Was this task fair?
Gothic-Dude
Posts: 2,048 Forum Member
✭✭✭
I mean Phoenix was at a disadvantage going into the task with only 4 sellers, while Sterling had 5 sellers.
I mean Phoenix would have won if they also had 5 sellers
I mean Phoenix would have won if they also had 5 sellers
0
Comments
But if they had sold one James piece, they would have blown them out of the water. The artists that they got were crucial, more so than the amount of sellers, imo.
Had Phoenix had the 10k client they may well have won.
Although I think Tom's superior attitude from the start- that he knew so much about street-art, as opposed to the rest of his team, was what scuppered them. Later, he seemed intent on proving to Pure Evil how much he knew, rather than praising the artist's work, which lost them their first choice of artist. Tom's desire to show how much he knew was what lost them the task.
In the words of the Tao-
"If you boast, you will have no merit. If you promote yourself, you will have no success." ~ Lao Tzu
If I were an artist in such a specialist field, I'd rather be represented by someone with enthusiasm for and expertise of the field in general, rather than be swayed by someone who I knew didn't have much of a clue, or any prior interest, blowing smoke up my a*se for the sole purpose of getting a commision.
It was said that the selling of modern art involves meeting buyers who are already interested to a degree and guiding them towards a sale - partly by talking them through the piece. I suspect that in the real world, rather than the totally artifcial environment of the task, someone like Tom would do better at this - certainly with the more expensive pieces.
In any normal environment I very much doubt that the sort of obsequious "suits you sir" selling that the other team adopted would work as well as discussing the piece with a knowledgeable salesman who clearly had a genuine interest and could give an informed opinion. The argument made in the show seemed to suggest that a buyer would have just as much confidence in the opinion of a clueless but effusive noob as they would in a more reserved expert, which given that many of the buyers have half an eye on trends and investment potential, seems scarcely credible.
I suspect this is one of the occasions where the show takes a little artistic licence for dramatic effect (no pun intended).
It's sometimes the case that the task is designed to test a certain set of skills or to uncover certain aptitudes, and yet the team that does less well in this aspect wins by a fluke, or on pure selling ability. If Sugar tells them to do something and they win despite ignoring his instructions, he should take that into account more.
The art task is always a bit random. Here both teams made bad mistakes, and it was really a toss-up who won. Had Tom bagged his big sale, he would have won easily. Yes, he did make a bit of a mess with his Pure Evil pitch - he could have shown more enthusiasm but establishing knowledge and credibility IS a good thing too.
Whatever the arguments over which team should have won/lost, we ended up losing one of the weaker candidates, so the end result turned out OK.
More analysis over on my blog this week at: http://slouchingtowardsthatcham.com/2012/05/10/the-apprentice-season-8-episode-8-street-art/
But did he really have that much knowledge. I know a little about graffiti art. Probably about as much as Tom. But to me he game across as somebody with not that much knowledge trying to impress by name dropping the few artists he had heard of. Like a schoolboy trying to impress a teacher or somebody at a job interview, interviewing for a job that was out of their depth. He certainly didn't should any understanding of the artist or ability to put all his name dropping in context of the artist he was supposed to be interested in.
Actually market trader and philistine Adam showed more intuition when it game to dealing with the artists and ability to put their art into context (after the first embarrassing meeting he had that is)
Nathan would have been fantastic for their corporate client though a bit on the inexpensive side if they had actually got their act together and managed to show them his work and the artist. It was a great idea of Gaby's to have the artist there creating work. I felt sorry for him that he didn't sell more.
His beefeaters would have really suited the gin company.
I think Nathan was a decent fit for Beefeater, as you say, but I think his work was too British and not French, sexy or innovative enough - which was what Renault asked for.
I was only talking about beefeater and Gaby's team. I'm not sure which artist would be best for Renault.
Yes, you were. Sorry. It's certainly a sign of how badly they messed up Beefeater that they didn't sell a single one of Nathan's pieces to them, Ridiculous - and lucky.
Depends which gin company it was
http://www.thewhiskyexchange.com/P-2243.aspx
But, then, Gabrielle had the actual artist on hand for one of her choices, and they sold almost nothing of his work.
I also think it's wise to compare what they actually did. Gabrielle didn't blow smoke up Pure Evil's arse, she talked enthusiastically about the work itself. Tom reeled off a short list of names of artists from America he'd heard of. Even Adam's approach of saying "I know nothing about art, but this is what I get from your work" is better than that, because it shows that the person is engaging with the work.
People aren't going to buy a picture because Tom has heard of Banksy. They might buy a picture because Adam can demonstrate to them that it has a certain depth, even if Adam is ignorant of the art world in general.
Did he establish knowledge and credibility, though? Seems to me that he didn't list artists that had any connection with Pure Evil's style, or even to the location in America he'd been, but listed artists purely on the basis of being from America. If anything, that's displaying his ignorance.
It's like as if a country musician had said that they'd travelled to Texas to immerse themselves in the country scene and Tom replied with "Selena Gomez is a musician from Texas".
Displaying knowledge would have been "your work reminds me of [artist], in the way you use a limited but vibrant palette, was he an influence?", rather than "I've heard of [artist]". It also shows an interest in and understanding of the work in question.
The thing is, them being too inexpensive needn't even have mattered. They could have sold them a series of paintings and arranged them in the space. Probably still not more than 4 or so, which would still have come in cheap at £3,000ish, but it still would have been something.
In fact, if anything, I think the task was unfair in that there was an artist that was such a good match for one company, but not one that was a particularly intuitive match for Renault. Sure, they ended up buying a Copyright because it was "sexy", but it didn't match what they said the most important criterion was - being French.
I thought this too! They should have either each got to pitch to both clients (meaning one team could possibly have won both clients) or they should have been pitching to clients willing to spend the same amount. It seems a bit unfair, in all other tasks both teams get to pitch for the same business, it's a massive advantage to give one team potentially double the business.