Perhaps it was inevitable. As cultural figures (think Susan Boyle) are increasingly selected by way of reality TV panel, maybe it was only natural that Charles Saatchi, superstar art collector and patron, would get in on the act. The co-founder of global advertising agency Saatchi and Saatchi has produced his own show, à la “American Idol” and “The Apprentice”, except for young contemporary artists. The four part show on BBC2, “School of Saatchi”, follows the selection of 12 artists, who are already whittled down to six by the end of the first episode. The six artists will benefit from a 10 week course and studio space and the eventual winner (the final episode is on December 14) will win a solo show at the Hermitage in Saint Petersburg and a studio in London for three years.

The Saatchi Gallery, Chelsea London. Source: Wikimedia

The show is overseen by a Saatchi panel, made up of Matthew Collings (critic and author), Tracey Emin (artist), Kate Bush (curator at the Barbican) and Frank Cohen (collector) and the conspicuously absent Mr. Saatchi. “Sadly, I don’t have Simon Cowell’s looks or charm, so it’s best if I don’t push my luck”, he told the Times. Instead of appearing on camera, his opinions are relayed through his gallery staff. Sometimes a photo of Saatchi appears on screen when he is mentioned in the voice-over, accompanied by an intense soundtrack, not unlike the eye of Sauron in Lord of the Rings. This is perhaps a little over the top (though so far he hasn’t been shown surrounded by fire), but Saatchi is still a powerful influence in the art world, so maybe his aura alone is enough.

“School of Saatchi” may be a new take on reality TV, but it does not represent a sea change in the way artists are viewed nowadays. There is nothing new about artists competing for the attention of patrons, and celebrity is certainly not new to the contemporary art world. Artists like Hirst, Koons and Murakami are not tortured geniuses; they are wily, media-savvy money spinners, who’ve already turned their lives into a Wharholesque reality show.

Stuckists demonstrating at the 2001 Turner Prize. Source: Wikimedia commons

Meanwhile, at Tate Britain in London, the Turner Prize, another event that has become associated with media hype and celebrity artists, will be awarded this Monday. The Turner prize is the most important contemporary art prize in Britain. It is also the most ridiculed, judging by the angry and sarcastic responses it garners every year. In 2001, when Martin Creed won with his installation “The Lights Going On and Off” (literally just that), artist Jacqueline Crofton threw eggs at it in disgust and in 2002 graffiti artist Banksy tagged “mind the crap” on the gallery steps. Hostility towards the prize has also inspired art movements like the Stuckists, who came together to promote figurative rather than conceptual art, and to protest the Turner Prize and Charles Saatchi’s protégés. And then there’s the Turnip Prize, a satirical award, which also takes place this week in Somerset.  Awards will be given to artists based on three criteria: “lack of effort”, “alliteration or pun used in title” and “is it shit?”.

The Guardian’s art critic, Adrian Searle, says he’s looking forward to a “quieter” Turner prize this year that concentrates on the art rather than the artists, adding that many artists don’t want to be part of the Turner Prize because of the media hubbub surrounding it. Moving away from the tradition of outrageousness, this year’s Turner Prize nominees, on show at Tate Britain until January 3, are not providing the media with any obvious bait. Enrico David’s collaged papier maché installations  came the closest to sensational with a small image of a bare bottom in one of the collages. Roger Hiorns has created an ethereal floor stain out of metal dust from a melted down jet engine, Lucy Skaer’s installation references Brancusi and incorporates a whale skull, and Richard Wright’s delicate but vast wall-paintings have also attracted a lot of attention. These works are intriguing and stand on their own without requiring any knowledge of the artists as people. Coincidentally, Jonathan Jones, the Guardian’s other art critic and panel judge for this year’s prize, recently posted a piece on this same point—that it’s the work that is remembered and not the artist. Is that really the case though? Judging by the torrent of comments he received for his post, it is not as simple as that.

You might wonder whether TV audiences are going to remember the art, the artists or simply the drama of watching “School of Saatchi”. But with this type of TV show, it’s the big personalities that really make it. As the selected six embark on their first Saatchi commission to create a piece of public art for the British seaside town of Hastings, the entertainment value lies in the way they manage, or not, to work together. The volatile, perfectionist and camp Saad Qureshi and the elusive, insolent Eugenie Scrase are much more entertaining than their quite average work. While the Turner Prize limps on despite the ridicule and outrage, perhaps Saatchi has simply lost the plot. As the Times points out, he has fallen on the Art Review’s power list from number 14 in 2008 to number 72 in 2009. He was also mentioned in the Economist’s special report on the art market last week as an example of a mere “collector-dealer”, who invests in art but has lost his “prestige” by selling the work off too quickly. Ouch. Maybe he should stick to collecting real art and leave reality TV to Simon Cowell.