Work of Art II: 10/19 episode

[Tilden]

No one else has started tonight's thread, so I thought I would.

Why in the world would a team follow the lead of someone--someone with immunity, no less--whose opening statement is, "I want to make a sculpture about poop."?

Honestly, both teams took an extremely broad topic and managed to go nowhere with it. The first team has a ridiculous topic (digestion) and the other one doesn't even have a cohesive topic, though their original idea--migration--seemed fine. But they don't want to work together and Team Digestion somehow took a bad idea and made it worse.

As for the artists, the woman who keeps wanting to do things about eternal organs exploding scares me a little. And Sucklord? Seriously? You're a 42 year old. Stop trying to be the star of your own underground comic book.

On the other hand, I really like the teacher from Arkansas--thought his giant self-portrait made of crayons was fun and said something about his life--and the guy who's been in charge of exhibitions and the hearing impaired artist. I'm sorry, but I'm terrible with names, and they don't mention them very often.

[Arielflies]

I agree Tilden. The challenge was about interacting with motion in a way similar to the Park guys leaping over solid objects. What does poop have to do with it? At least one of the internal organ artists is gone. Both teams were so vague as to concept that they both had to re-think after Simon de Pury paid his visit.

I think the Team Playground was the correct winner...at least playground equipment (even the dirty old man) had moving parts. My favorite was the roller coaster out of paper that climbed all over the wall because you could take your imagination on a ride by following the pattern.

I fear for the teacher because they showed him with a phone call home to his wife and in the previews he appears to be having a bad time. I like him, too. He can get away from bodily functions - internal workings and sex - and create reflections of the world. I thought Bayette, the winner, had the simplest idea by showing himself spinning in place like a child, and with the playground, children concept, I think the judges liked that as the best fit with the motion exercise.

Somehow the artists seem weirder to me this year. Maybe because they all come from different mediums and expressions. I mean a graffiti artist coiling rope around a bucket and calling it a circle of motion? Huh? We'll see how they weed them out, because that says something about the judges personal taste as well.

[Tilden]

I fear the artists are being cast for their weirdness as opposed to their talent. It also occurred to me that a lot of them only create art that would likely be purchased by a museum as opposed to an actual person (or at least that's what they've shown so far), simply because of its size and style. It's like they're sending a message that it's somehow less artistic to create art that people might be able to place easily in their homes.

I know a number of local artists, some of them folk or tribal artists, some of them not. Some of them even have, or are gaining, national reputations. All of them seem to understand that if they want to make a living as an artist that they can't think it's beneath them to create at least some works that less than extremely wealthy people can afford and/or fit into their homes. Similarly, they understand that doesn't mean they have to sell out, that smaller, more affordable pieces can still be beautiful, even functional, depending on what they're creating. Unfortunately, with too many in this group (and I'm including the judges), I get the impression they'd be very condescending about anyone creating art with the intent that it might actually sell to someone other than a "patron." Maybe that's why I like the teacher. He knows better than that, because he works with people other than critics and patrons.

Just for the record, I like a variety of different types of art, but it seems as if all they want to deal with on Work of Art is the abstract or performance art or installations. I like those forms of art too, but they aren't the whole ballgame, even in the contemporary art world.

[Dragonlady]

Good lord, but this show scares the heck out of me. These are artists?? yes, I know "art is in the eye of the beholder" but this beholder finds this to be reminiscent of children's art: making a ball of shredded paper? sculpture of poop? Sucklord and his little wizards, etc from Dungeons and Dragons? a video of someone spinning around and around?
Makes me wonder why I attend oil painting classes each week, trying to improve my skills when I could just paint bloody internal organs, going splat!
Sorry but this show and these pompous judges are pathetic.

[sweetpea]

I just watched this episode and I have to agree with Dragonlady. I am not a prude by any stretch, but one of the pieces up for the win was depicting a person getting an erection at a children's playground? Are we serious?? I find nothing 'artistic' about that and was, frankly, horrified at the idea that it could be viewed in a positive way.

I guess I need to stick with 'dogs playing poker' or similar. Seriously, that was disgusting, as was the poop/intestines splattering, etc.

I liked the guy going around and around, so I'm glad that won.

I think I must be too much of a hick for this show and the pretentious judges.