Recently, I had the chance to watch parts of The Exhibit: Finding the Next Great Artist, a reality show produced by MTV and the Smithsonian Channel. The series features seven artists competing for a $100,000 prize and an exhibition at the Hirshhorn Museum. My experience was a bit fragmented, as I didn’t have access to the full episodes and was interrupted by frequent ads. Despite this, I found some aspects of the show intriguing. The artists were undeniably talented, creative thinkers, and I was impressed by how supportive they were of one another, despite the competitive nature of the show. If there were any intense moments of rivalry, they were either edited out or simply happened off-camera. I suspect the camaraderie was real, but I couldn’t shake the feeling that this show still followed the familiar format of other reality TV programs, such as American Idol or Top Chef.
At its core, The Exhibit didn’t do much to set itself apart from the thousands of other reality TV shows that dominate television. The producers managed to select a diverse group of contestants who are genuine artists. Four of the seven are people of color, and Misha Kahn, the only white male contestant, presents as non-heteronormative. The contestants are given meaningful themes to work with, such as gender, social media, and the pandemic, and the interviews with them are refreshingly candid. But, still, there’s something that feels off. Shouldn’t these artists have been a little more guarded or cautious, considering the stakes? The closest moment to that was when Jillian Mayer humorously responded to a question about her hormone therapy with “Are you a narc?”
The structure of the show follows the standard reality TV formula: moments of the artists creating their work, testimonials about their experiences, glimpses into their personal lives, and judges deliberating. The camera work is conventional, almost bland, aiming to make the art feel accessible and not too alienating to mainstream audiences.
I’m unsure whether the producers hoped to elevate the art world by focusing on the creative process and presenting a diverse group of artists. It seems to me that, like so much reality TV today, the format is more important than the content. This trend has been around for a while; I remember in the 1990s, I organized public conversations between artists in New York City. The interviews felt stale—everyone asking the same questions and giving similar responses. My aim was to turn interviews into genuine conversations. There’s even a fascinating moment in a Jean Genet interview where he refuses to answer questions and instead interviews the cameraman. Unfortunately, this video seems to have disappeared from the internet.
For the young artists on The Exhibit, it seems that there’s little distinction between participating in a reality TV show and having a museum exhibition. Both are forms of public exposure—the ultimate goal for many artists today. The show portrays artists as just another group of contestants on a talent show like America’s Got Talent, blurring the lines between artistic expression and mainstream entertainment. It suggests that visual artists aren’t all that different from reality TV stars, and perhaps it’s pretentious to think otherwise.
In the past, I would have argued that most artists spend their time in isolation, working without a clear end goal or external validation. The solitude of the creative process was often accompanied by a sense of alienation, a necessary trade-off for freedom. But I’m starting to wonder if that mindset is outdated. Today, many artists seem content to create without worrying about the context in which their work will be received. Social media and shows like The Exhibit provide a platform for artists to gain recognition. But can there be unintended consequences when public exposure becomes the primary objective? What does it say about the value of art when an exhibition at a prestigious museum like the Hirshhorn is treated as a prize on a reality show?
