I think it might be a case where, if it's your thing, it's VERY MUCH your thing.

The second episode sheds a little light on just how messed up some of these artists are -- one very prominent case of extreme, debilitating OCD, one admission from an artist that he is literally suffering from brain damage.

What I love about the show is that it's NOT commercial-art or populist-art driven -- although, as I wrote elsewhere, it is VERY much anti-minimalist -- and it does a good job of giving insight into both process and where the drive to create comes from. You may not LIKE everyone competing, but no one is a poseur.

okay, well...on your recommendation, I'll dip back in. I don't really care whether or not I like the contestants, but I really hate shady judging in this type of competition.

See, I don't find the judging shady at all. I quite agreed on the first challenge, and disagreed on the second, although I see why they went for it.

Now I kinda want to watch it! I'll have to tape to watch when Bob is out of town though. He's vehemently anti-anything to do with SJP (post Square Pegs).

okay, why did you agree with the first challenge? I thought the clown dude's art was so atrocious, he should have been forcibly removed from the premises.

I think that he got a pass because he actually painted a face.

They really didn't think that the person eliminated fulfilled the assignment at all.

(And it is not good when what you say about your piece is more interesting than the piece itself.)

Haven't seen episode 2 - going to watch tonight. Hoping Parot is still in it.

Oh, there's clown art?? Yeah I can't watch that.

sumi, I understand why they said they eliminated her, but this is where I wish the judges had distinguished between just "painting a face" and technique. The woman eliminated fucked up, but she had much better technique than clown guy.

This is where I'm irritated. I don't get why such bad technique gets a pass.

okay, why did you agree with the first challenge? I thought the clown dude's art was so atrocious, he should have been forcibly removed from the premises.

Oh, I agreed with the winner. But I didn't disagree on the loser, at least not much. The abstract painting that went lost because the artist completely defined the painting in terms of superficial elements -- the color of the clothes the subject was wearing, her jewelry, neither of which she was actually wearing when the judges where presence. There was little discussion of capturing her essence, or of capturing impressions of her. It was shallow, and the artist full-well knew it. She might have survived if she could defend the painting in anything but shallow terms, but she couldn't, leaving the impression that she just painted an abstract painting with no care of it actually meaning anything. Which is a sentiment this show's judges have little time for. The clown, as atrocious as it was, was actually a portrait, which was the actual challenge, so it had that going for it.

I think the show is going to -- and indeed, already has sparked some serious discussions about abstract art.

Maybe I'll try the 2nd ep.

I doubt you'll like it any more. Perhaps it's because I think that a lot of art is pretentious schlock, but I was okay with the winner last time, and disappointed with who was eliminated (although I like Eric). I thought the work that was eliminated showed more talent and thought, but it didn't meet the challenge as well.

This week, I was annoyed at the winning entry (and the winner). It's all about Miles and his OCD, which is starting to get annoying. Also, as a side note, I didn't see where he used the objects? Maybe on the crate that he put his pillow on? I also had a HUGE problem with the contestants weighing in on others' work without being asked, and not just because he was an unbelievable asshole about it.