Art, PLEASE

Well, first….that would be one fucked up child. But, Nao certainly struck out on Work of Art last night. Errr…I’m sorry her “work didn’t work for the judges” (I hate Bravo TV show tag lines - there’s only one: MAKE IT WORK)

For the ‘Shocking’ episode - some interesting things were made, but I feel it’s a bit contrived to make something ‘shocking’ just for shock’s sake and as an actual task. And, so it must have been hard for the artists on the show to complete this project without missing the mark because you have to think about the viewer and what would shock. It’s only natural that you immediately go to religion or poop or cum as your material to work with. Obviously, some artists (like Serrano) make some rather shocking pieces, but I don’t think their only driving force is to shock. 

I think that Jamie Lynn missed the mark a bit on her comments about the photo and it’s meaning (but at least she KNEW what it was….tsk tsk for Abdi to have never seen this work, but my tirade about artists and art students not studying art history more is another topic entirely)  At any rate, here’s a great article on Serrano’s Piss Christ:

http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/dacasey/Serrano.html

But….back to the show. Nao. Oh Nao. I thought your piece was pretty cool, but you had no clue what it was about. I wish the show made the artists provide an artist statement, so they could at least bullshit (pun intended) their way around their work. In this case, she thought she had an idea with that masonite and when she realized that she didn’t have much to build upon she wanted to do her performance and just threw on her Utrecht bag and some poop substitute. What was shocking?

If you are wanting to channel McCarthy, then cover yourself in poop and hug everyone in attendance….or make something like this: 

Imagine coming across THAT in the dog park!

For different reasons, I don’t think Abdi’s piece was that great either. Conceptually, I really liked what his message was but he fell victim to time management and a slow process by creating a mold and creating the heads in wax. (i think on the show he didn’t even start pouring the wax until, like, an hour before he was supposed to be finished! 

In our crits at the Corcoran, we generally hone right in on craft and great concepts will be lost if some hot glue is showing (sorry Sean W.), or there are TYPOS, or the presentation destroys the piece, etc. 

Why three? Wouldn’t it have been just as powerful if there were only one, and one missing but evidence of it’s existence? The one on the far right looks like he took it out of the mold too quickly and it started to sag. He should have edited that one out - did he keep it just so that there were three? (don’t get me wrong…mold making can be difficult and I applaud the risk he took) Like my friend Andy and I were texting during the show, why not mention African ritual shrunken heads or the connotations that would bring to the piece which would tip it to the uncomfortable side. But, again, why THREE? 

I think the judges only liked it because they themselves were able to fill in some of the conceptual gaps and the further meaning behind the piece - strengthening it overall….

John….helloooooo spell check. Some of the text was blurred (along with the dick) So I couldn’t read it during the show.

It doesn’t look like he’s trying to suck his own dick, it looks more like he’s trying to use the head of his cock to put in a contact lens. While both acts are tricky, neither are that shocking in this day and age.

Typo aside, I think the judge was right in saying to be more shocking he should have taken a photo of himself attempting this. OR, better yet, just the text. If  you read it, is enough to paint an pretty interesting mental image. While at school during our crits we are discouraged from ‘offering advice’ or solving other people’s craft problems….how much more powerful would this have been if he had a confessional booth and a small prayer card with the instructions written on it so that YOU could give it a try yourself. (and haven’t we all?)