Art imitating Art: Dylan Paintings Draw Scrutiny

dave lackey said:
BTW, can we post a photo on RFF as in the OP without permission? No idea...
Click to expand...


Rule No. 6 - No Public Posting of Copyright Material
6) You will not upload, attach or post any material you are not the creator and/or copyright holder of. It is however acceptable to post links to publically accessible material.

Sadly, this rule is ignored generally. The rule respects the rights of photographers and should be vigorously enforced in my opinion. On the other hand I do recognize the mods are volunteers
 
This is appalling and Mr Dylan does not have a leg to stand on. I assume his legal position would be no less tenuous than the ethical one.
 
On Monday a press representative for the Gagosian Gallery said in a statement: “While the composition of some of Bob Dylan’s paintings is based on a variety of sources, including archival, historic images, the paintings’ vibrancy and freshness come from the colors and textures found in everyday scenes he observed during his travels.”
Click to expand...


"The paintings' vibracy and freshness". Well, then that puts it on a different plane from forgeries and plagiarism, it could be argued (in court, I'm sure). But then there's the sticky point of disclosure.

When Brahms copied other composers and styles, he didn't claim it was "firsthand" inspiration. When pointed out that a certain passage was just like something by Beethoven, he'd say "any ass can see that!" He never meant nor pretended that his works were "100%" his, when they weren't. Quotations, homages...all honest.

But when you try to pass a string quartet version of The Beatles' "Eleanor Rigby" as "firsthand" inspiration (or worse, no attribution, and even worse, feigning ignorance to the "similarities"), it should not be surprising that they won't take you seriously later on.

One thing is to quote. Another thing is to claim as "firsthand".

Or is it?
 
Last edited:
Pablito said:
Rule No. 6 - No Public Posting of Copyright Material
6) You will not upload, attach or post any material you are not the creator and/or copyright holder of. It is however acceptable to post links to publically accessible material.

Sadly, this rule is ignored generally. The rule respects the rights of photographers and should be vigorously enforced in my opinion. On the other hand I do recognize the mods are volunteers
Click to expand...

Often too grey an area to always be correct, but I do believe I am correct that no copyright has been violated as the laws allow for displaying an image for purpose of discussion. The images are properly identified and not claimed to be anything but what they are....

In any case I will point this out to Stephen and the other mods as we do tend to err on the side of conservatism re images.
 
dave lackey said:
BTW, can we post a photo on RFF as in the OP without permission? No idea...
Click to expand...

Unlike Downloading and posting as an attachment without attribution of a copyrighted work as seen here of Barry Z. Levine's copyrighted photo...


Rule No. 6 - No Public Posting of Copyright Material
6) You will not upload, attach or post any material you are not the creator and/or copyright holder of. It is however acceptable to post links to publically accessible material.
Click to expand...


The above is hotlinked from publicly accessible material from the NYT, and properly attributed above.

Inline linking

🙂🙂🙂🙂
 
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A. said:
The above is hotlinked from publicly accessible material from the NYT, and properly attributed above.
Click to expand...

an image appears here on RFF, certainly the HCB image is under ©

I have no problem with the link, I have a problem with seeing the copyrighted image here on RFF.

This rule #6 says links ok, images not ok.

I don't get the confusion; we are seeing images.

I don't see that it matters that the images are hotlinked, they appear here as images. The viewer would not know they are hotlinked. Not that it matters, but clicking on the images does not take you to the source, either.

But since the rule is violated all the time and it may be too much to ask mods to keep track, then maybe the rule should be changed. Personally, I think it's a good rule.

It may be inconvenient because certainly it's easier to discuss something when you can actually see it. But rule 6 upholds the basic principles of author's rights as represented by the copyright laws...
 
Last edited:
Quite a can of worms as far as forums go because no one has really a layman's point of view and/or a specifically stated rule that explains Fair Use, etc.

I look forward to RFF making a determination as I reckon 99 in 100 of all forum users don't really know what is really "legal". If too strict, then, even avatars will be changed to comply. Even too loose, who knows? Hopefully, there will be a clear understanding from Stephen somewhere in the middle.

:angel:
 
dave lackey said:
Quite a can of worms as far as forums go because no one has really a layman's point of view and/or a specifically stated rule that explains Fair Use, etc.

I look forward to RFF making a determination as I reckon 99 in 100 of all forum users don't really know what is really "legal". If too strict, then, even avatars will be changed to comply. Even too loose, who knows? Hopefully, there will be a clear understanding from Stephen somewhere in the middle.

:angel:
Click to expand...

wow, never thought about my avatar...
I just wanted to pay a tribute to someone I admire.
I would change it if there is anything unethical about that, though.
Do we have a clear policy about that?
 
A visual journal? Yeah right. And I'm Woody Guthrie!

A visual journal? Yeah right. And I'm Woody Guthrie!

The Gagosian described the show as being a "visual journal of [Dylan's] travels in Japan, China, Vietnam, and Korea", with "first-hand depictions of people, street scenes, architecture and landscape".

Yeah right. Dylan was always a fraud. A privileged boy who never engaged with the social movements he sang of other than plundering and appropriating their symbols and traditions.

Whether taking a principled public position over the civil rights movement or the Vietnam war, he talked the talk, (or sang the song), but never walked the walk. A habit attested to quite a number of times in interview by Joan Baez, who should know, being his ex girlfriend.

Mind you, a series of paintings showing the insides of luxury hotels, and brief scenes glimpsed from the window of chauffeur driven limousine as he is whisked between international airport, luxury hotel, gig venue and then back to airport, (which I suspect is more his level of engagement with the cultures he purports to paint), would not do much for the the credibility of the self serving myth of the hobo folk singer and spiritual heir to Woody Guthrie he has so carefully cultivated since the sixties.

As Frank Zappa, (an artist with more originality in his big toe than Dylan had in his entire body), sang as early as 1966 in his song Mo' Trouble Ev'ry Day from the album 'Freak Out':

"Gonna watch the rats go across the floor
And make up songs about being poor,
Blow your harmonica, son!"

He had Dylan sussed even then.

I look forward to the howls of protest from the Dylan acolytes and fanatics, in who's eyes he is incapable of doing any wrong. I've met enough of them to know.

http://markpinder.wordpress.com/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This happens ALL the time. Jeff Koons was sued (successfully) on a similar deal. Why would anyone think that Dylan actually painted these anyway? Because the gallery said so? Ha! Well, Dylan is obviously an incredible singer and songwriter. Absolutely. That's all that matters to me. This is just someone trying to cash in on his name and fame. Is it the gallery owner? The musician's manager? Bob Dylan? Who knows. Now if the original photos or images are in the public domain, no harm done.

I guess I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Imagine, art dealers accused of lying? I am shocked. Not.

I like Zappa, for about 10 minutes. Dylan I can listen to all the time. He the man, and I could care less about the man himself. It's not a visual thing, it's an audio thing. All I know is that I saw him, The Band, and Joan Baez in Mobile, Al where he sang "Stuck Inside of Mobile w/ the Memphis Blues Again", and Joan sang "Amazing Grace" a capella and threw me a rose. I still remember it as if it were yesterday. One of the high points of my life.

You go Bob! But ditch the hired artisan painters and stick to the sounds.
 
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro said:
Oh, this small pathetic world... Bravo, Bob! Freedom once again!

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

I hope your saying that tongue in cheek Juan! after all imagine some celebrity finds some pictures of yours, say here, then has a major show in say Madrid, in the show said celebrity paints not interpretations but exact replicas of your photographs claiming them to be "people colors and textures found in everyday scenes he observed during his travels in Spain" would you then bravo Bob?

Freedom is the ability to do as one chooses, but that does not mean we should celebrate every choice made!
 
Hi Turtle,

The way I see painting, it's perfectly valid (and very interesting too) to paint from a photograph... There are several reasons for this belief... One of them is, it's the painter who paints and decides lots of things no matter if the subject used is 3D, 2D or imagination, so it's a true creation anyway, always... And he paints from different kinds of sources, and that doesn't mean "to copy"... Bob Dylan is someone whose creativity is huge, impressive... He's not needing to steal in any way intellectually speaking, and some of his attitudes have raised mixed opinions since he was in his 20's... Why should it change now? 🙂 I enjoy lots of what he's done, and I see his painting and drawing as honest and heartfelt as his words and music... Of course, I don't mean he's an important painter historically, but he's been drawing and painting since he was a boy, so for all his life it's been a way of expression, and even if some people don't know about his drawings and paintings, he's got the right to have fun doing it, and also the right to do it anyway he wants to, anytime... It's about freedom. And what I find pathetic is cheap (and even false) criticizing, but well, close to what Cohen says, "...that's all... I don't think of that often..." 🙂

Cheers,

Juan
 
It doesn't really happen all the time Steve, and all art dealers aren't lyers 🙂
In fact many artists such as Jeff Koons use others peoples work incorporated or appropriated into their own, some of them even pay for it and or give credit to the original artists! rarely does an artist make such exact copies as Bob did and claim them to be his own vision. I'm pretty sure Richard Prince never once said his re photographs were from his own original works, they are statements about much more than the original photograph.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Hi Turtle,

The way I see painting, it's perfectly valid (and very interesting too) to paint from a photograph... There are several reasons for this belief... One of them is, it's the painter who paints and decides lots of things no matter if the subject used is 3D, 2D or imagination, so it's a true creation anyway, always... And he paints from different kinds of sources, and that doesn't mean "to copy"... Bob Dylan is someone whose creativity is huge, impressive... He's not needing to steal in any way intellectually speaking, and some of his attitudes have raised mixed opinions since he was in his 20's... Why should it change now? 🙂 I enjoy lots of what he's done, and I see his painting and drawing as honest and heartfelt as his words and music... Of course, I don't mean he's an important painter historically, but he's been drawing and painting since he was a boy, so for all his life it's been a way of expression, and even if some people don't know about his drawings and paintings, he's got the right to have fun doing it, and also the right to do it anyway he wants to, anytime... It's about freedom. And what I find pathetic is cheap (and even false) criticizing, but well, close to what Cohen says, "...that's all... I don't think of that often..." 🙂

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

Don't you think that's a bit naive Juan? the issue isn't that he painted them or how good they are, it's the fact he claimed other people's vision as his own, with almost photocopy likeness! If you overlay the original in photoshop, as has been done already, you can see they are facsimiles! This isn't about Bob being a painter, it's about him not paying homage to other great artists, imagine how Bobby would feel if he didn't get paid for all the times his work is sung by other artists?
 
Everyone knows VanGogh did the same thing, right?

"In fall and winter 1889–90, while a voluntary patient at the asylum in Saint-Rémy, Van Gogh painted twenty-one copies after Millet, an artist he greatly admired. He considered his copies "improvisations" or "translations" akin to a musician's interpretation of a composer's work. He let the black-and-white images—whether prints, reproductions, or, as here, a photograph that his brother, Theo, had sent—"pose as subject" then "improvised color on it." For this work of January 1890, Van Gogh squared-up a photograph of Millet's "First Steps" and transferred it to the canvas." -- Galley Label at the Met

Not putting Bob in the same class as Vincent as a painter, but then again Van Gogh probably couldn't kick out the jams on "Tangled Up In Blue," either.

According to ARTINFO, Bob did pay Magnum for the right to do this for several of the images - although the rights situation isn't clear for all of the images. If it's not your work being copied you should probably get over it. And if it is your work - KA-CHING! - Congratulations - a big payday for you!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom