Work of Art & #workoFart & "work of art"

My fascination with reality TV dates back to 1998, when I saw the first Gran Hermano (Big Brother) on Spanish television. I have written here before about the ways in which I believe such programming naturalizes the state of being under surveillance. Indeed in some cases, it can glamorize it, or at least bring the promise of wealth and celebrity even at the cost of over-share and humiliation. It is precisely the latter aspect that for me posed the greatest danger because the format of these shows seems designed to foster a collective bonding experience that is most often based on mutual loathing for a scapegoat. Brute competition, ruthlessness, and lack of empathy are particularly useful in shows like Big Brother, Bad Girls Club, and Real Housewives.

In some cases, such as the latter, the participants are supposed to act as aspirational figures for our own longings, but at the same time, this provokes resentment and schadenfreude (see the gleeful reactions to the recent 11 million dollar bankruptcy filing by barely literate lavish spender Teresa Guidice from the New Jersey version of Bravo's franchise). The aspirational aspect now extends to the mysterious artworld which according to breathless media reports brings in a lot of money. Curators are also glamorous jet setting, designer clothes rocking stars, taking the protagonism away from the artists who should be the subject of our interest. The prestige now represented by formerly nerdy curators was discussed in recent New York Times article that pointed out examples of the appropriation of the term curate to apply to everything from window displays to DJing.

In any event, my response to the launch of a reality TV show designed to select "the next great artist" was skeptical to say the least. Although there are exceptions to the Social Darwinist Panopticon created by this newish televisual genre, by and large it is our baser instincts that prevail. I for one experience mixed feelings whenever a group that I identify with to some extent is represented in one of these fictional passing as real programs. This was particularly true of Work of Art: The Next Great Artist. At the same time, I think I was secretly thrilled to see part of my life allegedly reflected on the screen. Of course by now people who participate and viewers are for the most part aware that editors and producers are writing these shows, intervening to create "characters" that in some ways are as fake as those in regular acted sitcoms, dramas, and soap operas. (eg. Nao as the arrogant bitch, Miles as the hot hipster, Abdi as the naive generous youngster untainted by the cynicism of the artworld, etc.) And it is the self-consciousness of the characters, encouraged by telling asides during scenes (see RHONY's and Bethenny's Getting Married? Bethenny Frankel) or by the by now hackneyed "Confessional" scenes where participants de-brief with producers (sometimes seemingly ignorant of the fact that their bitchy comments will be aired, which only adds to the thrill of listening in to them) that enhances the voyeuristic thrill of watching.

Twitter may exacerbate this phenomenon, when some of us, hiding under the virtual veil of anonymity, make snarky comments under #workofart or most often #workoFart (I speak about myself here, obviously) and feel a web of connection with other members of the "artworld" who are equally skeptical about the incorporation of our area of interest/practice/study into this now ubiquitous genre.

This notwithstanding, and despite the 140-character limitations, in addition to hours of laughter [for fun recaps see the Artlog and Hyperallergic blogs at http://hyperallergic.com/7080/work-of-art-recap-tweet-digest/ ] I gained insights into the functioning of the artworld [for this see especially this tweet from the awesome c-monstah at http://c-monster.net/?s=work+of+art and ArtF ag city here http://www.artfagcity.com/2010/08/12/work-of-art-abdi-farah-to-exhibit-at-the-brooklyn-museum-of-art/ as well as those mentioned above ], the role of critics and critical reception [see judge Jerry Salz's posts on New York Magazine's Vulture blog, in particular his de-brief at the end of the show here http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/08/jerry_saltzs_work_of_art_final.html and Christopher Knight's rather venomous rebuttal here http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2010/08/bravos-work-of-art-and-art-criticism.html], and the new types of interaction made possible by digital communication.

In relation to the latter debate about criticism, I would tend to agree with Knight, that the power dynamics at work in terms of critical reception as a tool of artistic legitimation have not changed. Saltz's utopian claim that the dialogue has somehow expanded as a result of viewers' reactions to the show seems implausible. Did we get to vote like spectators of American Idol? No. Were smart bloggers or artists who make work analyizing artworld dynamics, such as William Powhida [see his blog here http://www.williampowhida.com/] represented in the jury? No. This was a superficial and distorted view of artistic production and reception. Not to mention the fact that it was based on the provincial New York vantage point.

The show allowed me to indulge my nerdolicious academentia/alleged scholarly interest in the internet and reality TV (let's keep it real, a pretext to indulge my love of Bravo's reality TV franchise) to a new level by attending the finale of the show at Soda Bar. Here, friendly groups of artnerds gathered on comfy couches, crackberries, Androids, and iPhones in hand, to chat, live tweet, and watch the show on a large projection screen. To the right, a cascade of Work of Art hashtag tweets was visible. In a charmingly low-fi manner, however, we could vote for who would be eliminated from each episode by checking a piece of paper with glued on photos of contestants.

One of Abdi's sculptures at the Brooklyn Museum

Although I am not adept at this type of simultaneous digital/analog/visual/verbal interaction/reception, I found myself fascinated by the new type of experience it generates. At one point, I found myself retweeting smart comments made by my friend as we were seated next to each other, watching, reading the #workofart feed, and chatting. This kind of disassociated consciousness is heightened when you are tweeting under a pseudonym (which for professional reasons I must employ). At the same time, it is odd to feel like there are multiple "versions" of me operating simultaneously. My inner-monologue, exterior dialogue, and digital monologue/dialogue happening all at once. And just like the "reality" show contestants are performing roles predicated on realness, immediacy and accessiblity, I was performing the role of droll commentator on twitter, accessible to all, yet in fact removed.

Getting back to what the show was supposedly "about" the work of art, as smart twitterer and media phenomenon @MuseumNerd observed, this distancing also affected our ability to evaluate the merits of the works produced each week. Because aside from the obvious drawback of the format - you cannot apply the Top Chef, Project Runway etc. temporality to the making of art work, nor is it fair to artists to impose a "challenge" that forces them to make work based on pre-determined subjects or working with limited media, since this may not respond to their concerns and practices -- how can you judge an artwork by fleeting glimpses of it on television? This is something I remind my students about repeatedly - go to a museum! Go to galleries! Go to studios! Don't read Gardner's, look at Powerpoint slides, or do Google image searches to understand works of art.

Work of Art fans tweeting and watching the show (from the Brooklyn Museum's Flkr feed)

I was underwhelmed by the works when I saw them at the opening yesterday (for a nice photographic tour of the show see @MuseumNerd's Flkr series here http://bit.ly/9xcdmH) My so-called documentary contribution has to do with my obsession with fashion, and here is the extremely petite and thin Jaclyn Santos' shandisimo of an ensemble, skin tight flesh colored lycra dress that was perilously on the verge of exposing her rear end, worn with a striped bra (partially peeking out from the back and shoulders) and matching thong. Beige stilettos punctuated by a rather sinister row of straps moving up her tiny ankle and matching Chanel bag.

Joan Rivers' Red Carpet pseudo-coverage aside, the work seemed to me to be quite well-executed, the drawings in particular, but the theme seemed heavy-handed and the sculptures seemed fragile (I remember him having trouble keeping them intact because of problems with his materials). I worry that such immediate potential fame at such a young age might hinder his artistic development. But that is not what the TV show was about. It was geared towards narrative flow, instant gratification, and fake insight into a trendy, glamorous, and for many, remote, elusive and cliquey world. That much of the recent glamour ascribed to the so-called artworld is due to mass media coverage of astronomical and inflated prices particularly for contemporary art was reinforced by the "honor" offered to the contestant: inclusion of in one of the charming Simon de Pury's auctions. This type of straight to the sale room marketing cutting out the gallerist, critic, and museum curator as practiced by Damien Hirst had been the subject of much criticism and raise ethical questions for many. But for the presumably broad TV audience, such nuance and context was omitted.

Also not acknowledged was the problem of curatorial independence, expertise and art historical judgement that side-stepped when the Brooklyn Museum agreed to (presumably sight-unseen) grant a one-person show to the winner, akin to the one year contract as a Cover Girl spokesperson granted to the victor in America's Next Top Model. For some, this manouver suggested a PR gambit on the part of the much-criticized museum. I for one am, despite my dismay at the Director's re-organization of the curatorial departments, which are no longer led by specialists in areas represented in their fantastic collection, a fan of the museum. I appreciate the diverse audiences they attract, and one could argue that this TV tie-in is part of these populist efforts.

Respected curator Eugenie Tsai's introductory text attempted to frame the show in historical terms, reminding viewers of the long artistic tradition of juried exhibitions. This may well be the case, but it elides important differences. First, the competition was extremely limited in number and not directed by the Brooklyn Museum. Second, the judges were not curators but rather gallerists/collectors, critics and artists. Third, although the genres were limited in Salon exhibitions, I don't think you can analogize this to the show's "challenges." Indeed, such genre-specificity has nothing whatsoever to do with contemporary art practices.

Ironically a more recent development and artistic precedent for instant artistic celebrity and the incursions of the artworld into the media, the work and practice of Andy Warhol, were ommitted. This was particularly odd given the fact that immediately across from the fifth floor gallery where Abdi's work was shown was the second part of the late Warhol exhibition at the museum.

GPS for your Moods?

An NPR story (link below) described new smartphone apps that allow you to plot your moods or answer questions about your perception of your mental/emotional states that are shared with psychiatrists. This type of laundry list, flowchart, quasi-mathematical plotting out of moods, perceptions, and emotions dovetails neatly with the approach taken by psychiatrists (and to a lesser extent, psychologists or psychotherapists) who follow diagnostic criteria that taxonomically fit patients into increasingly Byzantine categories based on allegedly precise symptoms or behaviors. Like the Spanish conquistadors' absurdly intricate and fantastic invented racial categories under the casta system, rendered in series where men, women, and their offspring represented outcomes of intermingling types, the effort to control and define often betrays its own socially constructed nature and slippery outlines. (For an EXCELLENT ethnography of the mental health industry and a nuanced analysis of the construction of the category bi-polar in the mass media, see Emily Martin Bi-polar Expeditions. Mania and Depression in American Culture. Princeton Univ. Press, 2009)

Thanks to our own capitulation to omnipresent surveillance, we may add mental health to the list of 24-7 areas under observation with patients' own acquiescence. In any case, everyone's a psychiatrist these days, thanks to reality TV, we can see any number of kinds of apparently dysfunctional behavior, in some cases the therapy itself is the subject of the show, as in Dr. Drew's franchises, in others it is only part of the drama, as in last week's episode of Real Housewives of New York, where we witnessed what many believed was some kind of breakdown on the part of Kelly Bensimon. Twitter lit up with comments such as, she needs a psychiatrist, she is bi-polar, and she forgot to bring her meds on vacation.

In contrast to other marginalized groups' demands for greater "visibility" as a means to gain recognition and understanding, as in, Ellen came out of the closet and this benefits the LGBT community, with the onset of reality TV shows such as Hoarders: Buried Alive, or its friendlier competitor, Hoarders, the masses feel free to diagnose others freely but without an increase in empathy. And now, in yet another seeming proof of the prescience of Huxley's Brave New World, we will plug into our mood Foursquare or mental GPS, the better to be monitored and perhaps prompted to go get our Soma.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127081326

Happy Halloween!

Why I love Nancy Grace

In a post-modern twist of fate, we don't know which of the two is "really" "reality" TV maven hot mess Kim and which is the faux drag queen

I Want Nene to Read Me a Bedtime Story

In one of those moments of Reality TV Intertextuality, Nene from Real Housewives Atlanta reads aloud from "Cop Without a Badge" the scandalous account of Columbian drug lords, murderers, kidnappers, addicts, and the prostitutes who love them. This book featured prominently in Real Housewives of New Jersey when Caroline and Dina were alerted to the fact that another housewife, Danielle (really called Beverly, she changed her name in an attempt to start a new life undercover after she copped a plea to avoid prison, clearly she wanted to fade into obscurity or else she would not have signed up for a Bravo TV show) appeared in the book as the a coke addicted "prostitution-whore" and girlfriend of the head of a Columbian drug cartel.

Allegedly un-staged as a backstage "bonus" video, Nene is shown in some kind of an office casually reading aloud, as if the camera is not trained on her, but she also works it for the camera, winking to her audience.

It seems fitting that the intertextual moment should be figured literally as a book. The book signals the intersection between "real" life and "reality TV life" acting to reinforce the "realness" of the "reality TV life we are seeing." (In the case of the video above, I love how Nene mentions offhandedly that she hangs out with Danielle sometimes, as if they'd casually met at the beauty parlor or mall.) I also find it fascinating to know that these women know how to read. (just kidding)

Here is the moment when the book had its literal star appearance on RHNJ:

And the grisly aftermath, when Teresa is more inarticulate than usual in her rage:

Bruno

I just came home from watching Bruno, Sasha Baron Cohen's latest provocation, which made me laugh until I cried and choked for breath. Utterly tasteless, he had to attempt to offend as many well-thinking politically correct people. Make fun of the gays, check, Holocaust and Hitler jokes, check, Austrians as Nazis, check. Personally, Mel Brooks' The Producers might be a big hit but even though I pride myself on being able to find the humor in anything, I wince anytime anyone makes a joke using the Holocaust as a punchline.

People tend to spend a lot of time guessing which scenes were set up and which ones were staged. (in the immortal words of the Smiths) What difference does it make? First of all, since Big Brother and The Real World, we all know that there is no thing as "real" "reality" in "reality" TV or films for that matter. The naive shock and awe of Candid Camera is long gone. Reality TV has made us all able deconstructionists, semioticians, and skeptics. It's as if everyone suddenly read Barthes and Foucault while watching Real Housewives of Atlanta.

They also ask whether or not a movie featuring such horrible stereotypes of homosexuals might only perpetuate them, fanning the flames (bad pun) of homophobia. First of all, what self-respecting homophobe would go see a movie about a faggot, and a foreign one at that?

A better question might be: if Borat was from one of the 'Stans which are so remote and unknown to Americans that it may as well be an imaginary country, thus safe for ridicule, are the gays equally fair game? We know from watching President Obama's actions thus far that the gays are apparently the last group that is not entitled to civil rights. Even our first black president draws the line when it comes to the queers' having marriage equality and equal rights in the armed services, to name but a couple of examples. When it comes to homophobia, we need to beware of some of the liberals, as well as the bigots.

Although like Borat the movie was juvenile and could have used some editing (as does my writing, but that's why this is a blog and not an article), there were some brilliant parts such as the extended sequence where he met with a Fundamentalist Christian claiming he converts gays to straights. Each time he asked the bigot what are typically hetero activities, cut to Bruno taking part in these things. Martial arts, wrestling, hunting, you name it. All homosocial, all plagued with us versus them macho posturing. A lot of the scenes took place in Alabama, we were wondering if that's because like Kazhakstan, it's "remote" enough that people don't know who Baron Cohen is, and are not in on the joke?

I could not help but think of Jake and Dinos Chapman. I remember one installation featuring children in contorted sexual postures, their body parts obscenely scrambled so penises came out of ears and mouths became vaginas. Some figures gave Hitler salutes or wore little cub scout type uniforms with swastikas. This shock value effect isn't really original. Just read Salvador Dali's "memoirs" and look at his painting "The Enigma of William Tell" among others. We might also think of Anselm Kiefer's "Occupations" series in Interfunktionen. And then there was Tom Sach's "Prada Concentration Camp," closer to the Chapamans' and Baron Cohen's tone. Similarly, Baron Cohen performed numerous sex acts or pantomimed them, gave Hitler salutes, joked about Auschwitz, put young children in a scene where they simulated the Crucifixion. Aiming to provoke, with no real purpose other than to shock well-meaning liberals, to push buttons by making light of topics that remain the ultimate taboos when it comes to humor or satire. And at the end of the day most of the gay and sexual content might not be out of place as boyish locker room humor.

The seemingly hour-long movie previews were also fascinating windows into early twenty-first century cultural notions of gender roles and sexuality, heteronormative and homophobic, violent, and ruthless.

There were two movies having to do with bored heterosexual couples. One involved a group trip to one of those adult's only mega beach resorts in the Bahamas -- maybe, because what I love about the resorts is that nowhere in the ad do you see what country you are actually going to, it's some vaguely paradisiacal beachy location with an evocative name -- that ends up being a couples' boot camp. Hilarity ensues as a series of confusing burlesque episodes transpire. One of these: a yoga instructor called Fabio (hello? could that reference be any more dated? apparently this movie is aimed at conventional heterosexual people aged 35-45) performs postures that simulate heterosexual sex with the wives, and gay male sex, with the husbands, apparently to arouse laughter.

The classic high school morality play facing off the good girl/bad girl as a horror film was homophobically spun. It featured a bad girl (Megan Fox) that turned out to be a vampire/bisexual. How original!!!! Playing on the subtextual cultural memories of Angelina Jolie's public persona, and on Fox's resemblance to her, as well as her own recent admission that she likes girls, too, the story becomes even more loaded. We see a bad girl brunette dominant partner and the noble girl blonde that sets out to defeat the evil deviant. The dark dominant seductress lesbian and the pliant submissive blond fantasy trope is a long standing one when depicting ladies that love other ladies, so this is not original. In any case, I imagine that this one will surely contribute to lowering the gay teen suicide rates.

The final straw was one called "Gamer" where non-felons and felons played a virtual reality video game that turned out to be "really" real. The criminal players manipulated by the upstanding male citizens are men incarcerated on death row! They fight to the death, of course, and never win. Thus, they try to escape. This one takes the game theory "Prisoners' Dilemma" to a whole new level. I wonder how this one plays in countries that don't condone the death penalty? Clearly this one is skewed to US audiences in a country that has an appalling human rights record and that until recently had leaders that institutionalized torture for prisoners of war.

I also find it interesting to see not only in academia (see my posts "A Gathering of Nerds" and "Testing the Waters" for art history nerds' fascination with "gaming") but in corporate parlance. I was speaking with friends about workplace situations (artworld and non-artworld) and we instinctively used gaming as a term, as in, "this person gamed another person" and "they took this person off the chess board." Like the popularity of reality TV shows premised on taking your opponents literally off the board/house/island in order to survive, everyone now knows that this is the value system we need to follow in the late 20th and early 21st century. I assume philosophers that specialize in "game theory" (by the way, I had no idea such a thing existed until I went on a date with someone that specializes in this recondite? field) will be or are in tremendous demand, perhaps as workplace consultants in HR departments or as Life Coaches for ambitious careeists?

The "Man Room"

My obsession with HGTV real estate porn continues, despite what should be a housing hang over after the crash in the market. Safely ensconced in my two bedroom 1928 apartment filled with period details and a brand new kitchen, decorated with 1930s-1940s furniture and tchotchkes, I watch horrified as boring couples buy McMansions in suburbia. Aside from the ubiquitous hardwood-double sink-granite counter tops (a new requisite is that it should be a full slab, never stop at the edge and be set into wood )- stainless steel-two or three car garage- open kitchen litany of United States utopian home-owning, a new sinister area has come into view. The "Man Room" (alt "Man Cave") Not only is there no possible area in my home that could constitute this thing called a "Man Room" but there isn't really any indication that a man would ever live here, that is, unless he is called Pedro Almodovar, I guess.

This fantasy Shangri La known as the "Man Room" is apparently meant to house things like massive plasma TVs, bars, refrigerators, pool tables, speakers, guitars, and drum sets, bean bags, La-Z-Boy recliners, leather sectionals, as well as enormous collections of sports memorabilia (football and baseball). Fully-grown men become as excited as little dogs at the sight of a chew toy when they consider this fantasy space. Often these areas are found in basements, relegating the men to a nether-region of the home normally associated with humidity, flooding, vermin, washers and dryers, and storage areas. Linked in my mind with the Brady Bunch episode where the kids argue over an unused attic which Greg turns into a groovy room/chill out area, such liminal areas of the home are not considered premium real estate. Greg's room might well be a precursor to the Man Room. And these men seem child-like to me, with a teenager's enthusiasm for the idea of their own little room to run away from spousal responsibilities and drink beer while watching the Phillies with their buddies, enjoying their homosocial space of bromance in peace.

Fascinating.

The women all gamely go along with this. Perhaps they want the men to get out of their hair?

What I want to know is, where is the "Woman Room"? A room of one's own? A room withe Yellow Wallpaper, perhaps? That's not discussed, although these women do seem to get awfully worked up over spa tubs, little window seats (where they read Harlequin romances?), and large open kitchens so they can "watch the kids play in the garden from the window while I wash the dishes," (hello? WTF is the stainless steel dishwasher for then?) and "interact with our guests in the great room while I cook." Maybe the man is entitled to have his "Man Room" after all, I mean, the woman has her bathroom, closets (preferably walk-in), and kitchen, right?

House Scavengers

I am, as usual, relaxing at the end of the work day by watching my favorite real estate porn, House Hunters. A few months back the New York Times commented on the ways in which real estate shows were adapting to the crash of the housing market. No more of those ubiquitously optimistic "Flip this House" series. I find it very disturbing to see that in House Hunters, they show cases where a home buyer is getting a home in foreclosure. This is mentioned as an asset, because the price is low, and a liability, the house is a "fixer." Never do they discuss the situation of the persons left homeless. In one episode, a couple cracks jokes about a series of stuffed animals scattered throughout a "bargain" home in short-sale, which the broker helpfully explains is when a bank is selling a property in foreclosure. Those were kids' toys, where are those kids living now? Needless to say, it kills my buzz. And then in a new series called "For Rent," because few can afford to buy and on "My First Place," you often see foreclosed properties being bought as "starter homes" by young couples who are willing to put in the elbow grease necessary to fix up "abandoned" homes.

Real Housewives of New Jersey Italianate MacMansions

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/garden/28housewives.html

Check out this article and the related videos of Caroline and Danielle's MacMansions in Jersey. They feature neo "European" Italianate-American-Baroque decoration mixed with 1990s styling. These massive homes -10,000 sq. foot range - include Baccarat chandeliers with cranes to lower them from the ceilings as high as Mt. Everest, massive Lladro figurines, wall-to-wall patterned carpets, "tropical" print wall-paper, 5,000K 10 ft. long carved wood sofas upholstered in paisley, incontinent Chihuahuas named Fendi, walk-in closets the size of 900K studio apartments in the West Village filled with beadazzled jeans, low-cut blouses, and lots of bling.

Pageantry Frankensteins and more?

Miss Jessica Simpson is hosting a new reality TV show called "The Price of Beauty." And she should know. 

But I hope that she visits the the international sites where the evil geniuses that groom Latin American Miss Universe pageant competitors do their work.

Pageants are not about Nature they are about Beauty ("No son de Naturaleza, son de Belleza") says the most famous pageantry coach/groomer/stylist, responsible for many finalists and winners of various pageants and known as the "beauty Zar" and "guru of Latin American beauty."

http://www.aztecaespectaculos.com/nota/revistaventaneando/osmel-sousa-el-zar-de-la-belleza/2009-02-222

http://www.usmagazine.com/news/jessica-simpson-working-on-new-reality-show-2009275

Professors Gone Wild

When I named my series of posts on Reality TV "Foucault and You" I never imagined that eventually the worlds would collide, and I would read the following post on Inside Higher Education, discussing that "Wife Swap" is seeking parents who are also philosophers for their show!!!

Ok the last part is making my mind explode, maybe it's because I am still waiting for my espresso to brew, but are they talking about couples where both partners are philosophers? That sounds so frightening. (The concept of two philosophers married to each other is nearly as frightening as two art historians. LoL!)

Despite my Model Minority Tenure-Track Deadline Pressure Reality TV Rationing Policy, I might have to add "Wife Swap" to my list if indeed Professors are added to their repertoire! (right now, I am prioritizing the Real Housewives New Jersey, and my favorite Real Estate Porn, House Hunters International)

Why a Reality TV Show Is Seeking Professors
A few weeks back, several bloggers commented on reports that "Wife Swap," an ABC reality show in which the wives of two families are switched for a week, was seeking philosophers. Kieran Healy wondered which of two ways the show might go: "airy-fairy life of the mind vs huntin’ shootin’ fishin’ " or a contrast of philosophical beliefs, such as "Modal Realists vs Phenomenologists ('I thought you said all the beer was in the effing fridge'); Rawlsians vs Libertarians; or John Emerson goes to live with John Hawthorne." ABC was quiet at the time the rumors appeared, but the network now confirms that it is looking for philosophers -- and will pay $20,000 to those selected. Danielle Gervais, casting producer for the show, said in an interview said that "we thought it would be interesting to find parents who are philosophical" and who bring their philosophical outlook into their role as parents. How might that be evident? Gervais said philosopher parents might teach young children that "we don't believe in things like the tooth fairy" and would encourage children to "really question things" and to "ponder deep things." Gervais said she wasn't sure if the network would swap the wives in two philosophy couples or swap the wife of a philosophy duo with the wife of a non-philosophy duo. But the network wants to have couples where both spouses are philosophers and have similar approaches to raising their children. Several faculty couples have already applied, but interviewing is still going on and more candidates are welcome.

From The Chronicle of Higher Education

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/05/15/qt#198948

Season 2 Climax: Ramona dances with her nemesis, fashion maven Simon

When I see Bethenny, I come from a place of "yes"

I am not ashamed to say that I am hooked like a crack whore on The Real Housewives. I have gone as far as taking cabs home from teaching so as not to miss an episode.

Although all of them, O.C., Atlanta, and New York fall under my addiction category, there is nothing quite like New York, because that is a city I know well and this of course adds to my enjoyment. By now, everyone knows that within the faux real reality TV category of edited series this show is particularly staged and artificial. In all of the locations the alleged wealth of the participants has been largely revealed to be a fraud. Let's say that these women are more aspiring to, to be kind. None of them appear to be particularly bright or self-aware.

Until that is, I saw Bethenny. I have to be frank (unintended ironic pun on her last name, Frankel). This is where I fell for the manipulation completely, relinquishing most of my detached and sarcastic amusement, to hear myself saying "I could totally see myself hanging out with her." Although I do find her alarmingly thin, and cannot quite figure out either why she is a serial reality TV personality given how intelligent she appears to be, or why she would be "friends" (frenemies) with this particular demographic slice of New York City womanhood (the series could be viewed as an update of the camp 1930s classic "The Women"), I still find her largely appealing in most ways.

First is her wit, her quick-witted one-liners and manic barrage of analysis, mimicry, and tough-girl retorts leave me in tears of laughter. A particularly fabulous one-liner that did not make it into the compilation video posted here (which, be warned, if you don't watch the show is largely useless in conveying why I like the character played by this woman, which in some way I believe to be relatively sincere) took place when during a planning meeting for a charity, dysfunctional ex-model, diva, cougar batterer of younger boyfriends, and apparently on some memory-impairing meds, Kelly Bensimon refused to lend her name to the event. Bethenny exclaimed: We are different, Kelly. You come from a place of "no" and I come from a place of "yes." I kid you not, for some reason that resonated with me, more than just ironically. But the really fabulous things about Bethenny besides her viper's toungue, that is, are:

she owns her own business
she refuses to make her life revolve around a man
she mocks the other women's pretense (however, if so, why does she hang out with them?)
despite her obvious insecurity manages to defend herself
although this could be in the interests of manipulating viewers (like me) I empathize with her fleeting mentions of the impact of her dysfunctional family life
she apologizes when she misjudges someone
her comic timing is awesome

Best of all, she lets us know that she is in on the joke, acting as an on and off camera meta-commentator or performer.

http://www.bethenny.com

Just When You Thought Reality TV Could Not Be Any Worse

Just When You Thought Reality TV Could Not Be Any Worse (originally posted 12/4/2007)

There is now a reality show being promoted that sets up US citizens with eager non-citizens seeking to marry. The show is called WHO WANTS TO MARRY A US CITIZEN? This is so perverse and tasteless that I don't even know where to start. Particularly fucked up is that it is two Latino guys pitching the show. This reminds me of the repellent Nelly Galan, Latina creator of Extreme Makeover, possibly, until this show came along, the most unethical reality show out there. Both shows testify to the self-hatred and internalized racism which is rewarded by mainstream media - hello Uncle Tomas and Tia Tomas.

In Extreme Makeover, women were ethnically-cleansed and made to be more "Caucasian" (if your idea of Caucasian is a drag queen styled by Ivana Trump on PCP, with a budget allowing her to shop at JC Penney). Men also were subject to humiliation and to the sadistic gaze of the audience, of course. There was one episode that I loved because when the peroxide blonde and heavily made up mom came out to greet her family one of her babies literally burst into tears! The kid did not recognize the creature picking him up to hug him.

It was an awesome moment of real reality within reality TV.

Of course, in Spain they don't need this because they have a system whereby bus tours are organized to bring in immigrant females to depopulated rural towns in the middle of nowhere to marry Spanish men. So Cubans, Dominicans and others, usually much younger than the men they end up with, get a chance at citizenship that way.


Show seeks to love match migrants and U.S. citizens
Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:47pm EST

PHOENIX (Reuters) - A Los Angeles company is touting a new reality game show called "Who Wants to Marry a U.S. Citizen" that aims to create televised matrimony between legal citizens and immigrants who have temporary visas.

The show's backers at Morusa Media hope to make a sort of love match between reality TV and a national obsession with immigration. But the producers make no promise that a marriage will occur or lead to U.S. citizenship.

Show creator Adrian Martinez said that Morusa Media has not yet found a network to produce or air the show, but he is currently in talks with one cable TV network and already has signed up contestants for six episodes.

"It's this generation's 'Dating Game,' but with a twist -- it aims to show love knows no borders," Martinez told Reuters.

As in the "Dating Game," which ran on network TV for more than two decades starting in the 1960s, a single U.S. citizen gets to ask contestants various questions. Toward the end of the show, he or she decides which one to select as a potential mate.

So far, most of the contestants are Hispanic immigrants, although at least one is from the Philippines, Martinez said.

In a statement, Morusa said that while it does not guarantee marriage or legal status, it will pay for a wedding party and honeymoon should a marriage result.

"We're just out to play matchmaker," said the show's host, Angelo Gonzales. "There are thousands of U.S. citizens seeking a spouse, and just as many immigrants seeking the same. So we want to make it a win-win situation for all involved."

Reuters/Nielsen http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN3031650320071201?rpc=24&sp=true

Real NY Housewives (season 1): No One Does Their Research Better Than a Real New Yorker

Real NY Housewives: No One Does Their Research Better Than a Real New Yorker (originally posted April 13, 2008)

We know that New Yorkers have a reputation for being cosmopolitan, sophisticated, well-educated and traveled, street-smart and able to see through bullshit. So the Real New York Housewives should have braced themselves for the dark side of celebreality. I often wonder about the reality TV participants' intelligence. Are they not aware that when they speak to the "confessional" hidden camera that it is akin to an aside in a play -the audience can hear it and so can your reality TV cohorts!!!! Perhaps I am too naive to realize that they know this all too well and are seeking further protagonism by airing their beefs on camera and then remembering them in the inevitable "Reunion" show.

Similarly, thanks to the Big Brotherish research potential of the internet, we can all learn fascinating tidbits about them through and via the web. See the comments posted on the New York Magazine blog (url below) for bitchy insults and revelations about debts on property, nude photos and more! Sites like Property.shark (like HGTV, crack for those of us obsessed with real estate) and others allow us to spy on our neighbors or on our reality TV representatives!

Like me, most of the writers critique the women for not being "real" enough, they pretend to be the city's elite but we find them woefully vulgar and trashy. But what real NY billionaire would consent to this type of invasion of privacy - besides Donald Trump? And aren't the Real Housewives of Orange County also equally vulgar and mediocre? Maybe it's that as New Yorkers we want to be represented by women who seem more intelligent, better dressed and interesting than their Orange County counterparts.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/03/the_ladies_of_real_housewives.html#comment_list_bottom

House Hunters

According to the Home & Garden TV site, "House Hunters takes viewers behind the scenes as individuals, couples and families learn what to look for and decide whether or not a home is meant for them. Focusing on the emotional experience of finding and purchasing a new home, each episode shows the process as buyers search for a home." Among many people I know, from my parents to friends my own age, this show is a cult hit. Although real estate shows in general have skyrocketed in popularity according to my anecdotal evidence, this one is the favorite. The bubbly host Suzanne Whang, with her signature head tilt/bob and huge smile, drives the narrative and re-creates it as it's happening either on or off camera as the voice over. The show has a reassuringly standard structure:

First you meet the real estate seeker and see where they live as they tell you the pros and cons. Anyone with the least bit of curiosity will love the chance to see how a stranger lives. You "meet" their real estate agent and get to see what the buyer's wants are, including price range. You see the buyers and their agent visit 3 or 4 homes. At each they see the entire property and you see them discussing it including the price.

Common comments are: I (like / hate) the wall color, window treatments, flooring, kitchen appliances etc. Terms that were unfamiliar to me years ago such as crown molding, great room, bonus room, window treatment (hello? what about just curtains or blinds?), California King beds (everyone is bigger in the US so we need a mattresss larger than King size!), ensuite master bath, Jack & Jill bath (where a bath is open to two bedrooms on either side, like they had in The Brady Bunch for the boys and girls). Many of these comments are absurd because if you buy the freaking property you can paint, change the drapes ect. but of course they are also realistic because one does tend to waste time focusing on those details instead on how large a closet is or how noisy it is outside. After the first home they cut to commercials. Then they return and REPEAT what just happened in edited form, just in case in the 1-2 minute interval you somehow forgot. Then you see the same procedure repeated for two or three additional homes.

Another commercial break and AGAIN they repeat and summarize. You see the buyers discussing the pros and cons of each place, which entails yet another synopsis of what they saw. They then sign an offer contract somewhere like on top of a car in a parking lot, in a park, at a cafe, but never at the agent's office which is really how it is done. (my father is in real estate so I know). Following this, the buyers' options are recapitulated in a voice over by Whang, and they tell you which house they ended up with. Finally, you see them in the new home: their new decoration, their new habits, often having a party where the agent is a guest.

Perfect Closure. Always a Happy Ending. Buying Property is the ultimate end for an American. Rarely do they discuss bidding wars and never do they show the actual back and forth of negotiations between the agents. No one ever regrets their purchases. Often they discuss the purchase as a "Starter Home" and openly anticipate selling it in the near to later term. The desiderata for the Ideal Kitchen is always the same: Granite counters, stainless steel appliances. For flooring it is almost always wood.

Although in many ways the messages sent are very conservative, you have to own property, and conflicts are smoothed over, in other ways the show can be read as slightly subversive. Many of the people featured are gay or interracial couples, most are not weatlhy, for example. Whis is why recently I was floored when they presented a married couple living on an Army Base who home-school their kids and are seeking a home off base and near their Church. The children dress in little baby camo outfits as does the dad of course, and their home's window treatments were done in US Flag-patterned bunting!!!! Terrifying.

There's a spin-off show called House Hunters International which allows us to fantasize about moving abroad. But I find it particularly annoying to say the least because it's all about rich Americans buying up cheap property in often less-developed countries and having the privilege to parachute into a luxury (usually tropilcal resort type) lifestyle. They often they work from home, and you see them eating papaya at their laptop and walking on the beach, hanging out with other expats and of course their broker at the end of the episode. Most often they move down to these places for the weather and scenery without knowing anything about the culture and language. Examples of places they tend to go are Costa Rica or Honduras. They also have shows where rich tacky Americans buy lavish homes in the center of Paris, or people from the UK buy up properties in Spain, which really irritates me, because again, they have no knowlege of the language or culture for the most part, but can afford to buy property there because of their strong currency.

Discussing the show's narrative arc at a party a few months ago led several (then) 30-somethings to hysterical laughter as we realized that if you want to know what is happening on a given episode you don't need to watch the entire half hour, you can tune in at around 25 minutes and see a recapitulation of the episode and shortcut your way to the money shot: when they reveal the house selected. Of course this led us to consider that they know their audience: thirty to forty somethings with short attention spans and short term memory issues (let's not say any more about the whys) and retirees!!

They rarely feature NY but rather focus on small town America, though they did a week of (ridiculously expensive) NYC house hunting hosted by the repellent Star Jones. I can attest to the fact that MY experience with House Hunting in NYC was nothing like what I saw then.

In fact, my "journey" was featured in a less-popular venue for our collective real estate ownership obsession, the New York Post. Whis was fitting because I used to play a game with colleagues at an old job of trying to one-up their ridiculously tasteless bad cover and article title puns (one time I suggested "It's not over till the Arafat lady sings" as the Palestinian leader was about to meet his maker). I was delighted that in the same issue where the article about my house hunt appeared was the following headline: "Good `BI' Norma Jean: Marilyn's lesbian fling with Joan Crawford revealed."

In order to "protect" my anonymity, identifying details are missing from the article below.
_________________
My New Home
The New York Post - sometime in the 2000s
Author: Max Gross


Yes, it would have been nice to buy a co-op in the early '90s. We'd be all paid up by now and the only thing we'd have to worry about is the maintenance. But, as Petite Maoiste found out, maintenance charges are nothing to scoff at.

Petite bought her 700-square-foot West Village one-bedroom in 1991, when the market was at a low ebb. Working on her PhD in art history, she blissfully sat back as the value of her co-op soared.

But about two years ago, thanks to numerous repairs, Petite noticed that maintenance was shooting up. What had been a bargain was now costing half of her take-home pay in maintenance charges alone. (Petite, who will begin teaching at large university in the fall, was working at a large museum as a curator [sic] assistant at the time.)

And while many New Yorkers would sell their parents into slavery to stay in the Village, she grew disenchanted. "When I moved in it was really a bohemian neighborhood. But when you have an Olive Garden opening on Sixth Avenue, it starts to be, 'Why did I leave the suburbs again?'"

Buying however, turned into a yearlong ordeal.

"I wanted to sell, and take the money and turn around and buy something," Petite says. "But I couldn't take the time - with my job - to sell and then sublet and then look for a place to buy."

So she tried for simultaneous transactions, telling co-op boards she'd buy with cash from her sale. But boards didn't want to chance that her place might not sell. She looked at between 50 and 60 co-ops and found no board willing to accept her - or she got outbid.

Petite finally settled on a co-op whose board accepted her, although it was just half the size of her old place.

"I was basically panicking," says Petite, who liked the prewar building but had concerns about the apartment's size.

Fortunately, the buyer that Petite found for her old apartment was rejected without even interviewing with the board.

Six months later, when Petite went to visit her sister in [lovely Brooklyn neighborhood], she met her sister's real-estate broker, [nice man working for a large real estate company]. He urged Petite to consider Brooklyn.

At first, Brooklyn was just as formidable as Manhattan. "I went to one apartment that was a fixer-upper, and it was a dark winter night," Petite says. "When I got there the broker said, 'I apologize, but there's no light.' I was literally wandering around the apartment with my Hello Kitty flashlight."

It didn't stop her from making a bid that same night - she didn't get it.

But Petite benefited from an optimistic broker. "He kept saying, 'You should upgrade.'" her broker began showing her bigger co-ops, and in March he found a two-bedroom and a sizable living room that she fell in love with on a leafy green street in [a lovely neighborhood]. She made her bid and got it.

"You know 'The Price is Right'?" says Petite. "I felt like I had just gotten a showcase."
_________________________

The search was tremendously stressful though I can't really complain since at the end of the day I am lucky that I had property to sell!!!! But it is interesting that someone with valuable property cannot earn enough to pay the co-op fees and has to sell for that reason. This is quite common as real estate prices soar and is happening in my current builidng as well. Suddenly Manhattan transplants with a lot of money move to Brooklyn and decide their new building needs upgrades (the slightly worn pre-War charm of the Brooklyn buildings isn't enough for them). These require co-op fee increases and/or assessments, which means shareholders with less money have been living in the co-op for years are not able to remain and sell to yet more Manhattan transplants. In my current building in about 3 years, the monthly maintenance has gone up over 30%. But I have a different job now so it is nowhere near half of my take home pay like it was in Manhattan, for now.

The disturbing thing about this dynamic is that, just as my prior building had racially and class-diverse shareholders, all of whom (including me) sold between 1998-2005, in my new racially and class-diverse historically African-American neighborhood, many of the African-Americans are selling and moving away. I truly felt like the end of the world was near when I saw the first nanny in my building. The people at my subway stop are also changing, some look like they belong in the Upper East Side or in a J. Crew ad. It worries me that just like it is now pretty much impossible for teachers, artists, and lower middle class and even middle class people to live anywhere in Manhattan, that in my new neighborhood this will soon be the case.

My broker and I were recruited by House Hunters, but sadly by the time we replied, someone else had already accepted. I would have killed to be featured on that show, mostly to know how they do it logistically speaking because this is not "reality" and they must reconstruct the entire thing but I cannot figure out how they orchestrate this!

http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/shows_hnt
Posted by Petite Maoiste at 11:20 AM Dec. 8 2007

Real Housewives New York -Season One

Real Housewives New York (originally posted in April 2008

From The New York Post's PAGE SIX:

'housewives' Go Really Batty
THE women on "The Real Housewives of New York City" nearly clawed each other's eyes out behind the scenes on the recently taped reunion special airing next week. Bravo host Andy Cohen interviewed the five women about the show's first season. All was fine until an hour in, when bitter wife Ramona Singer stormed off the stage and refused to return. "She didn't like Andy asking her about not inviting Jill Zarin to a dinner party," said one insider. Single housewife Bethenny Frankel stuck up for Singer on camera, saying they shouldn't bash her if she's not there to defend herself. "Ramona heard Bethenny say her name and started screaming from the side of the stage, 'Don't you speak for me,' and that's when it got heated," said our source. "Bethenny confronted her off camera, saying 'Who do you think you are, Madonna?' - because Ramona had been demanding outrageous things from the hair and makeup people." Fights also broke out between Zarin and Singer and Alex McCord and Singer. "Ramona is the most hated person in New York right now," said our spy. A show rep had no comment.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04182008/gossip/pagesix/pagesix_u.htm

Obama Infomercial

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2008
Obama's Infomercial

Obama's Infomercial just aired and I could not tear myself away, but let's face it, I drank the Kool-Aid long long ago! Now I'm not really an infomercial type of girl, the last one I enjoyed was for Mirta de Perales' champu de placenta y crema de colageno back in the day, the beauty guru of Puerto Rico and Latin America showcased her Chicas Mirta, who with their hair tosses showed off their "good hair" - straight, glossy and manageable.

Obama's infomercial was a good piece of propaganda. To begin with, he looked "presidential," he had the iconic "American" images - wheat fields and the like. Rather than doing a collage of clips from his speeches where he made references to "everyday Americans" to prove a point in a folksy manner, he cut in mini-stories featuring average working Americans. These were similar to a reality TV show, showing you their "unedited" daily life as you hear a voice over about an issue they are confronting. The families were chosen strategically to reflect issues facing those in swing states, and general themes of the campaign: keeping jobs at home, sustainability and green efforts, access to education and healthcare, retirees' security, and the like. The "closure" however, does not happen in a "confessional" or in a studio after the fact in the requisite reunion show. Rather, it is delivered to us by Obama, who tells us what he will do to solve the American families' problems.

There are also the requisite "talking-head testimonials" that you would expect of an abs-ercizer infomercial at 3AM. But the testifying heads don't have the telling "paid endorsement" as Erik Estrada might when urging you to buy land in TN, no FL, no AK, they are Senators and Governors of swing states. Nice.

There are also spliced in videos of interviews and "behind the scenes" - Barack un-plugged as it were - of him, Michelle and the girls. Those looked like a slick sitcom, the panning across the family in their home, the pulling out, soft-golden-lit, as they burst out in laughter at a joke you are not in on, but that fills you with reassurance. The nuclear family! To those of us who have sat, riveted, throughout the campaign, we recognize the iconic moments from his campaign and his self-created aura including the big Democratic Convention speech in Boston.

In a moment of genius, the infomercial ends with a dramatic cut-away to a LIVE campaign rally in Florida, where you see an enraptured crowd, lots of flags, the brilliant Obama brand logo everywhere, constantly morphing....HOPE, CHANGE, PROGRESS, and now VOTE. And Obama goes for the drama, in six days....in six days...in six days. Call, volunteer, vote. This is not about me, it's about you. Thank you. I was tearing up. And this is the message he is giving to those of us who volunteer through his precinct leaders (I was part of a conference call to prep me for get out the vote in a swing state, I told you I drank the Kool Aid!), don't become complacent, don't assume we'll win, work hard, this is not about me, it's about you.

Six days, I don't know if I will survive the stress, I want to wake up from this nightmare of anxiety on November 5 and know that we won once and for all!

WORK OUT (your lesbian fantasies)

I already wrote about WORK OUT a few days ago (under "Real Housewives" things I love right now) but today I read a New York Times article about the cult of personality around Jackie. According to the article, straight housewives are her biggest fans and many say they have crushes on her and that they would swing her way.

Jackie thinks many of these women are closet cases who, thanks to her, have realized that they are missing out. Other hypotheses are that the women want to BE her, they feel envy for her perfect (?!??) body and assertive personality and successful business. I could see how some women might see Jackie as an ideal: confident, charismatic, determined, successful, seemingly unfettered by societal norms, aggressive sexually. It's sad to think that some women might feel that they cannot be any of those things and therefore have to live vicariously through her!

Another interesting facet of the article is that with characteristic narcissism, Jackie says that she thinks that the men on the show envy her for taking what they feel entitled to, the best looking straight trainer on staff (romantic drama of last season, now she has another girl-toy). It doesn't occur to her that one man is her gay sidekick and feels left out, and that the whole staff found it inappropriate and unethical to see her having an affair with an employee. She was aping the sexual harassment power dynamic that men normally perpetuate.

The writer does not consider that Jackie's soft butch persona might be a non-threatening image for straight women who may or may not be potentially attracted to other women. This is instead of a very butch woman, who in many cases elicits homophobic reactions. Nor do the writer or Jackie consider that some women (including this one) are bisexual. The dirty little secret in both the gay "community" and among heterosexuals. No one wants to go there. Mistrusted by both as an interloper who won't pick sides, characterized as promiscuous, deceitful, or, as an internally homophobic closet case by many gay women, an object of exotic titillation for straight men, and secretly fetishized by other lesbians as hard-to-get objects (although "converting" a straight woman is a much more prestigious achievement), most often bisexuals just don't exist.

In any case, even if I were not a "hasbean" already I would never go there. I don't find her attractive at all mainly because of her narcissistic personality. Mostly I watch with shame as one would when staring at a car crash, worrying that this is one of the few representations of gay women on television. Her, and that horrible Tequila woman who sadly was allegedly attracted to both men and women. At least we always have Ellen. And Oprah. And Hillary Clinton. And Condi Rice. Oh, sorry the last three are not gay. Right.

Aside from all of my sanctimonious breast-beating, maybe I secretly love Jackie too, because while watching WORK-OUT with my poor homophobic mother, who knows all about me, Jackie made out with her employee, Rebecca and so my mom had to be exposed to her first girl-on-girl kiss. Thanks, Jackie, for being there.

FASHION & STYLE
For Housewives, She’s the Hot Ticket
By STEPHANIE ROSENBLOOM
Published: April 13, 2008
Jackie Warner, the lesbian fitness trainer in the Bravo reality series “Work Out," has become the subject of many housewives' crushes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/fashion/13trainer.html?ex=1365739200&en=f18d7bbe789de853&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

BRAVO TV Site http://www.bravotv.com/Work_Out/season/3/index.php