Making the Most of Your Motivation
In the 15 or so years I've been doing studio visits, I've only encountered an artist knowingly taking on art history head-on in a handful of cases. Whether any of them will actually succeed remains to be seen (as an Israeli artist I know once wisely noted, it can take an artist their entire lifetime to pull that off), but, still, it seems the most clear-cut of motivations to me. What prompts or prods other artists to get their butts into their studios seems to range from it being the place they most want to be (and the thing they most want to be doing) to a messy mix of have-to- want-to- should-have- could-have ambitions and/or dreams.
There's a parallel range of motivation, or lack thereof, prompted by most artists I know to seeing other artists' work (usually in some public exhibition, but not always). Some artists will want to (or feel they should) rush right back to their studio after a gallery-hopping session; others will seek out the nearest wateringhole to wash away the injustice of it all. Still others, it seems, will carefully process the information, tucking away what they saw that intrigued or inspired them, dismissing what didn't, and carrying on as they normally would.
I started to think about the range of motivations for artists, especially in light of seeing other artists' work celebrated, when an artist friend noted that he had just started watching re-runs of Art Star, the reality TV show where hopefuls "vie to impress Jeffrey Deitch, a gallerist known world-wide for his ability to spot up-and-coming talent." I haven't actually seen the show, but Paddy Johnson listed it in her "Worst of 2006" round-up, noting "Personally, I’d be much more interested in watching an apprentice like show for the world of gallerina’s than I am the next art star search." Indeed, there seems something unsavory about the notion that what motivates an artist is grist-for-the-Reality-TV-mill, but then again, who's to say Rembrandt or Vemeer or Kahlo or Pollock wouldn't have jumped at the chance to participate in such a venture? It's probably a safe bet that Warhol would have been delighted by it.
Whether it was good TV or not, however, is the only true measure of such a venture in the end. It's silly to attempt to translate its relevance into the real world. Except for Carrie Underwood, are any of the American Idol winners doing all that well? Any of America's Next Top Model finalists? And what became of the former Apprentice contestants, other than Omarosa, who's making a career out of being a semi-celebrity? (Yes, it's embarassing to me that I know this much about reality TV.)
If Wilde was right, though, Deitch & Co. should be highly flattered in that plenty of people are attempting to imitate their program. Sex and the City star Sarah Jessica Parker is reportedly working on an art-based reality show, "that will pit aspiring artists against one another in various artistic mediums. The added wrinkle of a peer critique is sure to produce sweaty palms and flashbacks for art school viewers everywhere." Two weeks ago, I got a call from another producer floating two ideas for art-related programs (one of which at least sounded as if it would take the art seriously, but who knows), and then just last week I got the following e-mailed to me:
The fact that, among the information they require, what you look like is first tells me everything I want to know about how seriously the art will be treated in this production, but don't let my low opinion of it stop you from auditioning. You may want to strategize on how to transition yourself from the "Omarosa of the Art World" into someone the art world will later take seriously (I'm sure it can be done) before you apply, though.
There's a parallel range of motivation, or lack thereof, prompted by most artists I know to seeing other artists' work (usually in some public exhibition, but not always). Some artists will want to (or feel they should) rush right back to their studio after a gallery-hopping session; others will seek out the nearest wateringhole to wash away the injustice of it all. Still others, it seems, will carefully process the information, tucking away what they saw that intrigued or inspired them, dismissing what didn't, and carrying on as they normally would.
I started to think about the range of motivations for artists, especially in light of seeing other artists' work celebrated, when an artist friend noted that he had just started watching re-runs of Art Star, the reality TV show where hopefuls "vie to impress Jeffrey Deitch, a gallerist known world-wide for his ability to spot up-and-coming talent." I haven't actually seen the show, but Paddy Johnson listed it in her "Worst of 2006" round-up, noting "Personally, I’d be much more interested in watching an apprentice like show for the world of gallerina’s than I am the next art star search." Indeed, there seems something unsavory about the notion that what motivates an artist is grist-for-the-Reality-TV-mill, but then again, who's to say Rembrandt or Vemeer or Kahlo or Pollock wouldn't have jumped at the chance to participate in such a venture? It's probably a safe bet that Warhol would have been delighted by it.
Whether it was good TV or not, however, is the only true measure of such a venture in the end. It's silly to attempt to translate its relevance into the real world. Except for Carrie Underwood, are any of the American Idol winners doing all that well? Any of America's Next Top Model finalists? And what became of the former Apprentice contestants, other than Omarosa, who's making a career out of being a semi-celebrity? (Yes, it's embarassing to me that I know this much about reality TV.)
If Wilde was right, though, Deitch & Co. should be highly flattered in that plenty of people are attempting to imitate their program. Sex and the City star Sarah Jessica Parker is reportedly working on an art-based reality show, "that will pit aspiring artists against one another in various artistic mediums. The added wrinkle of a peer critique is sure to produce sweaty palms and flashbacks for art school viewers everywhere." Two weeks ago, I got a call from another producer floating two ideas for art-related programs (one of which at least sounded as if it would take the art seriously, but who knows), and then just last week I got the following e-mailed to me:
CASTING: ART RACE
Gallery HD and Illuminations Media are looking for two Fearless, Charismatic, Passionate & Informed ARTISTS to take the definitive chutzpah road trip.
Two Artist/Art Racers must cross the US in 40 days, surviving only on Art. Armed with art materials, cameras and a $1 dollar budget, the Artist/Art Racers must “trade” Art for food, shelter and other art -works.
Starting on opposite coasts (one in NYC and one in LA), the Art Racers’ odyssey culminates in a home-city exhibition of all the works they have created and collected along the way. The winner is the Artist/Art Racer who sells/trades the most artwork. Or at least the one who survives.
Looking for great communicators who interact well with all sorts of people and can make smart commentary as life happens. Intelligent, sassy and witty are good too. All participants must live in the New York or Los Angeles areas, be at least 21 years old and a US citizen or legal resident alien.
If this is you, please submit the following:
- recent photo (no older than 6 months)
- bio or resume
- sample of your art (photo reproduction okay)
- short essay explaining why you are an Art Racer
- be sure to include your full name, home city and phone number
Please send all ASAP to: subs@barbarabarnacasting.com
**Bio/Resume & Essay should be in body of email**
photo attachments okay
ART RACE shoots May 26 – July 11 for appx 40 days on the road + up to 5 add’l shoot days & voice over.
Each Art Racer will receive $20,000 US for participating.
Production Company is Illuminations Media UK http://www.illuminationsmedia.co.uk/
The fact that, among the information they require, what you look like is first tells me everything I want to know about how seriously the art will be treated in this production, but don't let my low opinion of it stop you from auditioning. You may want to strategize on how to transition yourself from the "Omarosa of the Art World" into someone the art world will later take seriously (I'm sure it can be done) before you apply, though.
Labels: art reality tv show
posted by Edward_ at
7:48 AM
53 Comments:
Thank God for me. I can fill you up with all juicy gossip or info you need to know. You have to know some names, what de do, what they did and what they'll do.
Bambino,
are you drinking this early in the morning? ;-)
Having gone to see the Biennial yesterday to motivate myself to work, I was delighted to see this latest entry in your blog. Usually the biennial shows me fresh new concepts and ideas to run home and think about. This year however, everyone seemed to be saying and doing the same thing, 5 floors of it in fact. Unfortunately the work didn't motivate me, it confounded and embarrassed me. I'm not sure when we got to the point of being so lazy about what we're trying to express that standing up a concrete slab says it all, but I was really disappointed. It seemed like the point was to see how many found items we could throw in a room, title and get a check for. Very few things stood out and I was left feeling like I no longer belong to the “Arts” community if this is where it’s headed. In which case what do I call myself now and where’s the new community because I’m ready to sign on… Call me “Motivated to move to a new career”.
"The fact that, among the information they require, what you look like is first tells me everything I want to know about how seriously the art will be treated in this production"
Kind of reminds me of the first question the collectors ask you about an artist at the fairs.
Oriane
Kind of reminds me of the first question the collectors ask you about an artist at the fairs.
Touché
I must be noted, though, that that's not a universal first question. Still...
Thanks for the thoughtful post, Edward. I never realized i was a "tucker" (_some_times I also rush to the studio after a show, but it's usually to start an experiment or thought or dialogue with new materials or ideas - rather than to work towards a finished piece in response - so I'd still consider it "tucking").
It's funny; I'm told I'm actually pretty good at articulating what I'm interested in when making a specific piece, why I am an artist and why I think art and making and discourse (and in my case, teaching) are all so important, and also all inextricably linked. But if you ask what drives me to the studio on a given day, it's more often than not a looming deadline of some kind; good thing there are always plenty of those! :)
Art is Dead
I can fill you up with all juicy gossip or info you need to know.
okay bambino, I am so all ears...
Except for Carrie Underwood, are any of the American Idol winners doing all that well?
Jennifer Hudson, here to stay I imagine, definitely blew Beyonce (et al) out of the water in Dream Girls, hence that Oscar. So I guess sometimes the cute fat girl with gobs of talent finds a way to trump the Lancome Diva of the day. I guess you never know.
:)
Btw, speaking of hype and art, did you get a load of the art-girls photo shoot in the Sunday Times Mag section? talk about stylin'!
Art is Dead
A+ for succinctness. D- for quality of supporting evidence. :-p
Btw, speaking of hype and art, did you get a load of the art-girls photo shoot in the Sunday Times Mag section? talk about stylin'!
Yes, that and the "art handlers as fashion model" spreads made me chuckle. (out of jealousy, of course.)
I totally love Kelly Clarkson. I consider her the only good thing to have come out of American Idol during its entire run.
I've only seen the show once. I found it actively painful.
More on point: How does one knowingly take on art history? What does it look like?
How does one knowingly take on art history? What does it look like?
It's not a matter of what it looks like (that, indeed, is what can take a lifetime to pull off), but rather what approach the artist is taking, which is conveyed via discussion. It requires an astute student of art history to gauge what was unconvincing or no longer relevant about the work that came before and some clue as to how to press past that point. No easy matter for sure.
Jennifer Hudson, here to stay I imagine,
ahh, but Jennifer didn't win American Idol.... ;-)
did I mention I have an embarrassing amount of useless information about reality TV contests?
I have some other show ideas:
. “Pimp my Rep”—a show in which the art is really about the curators. Oh, wait, it’s been done. The Whitney Biennial.
. “The Big Lie”—a show in which the contestants vie for top gallery representation, except (and here’s the fun part) what they don’t know is that 80% of the female contestants will be weeded out, even as they vie for one of the coveted slots. Extra points for extra penises.
. “Inverse Proportion”—top dealers judge potential gallery assistants on such talents as length of leg to length of skirt, trophy realness and their froid factor. The winners will receive a job in one of New York City’s top galleries, with a salary offer in inverse proportion to the amount of condescension the contestants have shown through the competition.
. “Studio Visit”—we show up at the studios of artists around town and try to guess what the rent increase will be at the end of the current lease period. Immunity on the next challenge if you can correctly identify the ground-floor spaces that will be taken over by Starbucks, Pottery Barn or Banana Republic.
. “Space’d”—tourists and artists alike will enter a gallery and remark “Nice Space” to an unsuspecting dealer who is paying $40,000 a month in rent. The dealer will be secretly wired to record his/her blood pressure. First visitor to push it past the “apoplexy” level wins. Bonus points if their kids can leave handprints on the art.
. “Hold My Slides”—producers troll galleries for the largest boxes of unlooked-at artists slides and CDs. Artists will serve as judges. Everyone loses.
Joanne:
You are penis-free and brilliant.
Ed sez:
It's not a matter of what it looks like (that, indeed, is what can take a lifetime to pull off)...
I didn't mean what the art itself looks like -- if you knew that, you'd be an artist taking on art history! -- but what's involved in the artist, their ideas, their approach, and so forth that tells you, "Here's someone taking on art history!" You know, what does it look like?
I think you probably answered that as well as you can already, but if my clarification prompts any more thoughts, I'd love to hear them.
Joanne!!! Los Angeles is on the phone, they're sending a jet to get you. ;-)
I agree with Warhol re: this year's WB. It did a good job of sucking out my desire to interact with "the art world." It all looks pretty silly, like the French Court as portrayed in last night's episode of John Adams.
Ed! this is great! I'm totally in for the 40 days on the road. Whats the gallery policy on nomadic art sales? ;)
OMG Joanne..
That's hysterical!
and um, can I be contestant on The Big Lie? I am a female, but I am used to losing to pricks...
As for Ed's topic, I find myself acting in 2 different ways when it comes to viewing others' art and exhibitions. If they catch me during PMS, I will probably act with shear ignorance and jealousy. I will go home and beat myself up about how I am a nobody loser and how EVERYONE else is succeeding but me.
If it isn't during PMS, I manage to retain some goodness although I haven't' found that other art influences me as much as real life does.
Whats the gallery policy on nomadic art sales? ;)
10% / 1,000 miles distance from 27th street. ;-)
If you get accepted, though, Ivin (and why wouldn't you, when the criteria are "Intelligent, sassy and witty"?), how you gonna fuel the 18-wheeler you'll need to haul your art on $1/day? ;-)
I find myself acting in 2 different ways when it comes to viewing others' art and exhibitions. If they catch me during PMS, I will probably act with shear ignorance and jealousy.
I suspect that's the case (relatively speaking) with most artists. How you react depends on where your head and emotions are at the time.
Rather than thinking about it, some of us have actually been doing it. Check out Joy’s part at
http://blip.tv/file/764417
Also “We are Our Own Art History” @ Dam Stuhltrager Oct., 2006 was about as frontal an attack as possible, JK
Whether it was good TV or not, however, is the only true measure of such a venture in the end.
I've been saying this for years. Except that I've been saying it about art.
Joanne, that was hilarious! I think Hold My Slides would be the best, ever. :)
Edward, you said:
It requires an astute student of art history to gauge what was unconvincing or no longer relevant about the work that came before and some clue as to how to press past that point. No easy matter for sure.
While I would tend to agree this makes for incredibly strong work in an artist, it can also lead to a lot of turmoil in the studio from asking too many questions-- what's relevant about the past work becomes projected onto the artist's current work (I'm laughing as I'm crying)! As you say, it's no easy matter.
Hell, that's why I love to escape into other people's work--precisely because it is inspiring.
Art history is the cliche of our past.
Regarding art history and contemporary painting, I've got some pretty strong thoughts about that on my blog. People seem to like Ellen Harvey and Karen Kilimnik a lot, for ex., but I wind up here: "Harvey and Kilimnik express little trust in inherited conventions, even as they compulsively perform them, milking the endgame for whatever it's worth." I find that Kilimnik's appeal to painting's history as that of an elite social class, and Harvey's dependence upon certain notions of painting and photography, are both ways in which art history provides these artists a hook. But they are in fact false burdens that painting doesn't really have to carry. So making one's moveinside of the art historical narrative is not, to my mind, where I find the most interesting work.
Conceptually, Joy Garnett may have more in common with Thomas Ruff than Karen Kilimnik.
(Well here it goes...)
In the workplace obese people do not earn as much money as their thin counterparts (women especially) and they do not get promoted as often as their thin counterparts. A study done in academia showed that students gave more positive evaluations to thin and svelte professors as compared to obese professors. Of course looks matter in the art world as well. Who the hell are we kidding here? Yes of course there are exceptions but I am talking about norms not exceptions.
So besides working hard at your art and all that, make sure you stay in shape. Work out, tighten that butt, slim that waistline, etc. It is just as important as your art.
Although most of us might be repulsed by the idea that success on a reality show should determine what art does or does not succeed and become historically important (we can question the relevance of historical models another time), meaning it gets written about by hacks and academics, culture is celebrity based, like everything else in the entertainment industry. Once you have an established brand, name recognition, whatever you make will be interpreted, weighed, and taken seriously, no matter how bad it is. Artists and the people who make a living off of art want to believe that art is above crass commercialism because of its intellectual worth but doesn't this reality TV meets the art world phenomenon we are discussing prove otherwise?
Hey, thanks, all.
I just returned form the dentist to read your comments.
Ed, nothing from LA yet...
But I did get a nice e-mail from Gallery Gora. They want to give me a solo show, and it will cost only $4500--not counting the shipping and insurance, which I'd have to pay for myself.
Check out the latest James Kalm video. Ed Winkleman and a morose pink bunny are both in it.
By the way, I see Joanne Mattera commented above me. I LOVE your book on encaustic Joanne!
Joanne -
Great ideas, but I think the one show should be called "Dude, where's my slides?"
Oriane
Facelifts and Liposuction for Sucess
Ed Winkleman and a morose pink bunny are both in it.
Yes, and telling us apart could be yet another reality show challenge.
Joanne, may I cut and paste that comment into my blog? That was the best EVER.
Speaking as an artist who spent her first winter in NYC selling erotic drawings on the sidewalk at West Broadway and Spring street, I can't imagine a worse nightmare than participating in that show. I shall continue being witty, beautiful and gregarious from the comfort of my studio, and the TV executives may pursue me there, if they wish.
'Taking on all of art history' is what I did during my last year of art school and first year post-school--creating multimedia assemblage that aggressively 'addressed' and competed with every single work of art I'd seen in my life. This drove me into first a near-mental breakdown, then complete creative paralysis.
I then stopped going to galleries for awhile, and started giving myself rigidly defined, conservative 'exercises,' such as learning encaustic, doing studies of light and luminosity, illustration projects, diary projects, cartoons, and various other retro things. This eventually gave me a strong visual vocabulary, through which I was able to express my labyrinthine and esoteric ideas, without knocking down or ripping off other artists to do it.
Now I have a studio practice that extends art history, but doesn't deny it, trash it or try to one-up it. When I started going to galleries and museums again, after a fast, I became an analyzer and a 'tucker,' pulling out what impressed and inspired me and leaving the rest.
This, of course, makes for very slow television. Perhaps PBS will be my only taker.
PL,
Well, of course, you'd never make it into a current art reality show, real or fake. You're making art that's thoughtful, mature, that connects to something larger than yourself but that comes from deep within yourself--minus the T&A;, high drama, dancing or backbiting. Keep up the good work!
Sure, cut and paste away.
"Now I have a studio practice that extends art history, but doesn't deny it, trash it or try to one-up it."
Great way to express this. I am interested in the passage of time; art historical timelines -- continuities and discontinuities, past and ideas about the future -- provide one jumping off point.
(I saw one episode of The Art Star ... just awful).
Joanne you crack me UP.
How about a reality TV show where TV producers compete for the most idiotic, humiliating, de-humanizing reality TV show concept.
Maybe it's already happening, like the one about who can put the most inept person in the highest government office.
Is Mark Kostabi's art gameshow still on? That was a great idea. I never actually saw the show, but I love the concept.
Yes Chris
Kostabi still does name that painting, you can watch it, and back episodes on his website
Groovacious. Now that's what I call art reality -- making art luminaries scrabble for pocket change.
Thanks, Joanne! And wisesigh!
I just had a dream that remotely relates to Edward's post. I went to bed after having read his post. In the dream a typical reality show is taking place- people doing dangerous stuff for fame and fortune. There was one guy in a fancy white daredevil suit (think of the outfits Evil Knievel used to wear) about to jump a bunch of big cardboard boxes with his bike. So he's pedaling furiously towards the ramp and right before he's about to make his jump he chickens out- which is even funnier to watch than a crash. The guy is an even bigger joke now that he didn't make the jump- and the thing is, the boxes would have broken his fall, so there really wasn't any danger- it was all in his mind.
Here's the thing. I'm that guy in the white daredevil suit. I've been interested in art and taking photographs since I was a kid. I'm also almost 40 and have done nothing about getting my work seen. Everytime I would make steps towards approaching a gallery I would come up with an excuse as to why the time was not right. Why? Because of fear. I realize that now. The fear of rejection.
It's not that my life is miserable. I still take pictures and get enjoyment out of it. And I have faith in the strength of my work. But I think my life's a lot less fulfilling than it could have been- if only I would've overcome that fear. I wonder how many people are in the same boat as me- afraid to put themselves out there. The crazy thing is- just like there was no real danger for that guy in the white suit making his jump, there is no real danger in putting yourself out there. So people are uninterested in your work or are unkind. Big whoop- move on and find someone who is interested in what you are doing. Rationally, I see this. I gotta develop a thicker skin.
Okay, therapy session over.
Ed,
Is it possible to be a serious (and I dont use that word lightly) and not take on the history of art every time you go to the studio? For myself, art is an intellectual endeavor and it's history is the best motivation.
Sorry. That was meant to be "serious abstractionist". Too early to be blogging.
Is it possible to be a serious (and I dont use that word lightly) and not take on the history of art every time you go to the studio?
Of course it is. I'm sorry if I implied that such a motivation is superior to others. I just meant to convey that it seems really clear-cut as one to me. Other motivations seem a mix of personal and intellectual pursuits (with "success" harder to measure), whereas taking on art history seems predominantly intellectual (although a good dose of ego is clearly needed) with success (or not) more clear to everyone watching.
I know I am late to this conversation. I just wanted to say that the Art Race project actually seems very interesting in a socio economic sort of way. Fascinating to see if someone could actually live off art as a way to trade for goods and services, to live directly off ones creativity in a society that undervalues such things. And the race aspect gives it an added degree of suspense. I know that the main draw of such things is to watch a bunch of hotties run around and do mean things to each other, but, aside from that I am sure I could find this at least somewhat interesting.
As far as motivation/inspiration, one of my best friends is a plumber and when he talks about his love for his craft it is very inspiring and motivating. In the same way, it is one of the main reasons I look at other's art, goto shows, read constantly. And when I get an email from someone who thanks me for inspiring them, I realize this is a reciprocal process. In fact, perhaps that is all this stuff is all about. I am drawn to other folks' passions , no matter if it resembles mine or not. It reminds me of my own odd interests and makes me reach and take risks.
And art history IS a part of life so it is all the same to me. Inspiration from a plumber, inspiration from the Situationists- all the same.
i have to disagree that taking on art history in the studio is an intellectual pursuit - i would venture that it is almost always pseudo-intellectual.
and i love art about art.
I am not sure what it means to "take on" art history. If one was say, a comedy writer for a sit-com, would that person be "taking on" the history of sit-coms if one of the goals of that writer is to avoid the hackneyed? Wouldn't the ultimate goal be to make folks laugh? And so, in order to achieve that, the writer would be wise to know the history of sit-coms in order to write new, surprising things, correct?
Or, is to "take on" that history mean one is trying to vie for a place in the echelon? I would think that such a directly stated purpose would result in a very stilted art practice, but the normal, organic way of an artist's journey of hybridization of multiple influences seems not much different on practical terms. And, the process involved in placing that practice within that history is far removed (and achieved by other people) from the individual, day-to-day practice of that artist.
For years my partner and I have fantasized about creating a new type of BFA/MFA program that would involve chartering a bus to drive around the country visiting all the great art museums and seeing all the masterpieces of well-known artists as well as lesser know works of well-known artists and works of all kinds by lesser known artists- gathering at lunch and dinner for conversation about what everybody saw and camping out or staying at hostels to get the real flavor of america- I think this thought was inspired by a comment I read once that was made by Peter Schjeldahl that all the great art in the world may as well not exist if no one sees it- the point being something to the fact that looking at slides is not the same thing as seeing and experiencing art for oneself...
Donna, that sounds awesome. As soon as my kids move out, let's do it. I've got about eight or nine years.
I am loving this thread. Thanks for the stimulating conversation, everyone.
I think "taking on art history" is a fine goal--any art is better than can build on previous progress (and avoid old dead ends). But I don't care for art that is chock full of winking references to art gone by...any work that needs a catalogue, or an art history degree, to be understood is just indulging in a more uppity gimickry.
On can respond to art history with work that is freestanding.
It's been a couple of weeks, but I'm still thinking about this post...it informed a short review I wrote about Marcel Dzama: http://sheriwills.wordpress.com
Thanks!
Sheri
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home