Time Magazine’s Carolina A. Miranda, (AKA C-Monster) talks to me and a bunch of other professionals about the art world’s reception of Work of Art, for Time Magazine. Long story short: it’s a train wreck at least one of us will watch another season of. As it turns out that person is me. This week’s episode’s recap in the pipes.
{ 12 comments }
The comments after the article demonstrate a schism that a show as pedestrian as this one cannot bridge.
The comments after the article demonstrate a schism that a show as pedestrian as this one cannot bridge.
The comments after the article demonstrate a schism that a show as pedestrian as this one cannot bridge.
The comments after the article demonstrate a schism that a show as pedestrian as this one cannot bridge.
It was a good article, and I was surprised that the first season of Work of Art has experienced such respectable viewership. Perhaps we’ll see some tinkering in the next season to make us a little little happier. Then again, it wouldn’t be quite so campy, would it.
It was a good article, and I was surprised that the first season of Work of Art has experienced such respectable viewership. Perhaps we’ll see some tinkering in the next season to make us a little little happier. Then again, it wouldn’t be quite so campy, would it.
It was a good article, and I was surprised that the first season of Work of Art has experienced such respectable viewership. Perhaps we’ll see some tinkering in the next season to make us a little little happier. Then again, it wouldn’t be quite so campy, would it.
It was a good article, and I was surprised that the first season of Work of Art has experienced such respectable viewership. Perhaps we’ll see some tinkering in the next season to make us a little little happier. Then again, it wouldn’t be quite so campy, would it.
You know, I was mostly interested in the ratings picture the article briefly glossed over. It says the show has been a “modest” success with 1.2 million viewers, then concedes that number is only half of Top Chef’s audience. Then it goes on to say the Project Runway “only” had a million viewers its first season, neglecting to mention that PR was Bravo’s first stab at the reality-competiton genre, back when the network’s viewership overall was probably smaller than today. I may be wrong, but I just don’t see the numbers there for a second season of WoA.
You know, I was mostly interested in the ratings picture the article briefly glossed over. It says the show has been a “modest” success with 1.2 million viewers, then concedes that number is only half of Top Chef’s audience. Then it goes on to say the Project Runway “only” had a million viewers its first season, neglecting to mention that PR was Bravo’s first stab at the reality-competiton genre, back when the network’s viewership overall was probably smaller than today. I may be wrong, but I just don’t see the numbers there for a second season of WoA.
You know, I was mostly interested in the ratings picture the article briefly glossed over. It says the show has been a “modest” success with 1.2 million viewers, then concedes that number is only half of Top Chef’s audience. Then it goes on to say the Project Runway “only” had a million viewers its first season, neglecting to mention that PR was Bravo’s first stab at the reality-competiton genre, back when the network’s viewership overall was probably smaller than today. I may be wrong, but I just don’t see the numbers there for a second season of WoA.
You know, I was mostly interested in the ratings picture the article briefly glossed over. It says the show has been a “modest” success with 1.2 million viewers, then concedes that number is only half of Top Chef’s audience. Then it goes on to say the Project Runway “only” had a million viewers its first season, neglecting to mention that PR was Bravo’s first stab at the reality-competiton genre, back when the network’s viewership overall was probably smaller than today. I may be wrong, but I just don’t see the numbers there for a second season of WoA.
Comments on this entry are closed.