Sparrow
Veteran
... another, and lesser universe? it sounds like a bit of jealousy to me ... as for the paintings, they look like they were made by the finest singer-songwriter of the modern era, who's doesn't paint to quite the same standard
I love Dylan's genius which is music ... this stuff matters little to me personally.
Do the gods have to be perfect ... as for Joni Mitchell's comments saying he is not authentic! 🙄
Joni is a genius in her own right IMO but where did that blast come from?
Is this freedom?
A few years ago I watched a documentary on BD in the early years of his career, during the peace movement, Joan Biaz was there too. What struck me the most was the opportunity he passed on to have a prominent if not leadership role in this movement. A lot of people were hoping and waiting for him to step up, but he didn't, disappointing a lot of people.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/bob-dylan-no-direction-home/
The thing about Dylan is he's fallible ... He's done albums that I haven't liked much and as a person he leaves me a little non plussed but I still think he's the most significant singer/songwriter of our time.
Yes, and commericalism. It's in the gallery because the gallery thinks they can sell it.
A few years ago I watched a documentary on BD in the early years of his career, during the peace movement, Joan Biaz was there too. What struck me the most was the opportunity he passed on to have a prominent if not leadership role in this movement. A lot of people were hoping and waiting for him to step up, but he didn't, disappointing a lot of people.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/bob-dylan-no-direction-home/
As Juan mentioned above, they're not copies nor photocopies. A copy is "a thing made just like another"
At first this would suggest that a "copy" would be a black and white photograph.
Since Dylans paintings are 1. in color. 2. Not accurate in detail. they are interpretations.
I don't know if this is an apple/orange comparison but wasn't a LOT of Warhols work "borrowed" and given a new interpretation?
Maybe they are not exact, as in absolutely exactly to the last pixel the same, but still very close to it. The thing is they were put out there as being his personal observations of life in Asia, which they are very clearly not. I'm interested in this because of his stature as an artist in his own right, yet still feeling compelled to appropriate things and then say they are his own! why would he need/want to do this? and why wouldn't he, of all people, want to pay some note to the actual creators of the images?
Perhaps it's not easy to go on with this thread without adding to its speculative smell... At the risk of speculating again, I'd add: when you say "he", you might be wrong because instead of him, maybe it's some other people really who are involved in that description of what his paintings are about in general... A bit more speculation: you enjoy trying to judge in public both his aesthetics (non creative artist) and his ethics (false human being)... With such deeply relevant artist at a world/historic level, you might be trying to stop the sun from shining by placing your hands on your eyes...
Cheers,
Juan
Yes Juan perhaps other people awere involved in that description, but in his interview he said "I" and then went on to say the works are etc etc. I don't really care what Dylan does, but he's only deeply relevant as a musician! and I wonder why being so he couldn't be gracious enough to pay homage to other deeply relevant visual artists who's work he copied! Just as other singers give credit to him when they sing his songs.
And lastly from me anyway 🙂 True covering ones eyes does not make the crap that exists in the world go away, but it (the world) can do without another f*ing celebrity painter, really.