The premise behind "Faking It" was pretty unique and I'm surprised that the American public has not really jumped on the bandwagon - - we all know how important reality TV is in the States!! It was interesting that they were able to use a goal as "deep" as passing as a "real" artist instead of the usual and mundane beauty paegeant queen or rock superstart. However, as I watched the show, I began to wonder why they used the term "real artist". Why is his work with paint in rooms and on houses not "real"? If it is not real, is it then superficial or made up? In painting these rooms, he has created something new and refreshing in the sense that he has provided the room with a new look. And if anyone has tried painting a room, there is a certain art associated with making it look aesthetically pleasing. But cause this room cannot be analyzed in terms of a meaning behind it, paint on a house does not seem to be "real" art. Is that a criteria we must have to define art as "real" - - a deeper meaning with a hidden agenda? I do not know if that would be the only criteria, but I do feel as if it has come to a point where it is definitely one the main criteria in today's art world.

As far as my prediction as to the outcome of the show, I feel as if he will pass the test as a real and true artist that belongs in a gallery. His background as a painter gives him a basis for working with paints and other such mediums, and from what we have seen so far, he seems to have picked up new techniques well. I think that there is a lot of room in today's art world as to what actually makes and defines an artist, and this variation leaves room for newcomers. Although I think that he will pass the test and successfully fool people into believing he was made for galleries and exhibitions, I do not think that his success will bring us any closer to the definition of a real artist and what is real artwork.