Sometimes the Fantasy is Better.

Wanting to meet an author because you like what they write is like wanting to meet a duck because you like paté.

I recently came across the above quotation by Margaret Atwood and I share the sentiment. I’ve never had a urge to meet any of the authors, actors or public figures I hold in high esteem. I’m always afraid their reality won’t match my fantasy and my fantasy will falter. Since there’s no chance I’m ever going to have any sort of personal relationship with any of these people, I’d just as soon hang on to the fantasy.

I remember when Burt Reynolds was divorcing Loni Anderson back in the early nineties. At the time, he was starring in Evening Shade, a great television show in which he appeared as a charming, attractive, convivial middle-aged man. Gone was his cocky, youthful playboy persona and this character was a pleasure to watch. Unfortunately the real man was completely unable to keep his mouth shut regarding his private life and a lot of really ugly comments he was busy making about his soon-to-be ex came to light. It was so nasty I was unable to watch the show any longer.

Sarah Ban Breathnach relates how when she went she out on tour to promote her wonderful book Simple Abundance, many of her fans were disappointed by the real her. They’d built up their own image of an earth mother-type woman in long skirts and Earth shoes and the reality of her Manolo Blahniks and pencil skirts took many of them aback. “You’re not my Sarah”, one of her fans said to her in dismay. It’s funny but true, we create an image of the people we come into “virtual” contact with and the reality doesn’t always measure up.

Yesterday I read an entertainment blurb on yet another ugly outburst by Mel Gibson, this one directed at an ex-girlfriend. He was such a cutie. I loved him in all the Mad Max movies and the Lethal Weapons. I was impressed with his work in Braveheart, The Man Without a Face and The Year of Living Dangerously. I’ve always been a fan. Now I doubt I’ll watch anything he’s involved with again. In the same way I can’t watch a Heath Ledger movie without being sad, I won’t be able to watch Gibson without being disgusted.

I’m not a sports fan but that world abounds with examples of accomplished athletes who turn out to be not very good people. Tiger Woods is only the latest example.

I don’t want to know anything bad about the people whose work I enjoy. I don’t want to know that, a la Jack Nicholson in As Good As It Gets, my favorite author is a jerk or that my favorite movie star is a wife-beating drunk. The allure of autographs completely escapes me. I’d rather keep my distance and keep my fantasies intact.

Do you want to meet the people whose work you hold in high esteem? What do you get out of it? If you have met any of them, did they measure up?

What is Shocking?

In the world of reality competition shows, Bravo has a pretty good track record. Top Chef and Project Runway, which originally aired on the cable channel, are huge hits. Misses notwithstanding, when Bravo premiers a new one I’m willing to give it a chance.

This season their new offering is Work of Art. Following the usual format, each week the contestants are presented with a quick challenge and then a bigger elimination challenge, at the end of which one of them is kicked off the show. Whether or not this format really lends itself to the creation of art, the show is interesting enough for me to have come back for a second look.

Last night the main challenge had to do with creating a piece that would shock. It was up to each individual contestant to decide how to interpret the challenge. Unfortunately almost all of them decided that shocking was synonymous with sexual. Shock is of course subjective and relative but a piece meant to shock is certainly a piece meant to provoke thought and consideration on the part of the viewer.

Does a cartoon image of a man performing a sexual act with himself provoke thought and conversation? How about nude, low resolution photographs of a shapely young woman? They might make Playboy come calling but will they stay with the gallery patron after he or she leaves the show? Could these young artists think of nothing more shocking than sex?

Perhaps the constraint of time didn’t allow for deep, thoughtful consideration. After the show I spent some time thinking about other areas they could have explored and what works of art I have seen that shocked or provoked thought from me. A piece reflective of man’s inhumanity to man, for example, stays with me a lot longer than a post-coital male face with an extension cord around it’s neck. Walker Evan’s photographs of poverty in the South in the 20’s and 30’s and Baldwin Lee’s similar photographs taken in the 80’s have a much more profound impact on me than a bunch of intertwined genitalia.

The most shocking piece I’ve ever seen was a large impressionist painting featuring horses hanging head down from meat hooks. Different things shock different people but that image has stayed with me for a long time. I’ve gone back three times to look at it and think about it. I can’t imagine any of the pieces in last night’s episode provoking that sort of reaction from me.

Although the piece that won fell a little short, it was one of only three whose creator tried to engage in any sort of social commentary. I hope the other artists thought about that a little after the episode wrapped. I’ll probably tune in next week but I’m making no promises about sticking out the entire season.

Images can make a powerful statement. What shocks you? What provokes thought? What provokes action?