Speaking of bad taste..."The Apprentice"

Elizabeth Schott · 03-07-2004, 12:34 AM

I think Kim was not only humorous in her post about bad taste, but it was very true to many of us.

I have been watching "The Apprentice" with "The Donald" this fall television season, and I must be honest I enjoy this show. But I was curious if anyone else saw this week's episode where they had to pick an artist and sell their work?

"The Donald" started the show by a reference to The Met, so I was excited - then I saw the artists who were interviewed; only to be outdone by the artist they picked to market.

One team picked a lady who I can only describe as a rated "R" Mapplethorpe on a bad hair day. It just astounds me that people really believe this is art, it blows me away that they spend money on it. Especially since we know perhaps a handful, but some very talented artist in NYC.

Mary Sparrow · 03-07-2004, 08:11 AM

OH Elizabeth, my sentiments exactly!

Kimberly Dow · 03-07-2004, 01:24 PM

Will there be a re-run? I have not seen this and would like to.

If we all email Bill o'Reilly at Fox News and just fill his email with complaints he would bring this up and question it. Sounds silly, but I bet he would. Wouldn't it be great to see like, Fred Ross debate someone about modernism?

John Crowther · 03-07-2004, 03:16 PM

Aside from the rampant bad taste appropriately mentioned above, the show was also downright silly. It demonstrates just how far from reality the so-called "reality" shows stray. In pitting the two teams against each other by having each select an artist and open a gallery, it focused almost entirely on artist choice as the measure of success. In so doing it completely side-stepped all the complexities of opening and running a successful gallery. All the teams had to do, evidently, was pick an artist, send out invitations, and have an opening. The team that garnered the highest sales won. Ignoring the question of how galleries build a clientele, shepherd promising artists to financial success, develop a list of represented artists, design and light exhibit space, and plan and budget their promotion, it reduced the high-pressure world of New York galleries, backroom sales to high-roller clients, and inter-gallery dealings to nothing more complicated than standing on a streetcorner selling paintings. As for whether it is real or manipulated, consider that the "moral" of the episode was conveniently dramatized by having the winning team be the one that chose an artist they liked, as opposed to their competitors, who selected the artist they felt would be commercial. We all know how far off the mark that can be! Oh well, this is the show that on one episode showed a girl who'd been fired walking out of the Trump office building, crossing the sidewalk, and climbing into a cab that sat waiting for her, undoubtedly on marks set by the camera crew. Talk about reality. And yes, I admit I too watch the show, one of my "guilty pleasures."

John C.

Elizabeth Schott · 03-07-2004, 03:45 PM

John your summary is correct, but the taxi is a set up, it is every week and the producers of Survivor have admitted to re staging a shot!

I think what they could have explain further was that they seemed to have picked established galleries, so all the stuff you mentioned would have been done (I hope) without the knowledge of the viewer.

Let's face it, when they did the Planet Hollywood episode- which suffered its own Enron a couple of years ago taking down my brother in-law (who was a partner). They had to increase the receipts for the day judged by the same day the previous year, yet failed to mention that it's in Bankruptcy and any sale is a major accomplishment.

This is how I felt about the female artist (I use that word very loosely), I think they should have won for selling only one piece of her stuff - now that was an accomplishment!

The Donald needs to attend Marvin Mattelson's "Everything I know about painting I learned at the Met". Hey it might even lead to a new hair style!

Kim, most weeks the episode from the week before re runs the night before.

Michael Fournier · 03-08-2004, 10:25 AM

Again, the fact that this show is even on while shows like Masterpiece Theater on PBS, or any number of shows funded by the BBC that hire top rate actors and brilliant screen writers to bring truly great works of literature and art to television must struggle to get funding, is a testament to the decline of a medium that had such a great ability to bring good to the world, only to be misused for commercial gain alone, with no other thought given than will people watch this and will advertisers pay to get their commercials on during this half hour.

I am glad that there are still some producers and filmmakers that are concerned with creating content that they can be proud of, not because of its commercial success, but because it was a truly great piece of filmmaking or informative television or simply brilliantly funny.

I am all in favor of TV as pure entertainment but I prefer my entertainment to show at least a little more imagination and talent. Even a good comedy or pure silliness like Monty Python is better then this so called reality television. My answer to them is Click. (The sound of my TV shutting off) And CLICK (the sound of me turning on a reading lamp). At least my local library is still offering stimulating entertainment.

As long as we all keep showing up to watch, like north bound rubberneckers slowing down to see that accident in the south bound lane, the TV producers will keep dishing out even worse television. We are just a step away from a 24 hour network of a surveillance camera on a street corner with breaks every 5 min for 30 sec. Commercial spots.

Have you ever watched a young child (1-2 years of age) watching TV? They go about the room interested in just about anything except the TV while the show is on but as soon as a commercial spot comes on they are riveted to that screen. Maybe in their innocence they are sending us a message: that it is time to just turn off the TV and do something - anything - thn just kill time until the next 30 sec. Commercial Spot trying to convince us to do our part as good consumers.

Imagine there's no TV; it's easy if you try.

Wow is this off the topic of Portrait Painting?!

Marvin Mattelson · 03-08-2004, 08:41 PM

Back to the topic of Trump's Apprentice. The group that won chose to sell the works of an artist who had created original oils to sell. The other group chose a digital artist who, regardless of the content of her images, was selling large digital prints for four thousand dollars each. When people buy art, they want something tangible for their money.

I think this bodes well for us as portrait artists. People want real art hanging on their walls. No photo or digital print can replicate the appeal of a genuine hand made piece of art. A portrait offers a unique appeal that technological solutions can never replace.

Rebecca Willoughby · 03-12-2004, 01:44 PM

And yet Marvin, I have been amazed recently to find that many people are purchasing "digital oil" and "digital watercolor" paintings from photography studios that have them printed on canvas or watercolor paper and call them "works of art". I was in a home recently where the host was proudly displaying a photo of his family that had been taken on the beach in Destin, Florida. The photographer had taken a truly beautiful portrait of this family, brought it into photoshop and ran it through the drybrush filter. It had been printed on canvas, mounted on stretchers and then he had a "master artist" on his staff add "traditional oil" highlights on top of the canvas to enhance the image (does this remind you of a painter of light?). The cost for this "timeless photographic oil portrait" was $6200. What amazed me was that the original image was really a beautiful piece of photography. It seemed as if the computer work and "master artist" took the breath out of the children. What do you tell this person when they ask your "artistic" opinion on their investment?

A quick search on the internet revealed several such "photographic artists" at various price points.

Is this the future? I sure hope not. One Chris Saper portrait has more "life" in it than any of these works can ever hope to have! And no computer program will ever be able to match the flawless skin that Marvin Mattelson has mastered.

A devoted fan of the masters of this forum!
Rebecca

Ngaire Winwood · 03-14-2004, 04:36 PM

Which gets us back to a very important question. When are we as a community of artists going to stick together for the industries sake and get material to send to newspapers to enhance our ethics, skills and to ultimately educate the public on the aspects of painted portraits that time has endured with but seems to be slipping through our fingers?. There even is a more growing need, now, to educate the public before the machines take over.

Hmmmmm sounds like the Matrix. Hey, its just my two bobs worth. It is how I feel about this ancient craftsmanship I am learning about. Call me a historian if you like, one who revells in the chosen glories of the past for future crowning moments.