Art imitating Art: Dylan Paintings Draw Scrutiny

Gabriel M.A. said:
Remember that it is not he laughing, it is his breath at different pressure rhythms against his throat. 🙄


Oh, hey! I have an idea: I'll create an album of my firsthand impressions of the sixties by recording his songs over a speaker and sell them! As sung art, of course.
Click to expand...

And I'd bet you anything Dylan would be the first to sue the pants and shirt right off you if you did!
 
Sparrow said:
The gallery said ...

"the composition of some of Bob Dylan's paintings are based on a variety of sources." These include "archival, historic images, the paintings' vibrancy and freshness come from the colors and textures found in everyday scenes he observed."

... when challenged on their claims about the paintings.

Dylan has said nothing, that I can find anyway, he's probably laughing into his hat having wound up the usual bunch of detractors and reactionaries.
Click to expand...


So considering the HCB copy appears to have a muted, almost B&W background, Dylan's Phenominal observation of Asia was that Asian people have a certain coloured skin!

The man is a genius!
 
Sparrow said:
The gallery said ...

"the composition of some of Bob Dylan's paintings are based on a variety of sources." These include "archival, historic images, the paintings' vibrancy and freshness come from the colors and textures found in everyday scenes he observed."

... when challenged on their claims about the paintings.

Dylan has said nothing, that I can find anyway, he's probably laughing into his hat having wound up the usual bunch of detractors and reactionaries.
Click to expand...

The gallery said in a news release that Mr. Dylan’s works would offer “firsthand depictions of people, street scenes, architecture and landscape” Therefore your saying that copying Cartier bresson or Manet is a firsthand depiction of ..... I just can't belive people would defend such actions as this, especially people whos interests are creative, Like I assume most people here are!
 
read this, anyone as a photographer should not defend this!

To interested parties posting on "The Asia Series" discussion boards. I found this comment thread via the stats page on my Flickr Account. My Asian photostream had gotten quite a few hits from this discussion board, so I checked things out to see why.

Imagine my surprise to see at least FIVE or SIX Dylan paintings on the Gallery walls that appear to have been painted from photographs in my personal collection (the originals still in my possession), and posted by me to FLICKr. In any case, the images shown in the Gallery examples all appear to be "derivative works" based on vintage photographs (owned, posted, or published by myself and others), and not on any photos of his own creation while in Asia.

Also note that the images in question are based on commercial prints and glass slides from the 19th and early-20th Century, and more than one photo was made at that time. However, the fact that so many of them appear in the few Gallery shots provided seems to say that the odds point to the five or six in question being appropriated from my "one source" Flickr archive.

The catalog has about 100 pages. I would be curious to see ALL of the exhibition paintings. For the moment, seeing the amount of paintings based on my posted images in just the few Gallery shots offered, I suspect many more, and am left wondering if Dylan "raided" my easy-access Flickr pages and Asian Sets as a one-stop shopping spot for photos on which to base his paintings.

If so, and in his defense, all of the original Asian Photos I own and have posted are PUBLIC DOMAIN images. Their appearance on my photostream comes with automatic "Creative Commons" permission for anyone to use them for decorative or illustrative Blog and Website use, AND for conversion to artworks or other craft interpretations. Thousands of people have already done that, including many like Dylan who converted the photos of nice paintings.

However, while Dylan had broken no laws, he seems to have violated a common "social ethic" that for most of us in the graphics world involves giving credit for sources of inspiration, or direct credit for material upon which a "derivative work" is based. As I have not seen the catalog or any fine print contained therein (which might credit his inspirational source-images), I will cease comment on the nebulous concept of "ethics" and "uncredited appropriations"

From My Flickr Asian Sets, seen in Dylan's GAGOSIAN GALLERY examples :

(1) http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/2358252690/

(2) http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/3450980225/

(3) http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/3475403988/

(4) http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/2401941303/

(5) http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/3492941386/

(6) http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/3000702662/ (This Priest is common, and can be found elsewhere, as well)


Thanks to all for your discussion about this. I await the catalog !

--- Okinawa Soba http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
Therefore, an observation of Asia is not plain reality.

I must ask: are you really really really serious?
Click to expand...

Hi Gabriel,

Thanks for starting this interesting thread!

Forum member d ross wrote:

“1, He said these were his observations of Asia, not his observations of other peoples images-observations of Asia.”

First, Bob Dylan didn't say that.

Looks like someone else (from a gallery) used those words to refer to a group of paintings related to Asia and Dylan's painting inspired in Asia and their people... Paintings that came in different ways... Part of them used, as source of reality and inspiration, photographs.

About what you say, "Therefore, an observation of Asia is not plain reality.", I think the term observation can mean different things, and because of that, some observations can be considered just as reality, and some others can't...

In the precise case of Cartier-Bresson's image, to me there's nothing in that image apart from reality, and nothing added to reality by HCB, and I don't consider it any "observation" by HCB, but a light capture done by a camera... Plain reality. I see the same interest and respect for reality when I see Dylan's painting, and I don't feel any observation by Dylan either.

I'd also respect any other person's creation, including those with personal variations of reality: the kind of observations that add to reality, or change it in any way...

Yes, I'm really really really serious about all this...

Cheers,

Juan
 
Last edited:
d_ross said:
read this, anyone as a photographer should not defend this!

To interested parties posting on "The Asia Series" discussion boards. I found this comment thread via the stats page on my Flickr Account. My Asian photostream had gotten quite a few hits from this discussion board, so I checked things out to see why.

Imagine my surprise to see at least FIVE or SIX Dylan paintings on the Gallery walls that appear to have been painted from photographs in my personal collection (the originals still in my possession), and posted by me to FLICKr. In any case, the images shown in the Gallery examples all appear to be "derivative works" based on vintage photographs (owned, posted, or published by myself and others), and not on any photos of his own creation while in Asia.

Also note that the images in question are based on commercial prints and glass slides from the 19th and early-20th Century, and more than one photo was made at that time. However, the fact that so many of them appear in the few Gallery shots provided seems to say that the odds point to the five or six in question being appropriated from my "one source" Flickr archive.

The catalog has about 100 pages. I would be curious to see ALL of the exhibition paintings. For the moment, seeing the amount of paintings based on my posted images in just the few Gallery shots offered, I suspect many more, and am left wondering if Dylan "raided" my easy-access Flickr pages and Asian Sets as a one-stop shopping spot for photos on which to base his paintings.

If so, and in his defense, all of the original Asian Photos I own and have posted are PUBLIC DOMAIN images. Their appearance on my photostream comes with automatic "Creative Commons" permission for anyone to use them for decorative or illustrative Blog and Website use, AND for conversion to artworks or other craft interpretations. Thousands of people have already done that, including many like Dylan who converted the photos of nice paintings.

However, while Dylan had broken no laws, he seems to have violated a common "social ethic" that for most of us in the graphics world involves giving credit for sources of inspiration, or direct credit for material upon which a "derivative work" is based. As I have not seen the catalog or any fine print contained therein (which might credit his inspirational source-images), I will cease comment on the nebulous concept of "ethics" and "uncredited appropriations"

From My Flickr Asian Sets, seen in Dylan's GAGOSIAN GALLERY examples :

(1) http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/2358252690/

(2) http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/3450980225/

(3) http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/3475403988/

(4) http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/2401941303/

(5) http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/3492941386/

(6) http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/3000702662/ (This Priest is common, and can be found elsewhere, as well)


Thanks to all for your discussion about this. I await the catalog !

--- Okinawa Soba http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/
Click to expand...

As written on a previous post (I don't remember who wrote that), Dylan, the world and us are in contact long ago with those images: they're well known... I wouldn't feel the need to credit Da Vinci after a variation I painted on his Last Supper!

Apart, Dylan knows (and that gallery people too...) most coming reviews talking about the exhibition were going to say Dylan used some photographs as source, and for sure they'd be talking about the photographs and the photographers...

It's amazingly naive to imagine Dylan wanted people to think those photographs didn't exist! 😛

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan when a gallery speaks for it's artists for all intents and purposes they are talking for the artist.

Do you seriously condone a famous singer going online and taking any bloody picture he wants, then copying them and calling them his observations of Asia? and would you be happy if he had used yours?
 
d_ross said:
read this, anyone as a photographer should not defend this!

To interested parties posting on "The Asia Series" discussion boards. I found this comment thread via the stats page on my Flickr Account. My Asian photostream had gotten quite a few hits from this discussion board, so I checked things out to see why.

Imagine my surprise to see at least FIVE or SIX Dylan paintings on the Gallery walls that appear to have been painted from photographs in my personal collection (the originals still in my possession), and posted by me to FLICKr. In any case, the images shown in the Gallery examples all appear to be "derivative works" based on vintage photographs (owned, posted, or published by myself and others), and not on any photos of his own creation while in Asia.

Also note that the images in question are based on commercial prints and glass slides from the 19th and early-20th Century, and more than one photo was made at that time. However, the fact that so many of them appear in the few Gallery shots provided seems to say that the odds point to the five or six in question being appropriated from my "one source" Flickr archive.

The catalog has about 100 pages. I would be curious to see ALL of the exhibition paintings. For the moment, seeing the amount of paintings based on my posted images in just the few Gallery shots offered, I suspect many more, and am left wondering if Dylan "raided" my easy-access Flickr pages and Asian Sets as a one-stop shopping spot for photos on which to base his paintings.

If so, and in his defense, all of the original Asian Photos I own and have posted are PUBLIC DOMAIN images. Their appearance on my photostream comes with automatic "Creative Commons" permission for anyone to use them for decorative or illustrative Blog and Website use, AND for conversion to artworks or other craft interpretations. Thousands of people have already done that, including many like Dylan who converted the photos of nice paintings.

However, while Dylan had broken no laws, he seems to have violated a common "social ethic" that for most of us in the graphics world involves giving credit for sources of inspiration, or direct credit for material upon which a "derivative work" is based. As I have not seen the catalog or any fine print contained therein (which might credit his inspirational source-images), I will cease comment on the nebulous concept of "ethics" and "uncredited appropriations"

From My Flickr Asian Sets, seen in Dylan's GAGOSIAN GALLERY examples :

(1) http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/2358252690/

(2) http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/3450980225/

(3) http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/3475403988/

(4) http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/2401941303/

(5) http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/3492941386/

(6) http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/3000702662/ (This Priest is common, and can be found elsewhere, as well)


Thanks to all for your discussion about this. I await the catalog !

--- Okinawa Soba http://www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/
Click to expand...

As written on a previous post (I don't remember who wrote that), Dylan, the world and us are in contact long ago with those images: they're well known... I wouldn't feel the need to credit Da Vinci after a variation I painted on his Last Supper!

Apart, Dylan knows (and that gallery people too...) most coming reviews talking about the exhibition were going to say Dylan used some photographs as source, and for sure they'd be talking about the photographs and the photographers...

It's amazingly naive to imagine Dylan wanted people to think those photographs didn't exist! 😛

Cheers,

Juan
 
Those aren't that well Known pictures, but they are all from Okinawa Soba's Flickr site!

I am simply astounded as a photographer yourself that for any reason you would defend such blatant intellectual property abuse, legal or not.
 
Last edited:
d_ross said:
Looking at the articles I can't see anywhere where he has given the slightest hint of respect to the original photographer or painter. A lot of the criticism could have been avoided with some homage paid, as we all should when we base a work on another persons I feel. So one has assume maybe he thought no one would figure it out, but could he be that stupid?
Click to expand...

Dylan has always adored controversy and the copying is in itself a kind of homage. Of course he knew he'd be rumbled; stupid he ain't.
 
d_ross said:
True and I like most others here am not surprised he's done it. What really surprises me is that any photographer would defend his actions!
Click to expand...

They are showing a copy of da Vinci's Last Supper at the National Gallery shortly ... perhaps you should send them a letter of complaint

I did a copy a few years back, but I don't feel that makes me a bad person 😀
 
d_ross said:
True and I like most others here am not surprised he's done it. What really surprises me is that any photographer would defend his actions!
Click to expand...

Is it really so different from taking Chuck Berry's Too Much Monkey Business and turning it into Subterranean Homesick Blues?

I'm sure that everyone using this web site has been influenced by photographs taken by other photographers. Just because Dylan's blatant about it, does it make it so much worse?
 
I'm impressed that this thread has remained so civil and peaceful considering the wildly varying opinions.

Dylan's influence obviously! 😀
 
lawrence said:
Is it really so different from taking Chuck Berry's Too Much Monkey Business and turning it into Subterranean Homesick Blues?

I'm sure that everyone using this web site has been influenced by photographs taken by other photographers. Just because Dylan's blatant about it, does it make it so much worse?
Click to expand...

being influenced is one thing, we all are in some form, and we always will be, nothing wrong with that, but straight out copying and then claiming the result as your own vision is another thing, and that's what I dislike about the whole thing!

We are all obviously very civilized people 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom