How wonderfully self-arousing: "After all, you rarely hear the judges of Project Runway say how a particular dress is "so Rodarte 2010, by way of Chanel 1960s."

If your pilot had been filled with this self-congratulatory junk, Bravo would've passed the series.

BTW, the PR judges do say this, but they're relating to and not just jacking themselves off in front of the viewer. To use one of their tropes, "I question your taste level." After all....

Without question or reservation, this is the most ridiculous series of this type I have seen on tv. If I didn't know it was real, I would think it was a spoof.

this show makes me want to start creating art...the process is amazing. i'm a commercial photographer, but i know there is an artistic voice that wants to come out! thanks for such a great show. can't wait to see what they produce next.

Some of us who watch the show do know about The Dinner Party, and have read Judy Chicago's book about putting it together. I appreciate your comments, but this low blow to the viewer in this blog was not appreciated.

Overall the show is entertaining, how ever this weeks episode was disappointing. I was shocked to see the judges pick Jacklyn as the winner. I believe her work is shallow and narcissistic. In regards to the Audi piece, Jacklin never considered the possibility that those men who were supposedly staring at her could have possibly been staring at the Audi's in the show room she was standing in front of. Or heres another thought, could they have possibly been looking at themselves? I mean think about it when you walk past a department store display window during the middle of the day sure you see what's in side, but you also see your own reflection. Here is another possibility, If your pointing a camera at people they probably,are going to look back at you. Jacklyn refused to consider any of these possibilities, because they didn't support her narcissistic delusion that every man wants her. The book cover was the most obvious display of vanity. The author's name was barely larger than the point size that i am typing this comment on, and it wasn't even spelled correctly, however the portrait of herself took up over half the cover. Her work clearly shows her shallow, self centered view of the world. The sad part about it was that the critics actually criticized the other artists work for being shallow and two dimensional. What a Joke! Anyway I still love the show!

Thank you, scoutmom. 100,000,000% agreed. The blogs are much more interesting than the program at this point. At the very least, this TV show is introducing a new kind of thought to the American public -- maybe more people will frequent museums and galleries as a result. I'm trying to look on the bright side :)

Nao to me is just weird. In my opinion she makes for great entertainment but as an artist, I really dislike her work.

Jaclyn has issues with her body. To me, it seems she likes men looking at her and lusting over her. Her pieces of work all have to do with her body and exposure. I wonder if she was abused as a child or has no father.

Miles really thinks outside the box. He thought process is way different than others and he takes chances. I don't always like his work but I understand that process and applaud his work.

Of course this is my opinion only. I respect all artists and their work even if I do not "get it" or call it art myself.

The irony of the art world’s desire to sell the political posturing done by a few artists and the accompanying publicity they receive as a moral high ground that all artists must walk plays out in this episode.
Most artists and dealers have to work with powerful commercial interests as sponsors or buyers. So can we stop playing a game there is any totally pure motivation involved in art today? I don’t have a problem with the notion of commerce running the world, just the hypocrisy of avoiding being real about it thus confusing communication as to what’s going on as we watch a show. The problem is in this case Audi needed to give a car to the winner. If they are asked to sell out, stop teasing, buy them. It’s the American way.

hated episode 4. i am a high school art teacher and had fb my students to watch this this after episode 1. well some did not tune in until episode 4 - and were not impressed. i told them to throw that episode out and keep watching. shocking art does not move me - i want a piece of art to stir an emotion in me and episode 4 was mostly disgust and disapointment. i hope future episodes are better.

Enjoying the show, although it is much more illustrative of art school than it is of any artist's career. Getting an odd-ball assignment, figuring out a solution, going throught the trial and error of competing a project, and then trying to convince the "teacher" that you have theoretical, aesthetic, and practical foundations for the work - definitely art school. Unfortunately, the short deadline set-up precludes many media - oil paint for one, stone, etc. - and privileges PhotoShop, silk screening, and "quickie" solutions.

Under the circumstances, I think the judges have done a good job, with the weird exception of Jaclyn, and the male "gaze" which she courts and complains of (her self-portrait on the wall pretty much says it all - just try not looking at the star, man or woman). The whited-out heads are Baldessari from decades past; the feminist critique is also very old and worn out. I find her a little sad.

As and artist and art teacher I am really enjoying the show. I love hearing the critiques and seeing if I am on target with my opinions. As a glass artist who makes jewelry I am finding myself equally intrigued and inspired by your amazing jewelry Jeanne. Would love links to the designers.

I find the art created on Work of Art by your artists/contestants derivative of other artists. But to be fair, they do have to contend with time constraints.

Here's a whack out idea I think will make you laugh.

Work of Art: the Hades 20th Century Edition

Here are the contestants (all dead by the way):

Frida Kahlo
Louise Bourgeois
Joan Mitchell
Agnes Martin
Marcel Duchamp
Piet Mondrian
Mark Rothko
Robert Rauschenberg
Donald Judd
Roy Lichtenstein
Romare Bearden
Gordon Matta-Clark
Félix González-Torres
Jean Michel Basquiat

I know this is an insufficient selection of women artists and minority artists, but it’s very reflective of the lack of support women and minority artists had in the 20th century art world.

I don't suppose I was the only one who connected the fact Audi sponsors major art fairs and it makes a lot of sense of why they would want to collaborate with the show which would further their reputation of supporting the arts.

I too am getting tired of Jaclyn using the same theme every week and those men saw her as a by-product of her standing in the window at the dealership.

As for Jaclyn's piece it seems as though all the judges slept through the chapter on the 70's and feminism in art history class.

Jaclyn needs to do some research about real feminist art and critique

The experience of a performed VIDEO piece and a LIVE performance piece is quite different, and I am surprised that you do not account for how image and concept are mediated through these separate lenses.

That we are even still speaking of Nao's work a week after she has been kicked off speaks volumes to me about how controversial her piece actually was.

It is a tribute to performance that reactions can be so immediate and so visceral. If we as viewers could sit with that discomfort for more than a split second perhaps we could allow the associations to come forth.

It occurs to me that it is an oxymoron that anything truly shocking would win a prize anywhere.

Jaclyn's esteem issues are really being exploited and to call it "art" is a reach. Hello! You're in a car showcase...guess what Narcisse, they were probably looking at the CARS!!!
If she references ANYTHING other than her obsession with her body and sex, THAT would be a stretch of her talents.

...and Miles, in the words of my Grandmother, 'Get over yourself!"

I'm enjoying this show more and more.It's really interesting to see how differently each artist responds to the challenges. I'm not an artist but I find that this show really makes me think. I love to consider the concepts behind the artwork. Also, I think the show presents a good balance of artwork, artist's personalities and the interactions between the artists. It's not a soap opera and I'm grateful for that but at the same time I feel the show gives you a real sense of who each artist is. Thanks to Bravo for such an excellent program.

The Shock and Awe episode made it clearly apparent that the show is not about the artist's process but the final product.

What I loved about Nao was how much she spoke to the mystery of making art without art school jargon. I found the Work of Art judges were basing their judgements about an artwork often on the artists explanation.

Challenging artists ask their viewers to take responsibility for their own meanings. Nao said this on the first show and it's fitting that a show that doesn't truly sympathize with the artist would eliminate her. I didn't know of her until this show. But you should miss her. She wasn't programmatic!

Thank you for clarifying your judging process on Nao’s artwork last week. I always look forward to your blog commentary each week.

I have one comment, on your statement “If you show up, come prepared”.
.
It sounds more like a battle cry for war then it does for making art.

Maybe making art is like war, once you are place in a competitive scenario. I guess after all, this is a show where the winner wins the ultimate place flag here; an exhibit in a major museum.

Secondly, I wish I had the opportunity to get to hear Richard Phillips comments on art and art making. I know Bravo is not responsible to educate me on the artist Richard Phillips, but it would have been nice to have a little more info. Wikipedia here I come.

Bravo needs to realize what made Project Runway a success was exposing the general public to the craft of creating fashion as well as the business of selling fashion. For example, in past episodes of Project Runway, a contestant once explaining how different fabrics require different technique of sewing. Or how a knowledge of fashion history can only benefit and aid a contestant in finding solutions. I will probably never make a suit from scratch, but I can really appreciate the time and hard work it takes to create and make clothing.

All television is educational television. The question is: what is it teaching?
-Nicholas Johnson

“This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.” -Edward R. Murrow

hi Jeanne, I will like to know when is the next casting?, I will LOVE TO BE ON THE NEXT SHOW... I have a lot to show..
I love WORK OF ART! art is life, life is art!

Loved Jacklyn's work. She deserved to win this round. I agree with Erik, I would not spend my hard-earned money on almost anything that Miles makes. I do not understand the judges' ridiculous adoration for him. He is definitely overrated and shoulod've left episodes ago. The judges didn't think Ryan's piece had much substance--well, what about Miles??? How did his work have anything to do with driving an Audi in N.Y.? His answer is a homeless shelter. And the judges didn't find that simplistic. These judges are a complete joke.

Thanks for blogging every week, Jeanne. It's good to read about what was omitted and further explanations of your critiques. After reading both what you and Bill said about Richard Phillips' critique of miles' work, I can sort of understand why it was omitted. Bill seemed to suggest Richard's issue was a romanticized view of poverty and you're saying it was a minimalist approach. Maybe Richard had a hard time articulating what his problem was with the piece and the editors couldn't sum it up with a few sound bites. Would have loved to hear the whole critique, though, as it was a fascinating piece. Abdi is my favorite right now, but I think I'd rather see an exhibition of Miles' work at this point.

I'm glad you continue to share what is going on behind the scenes, and also glad you addressed the comments left by "the regular housewife" who speaks for many.

We should be doing everything we can to make modern and contemporary art more accessible, not more elitist. While this show is clearly entertainment first, the secondary agenda is (theoretically) to support the arts and (gently) inform. And that means using language that includes, rather than excludes.

All of us who are involved in the art world - even peripherally - fall into artspeak and a variety of references only known to a limited audience. The terms and references are pertinent, but we could all do better to explain them or provide context. (These blogs assist.)

I continue to hope that the unseen footage will be offered following the end of the season. Or as bonus clips online. Many of us would love to see it. More on the crits, more on the process.

As for this week's show, I was surprised that Mark chose this time to veer from his usual comfort zone where he successfully captures gritty scenes - especially given Richard Phillips as guest judge.

I was also surprised that we didn't see more stretching from the participants. This struck me as a fairly free-form challenge, even with Audi as the starting point.

I thought that, rather than exposing these men for their actions or "turning predator into prey", when Jaclyn covered the faces of these men, she was creating an anonymity that breeds that sort of leering behavior. It's as if she wanted to call men out, but backed down at the last minute by erasing their identities and any possible embarrassment for their actions.

Hello Jeanne,
I wonder if there is a way to post a transcript of the critiques, including all of the material that ends up on the cutting room floor? My heart starts beating really fast when the "judges" start their critiques ... so educative! I understand that an one hour television show cannot accommodate everything that is shot, but really, your show is leaving out a fascinating part of the selection process. If you posted word for word transcripts of the critiques, we would read them hungrily and learn tons.

I am really enjoying the show!

Gigi G.

"I have certainly taken note. From her audition tape, I was stirred by her attempted drowning with a tied bag of water over her head. There was an immediacy to this conceptualized work about failure, rather than her 'let's wing it on TV' failure. If you show up, come prepared."

Because you are speaking through the vehicle of television-made art your critique fits. However from any other perspective you have belied yourself with this an other comments.

Nao was prepared and her last work was not a "lets wing it on TV" Failure. Her performative installation was an important comment on America's ecological mess through the lens of homelessness. It obviously made a more powerful statement than you or your fellow judges were capable of reading.

I'm surprised that you run a gallery. If I were an artist I wouldn't want my work to be shown by you.

Caught the show for the first time yesterday in daytime reruns. So watched last night.

It's intriguing, a good way to force an artist out of their comfort zone, and cause all of us to take a fresh look at the world around us. But I also have a problem with what I call "instant art"...forced time limits, as if art is a game of speed rather than about the creative, expressive process and final piece.

I paint in solitary. I create, then my work goes in the basement, it is not appreciated where I am located. The people (galleries) prefer genre land and waterscapes, and they want things quick and easy. Something to sell or to decorate their vacation homes.

So while I'm not sure I'll watch again, it's nice to see some art related show on TV that I can relate to. Art that goes beyond a pretty flower or a barn in a hayfield.

Cheryl

Looked back at the first episode's portraits.

Jaclyn did a quality portrait of Judith. And the scattered light flowers - and Judith's slightly pensive look - shows true ability.

The flowers (as light one color "wallpaper" to the slightly off center Judith pose - hint at Judith's youth in the 60's era. Her slightly sad (or---frustrated?) look hints at Judith's later frustrations with this context.

(Overall, I don't think this contest is very woman friendly...but we will see.)

Technically, the painting shows that Jaclyn has talent - and decent ability to capture the anatomy also...

(The silliest comment I heard came from the judge on Jaclyn's partially nude image for the Pride & Prejudice novel. He urged Jaclyn to reveal herself...and Jaclyn took the hint.)

Will Jaclyn spend too much time on portraits about her sexuality?

Or---will she develop her inner self (which need not "age") ?

Will she give the world some quality portraits of others also?
(Hint: when she is Judith's age---people will not want a nude pic of her!!!)

I was wrong about everything. I guess not "everyone" is an artist.

Greetings! Love the show...and know there is so much more being said off camera. I'm an elementary art teacher & artist...would love to be on Work of Art. The challenges and critiques would be so stretching!!! Maybe next season?!? :)

This show was so programed. I didn't even need to watch the show to know how it would end.
Of course we have the narcissist who thinks "every man" is leering at her; then we have the OCD who gets so overwhelmed that he takes his blue blankey and goes to sleep; than, of course, we have the budding love affair (who'da guessed that one). Lastly we have the only artist left on the program who can actually draw, Ryan, and he gets nowhere.
Miles making it into the final two was just so bad.

ok, i have never posted before- but where is the discussion of Laurie Anderson? Jaclyn's piece was a direct quoting at best. Her installation of the mirror only literalized the more subtle (and dangerous) implications the earlier artist made in 1973! I was disappointed that the critics seem so irresponsible to art history; these occlusions, paired with Jaclyn's win, have somewhat disturbing implications. But then again, this was an ad for a car company, so perhaps I am expecting too much from the show.