.

      • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

        Sorry guys. I’m a reality show junky so Work of Art coverage remains.

        • Vinness Clemsahn

          I am okay with this and I am eagerly waiting for last night’s recap. Shake a tail feather!

  • http://qotile.net Paul Slocum

    The most appropriate thing you could say about this show is to completely discontinue coverage of it.

    • http://hexane.org Patrick May

      Here here. It’s not good art. Unless you are planning a series on crummy undergraduate senior seminars, I recommend ending the search for the diamond in the rough.

      • http://www.artfagcity.com Art Fag City

        Sorry guys. I’m a reality show junky so Work of Art coverage remains.

        • Vinness Clemsahn

          I am okay with this and I am eagerly waiting for last night’s recap. Shake a tail feather!

  • http://cwroelle.com CW

    Just from reading this discussion thread I wish Trong had lasted a lot longer if not won all together

    • TAG

      Agreed! What a human!

  • http://cwroelle.com CW

    Just from reading this discussion thread I wish Trong had lasted a lot longer if not won all together

    • TAG

      Agreed! What a human!

  • sally

    I’m finally caught up. Highly watchable and full of salacious, cringey schadenfreude! Reminds me of Art School Confidential. I think the idea that this is bringing contemporary art to a larger audience is pretty bogus. Most people have at least one artist of some stripe or another in their life. The show’s not supposed to be educating anybody on anything, it’s just catharsis.

    Those crazy artists! Can’t live with ‘em, can’t live without ‘em.

    I love how so many of us artworld types are unable to ignore this thing, and thus are getting all het up about the relative merits of a lot of really bad art. As TV audience we get to be vicariously in the role of the judges. You’re work is bad…therefore you LOSE! hah hah hah … I am powerful. It’s pretty fun. Declaring winners is less fun — they’re all truly awful (except for that pink time machine thing with the little ladder, that was pretty good).

  • sally

    I’m finally caught up. Highly watchable and full of salacious, cringey schadenfreude! Reminds me of Art School Confidential. I think the idea that this is bringing contemporary art to a larger audience is pretty bogus. Most people have at least one artist of some stripe or another in their life. The show’s not supposed to be educating anybody on anything, it’s just catharsis.

    Those crazy artists! Can’t live with ‘em, can’t live without ‘em.

    I love how so many of us artworld types are unable to ignore this thing, and thus are getting all het up about the relative merits of a lot of really bad art. As TV audience we get to be vicariously in the role of the judges. You’re work is bad…therefore you LOSE! hah hah hah … I am powerful. It’s pretty fun. Declaring winners is less fun — they’re all truly awful (except for that pink time machine thing with the little ladder, that was pretty good).

  • sally

    one more note: Jaclyn Santos is fantastic – I can’t hardly stand it every time she and/or her art is on screen. And then she says stuff and it just gets better. Producer-gold. There no way they can get rid of her before the last episode.

  • sally

    one more note: Jaclyn Santos is fantastic – I can’t hardly stand it every time she and/or her art is on screen. And then she says stuff and it just gets better. Producer-gold. There no way they can get rid of her before the last episode.

  • Jim C.

    It’s remarkable how much agreement there is about which work was strongest, and the common bafflements as to why some were singled out as good or bad. This is the weakness of the show: the failure to articulate the criteria of the judges, the lack of substantial critiques, the focus on the top and bottom two.

    With regard to all the nastiness: One of the things I like about the show is that the contestants are artists–some with maybe more presence of mind than others, but all relatively accomplished and thoughtful in their own way. What a change from run-of-the-mill reality tv! Due to the completely unnatural constraints (not the least of which is “surviving the challenge”), the art is mostly mediocre, sure. ‘Reality’ is quotidian almost by definition: whether you write a daily blog, cook, whatever, always has a cumulative, levelling, mediocritizing effect. Nobody can be constantly brilliant (except moi of course).

    I get the criticism of Mark’s work, but I’m kind of impressed he was able to put that together despite photography as his default medium. Ryan’s stuff has been pretty shitty, esp. this week, but his ability to paint realistic portraits in such a short time is still fairly impressive to any non-jaded observer. Like most of you I thought Nicole’s work was top 2-worthy, but in a way, it was also kind of “meh.” Just putting it all in perspective. I did think Miles’s, again, had the most going for it.

    I guess my point is even the “mediocrity” this show engenders has some saving grace to it.

  • Jim C.

    It’s remarkable how much agreement there is about which work was strongest, and the common bafflements as to why some were singled out as good or bad. This is the weakness of the show: the failure to articulate the criteria of the judges, the lack of substantial critiques, the focus on the top and bottom two.

    With regard to all the nastiness: One of the things I like about the show is that the contestants are artists–some with maybe more presence of mind than others, but all relatively accomplished and thoughtful in their own way. What a change from run-of-the-mill reality tv! Due to the completely unnatural constraints (not the least of which is “surviving the challenge”), the art is mostly mediocre, sure. ‘Reality’ is quotidian almost by definition: whether you write a daily blog, cook, whatever, always has a cumulative, levelling, mediocritizing effect. Nobody can be constantly brilliant (except moi of course).

    I get the criticism of Mark’s work, but I’m kind of impressed he was able to put that together despite photography as his default medium. Ryan’s stuff has been pretty shitty, esp. this week, but his ability to paint realistic portraits in such a short time is still fairly impressive to any non-jaded observer. Like most of you I thought Nicole’s work was top 2-worthy, but in a way, it was also kind of “meh.” Just putting it all in perspective. I did think Miles’s, again, had the most going for it.

    I guess my point is even the “mediocrity” this show engenders has some saving grace to it.

  • Ed

    I’m calling it now – Peregrine Honig wins. The sleeper hit of the season. She’s slightly edgy (panties) but oh so average (panties) and it’s gonna make everyone say, “What?!”

  • Ed

    I’m calling it now – Peregrine Honig wins. The sleeper hit of the season. She’s slightly edgy (panties) but oh so average (panties) and it’s gonna make everyone say, “What?!”

  • Pingback: More Work of Art « Angela Watters

  • Nikki S

    I’m not actually saying this to be a bitch or anything, but I have a huge feeling that a large portion of the people who have posted comments on this thing aren’t even artists. I mean, of course the people who were on WANGA are artists, but what about a lot of the other people? It just seems to me that all they want is someone or something to talk bad about so they can avoid their own personal problems.

Previous post:

Next post: