Art imitating Art: Dylan Paintings Draw Scrutiny
- Thread starter Gabriel M.A.
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 185
- Views 18K
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I'd understand this a bit more if the works done by Dylan were photographs of unknown photographs. But I totally disagree: those are paintings! And the photographs are known, and publicly available!
Photographers' rights (legal and ethic) are on the photographs coming from the negatives only, but that instant isn't HCB's property apart from the negative and its prints.
Cheers,
Juan
Photographers' rights (legal and ethic) are on the photographs coming from the negatives only, but that instant isn't HCB's property apart from the negative and its prints.
Cheers,
Juan
Sparrow
Veteran
I didn't see the need to claim or deny anything, I was having to copy a copy as the original fresco in Milan is in such poor condition, I was also changing the medium (my copy was a textile design) in much the same way Dylan has with his paintings of photographs.
The only change I made was to put my own likeness in place of one of the disciples, so I suppose you could add blasphemy to my plagiarism ...
... I wonder if Campbells sued Andy Warhol
charjohncarter
Veteran
I think they thought about it along with 'Best Foods' Mayo. But in the end they liked the advertising and hype so: no.
Jack Conrad
Well-known
Maybe they paid him.
Come to think of it, this whole controversy makes for great marketing. In fact, it's probably great for all the New York Ad Agencies. $$$
lawrence
Veteran
To me it's not really copying because the end result is very different from the original. I mean paint is a different medium and Bob added a whole lot to the HCB photo, for example, in terms of colour. It's his own vision of a photo by HCB that obviously inspired him. A copy is something that you can pass off as the original but that is not the case with these paintings.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Sparrow
Veteran
Ah, so the objection is commercial rather than ethical then? ... art that conforms is fine, it's the radicals that one must berate?
Sparrow
Veteran
Why? is he the third on the left of Christ, or maybe second ... I'll have to check and see if I still have a copy
d_ross
Registered User
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]
Well I'd hardly call Dylan's paintings radical art at any stretch of the imagination!
There are so many issues at play here that make this interesting, and almost impossible to come to any conclusion.
There's the issue of celebrity culture, often as here resulting in their making crappy art and getting NY Times exposure when they really, especially in this case, don't deserve it on the merit of their art. While many artists who do struggle.
There's the issue of non disclosure of the intellectual provenance of the work, as it was implied by Dylan, or his agent, either way it's the same, that these were personal observations of life from travels in Asia, which they clearly are not.
There is the question of where does a copy start? I believe these are straight copies as Dylan added nothing either aesthetical or by narrative to them, just some colour to the B&W photograph copies, many don't agree. But these were not variations on the originals as has been suggested by comments about Da Vinci etc, they are simple lay over copies! They can’t be compared to Warhol’s Soup can etc, that was the first time anyone had taken advertising-consumer images-products and made them art, and set a style in the arts that lives to this day.
I'd love to see Juan's response if it was his works that were copied, knowing there are probably plenty of idiots out there prepared to buy Dylan's paintings.
And there is the ethical issue, that I see anyway, where senior artists should lead by example, especially those who have made millions as Dylan has. Why of all people did he have to ignore paying written or spoken homage the original creators of the works? If he had done so nothing would have changed, the gallery would have still shown them, the idiots would have still brought them, and his ego would have still been suitably inflated.
There was simply no good reason not to recognise the origins of the works regardless of which side of this debate your on, and that makes me seriously wonder and question his motives and ethics! [/FONT]
Well I'd hardly call Dylan's paintings radical art at any stretch of the imagination!
There are so many issues at play here that make this interesting, and almost impossible to come to any conclusion.
There's the issue of celebrity culture, often as here resulting in their making crappy art and getting NY Times exposure when they really, especially in this case, don't deserve it on the merit of their art. While many artists who do struggle.
There's the issue of non disclosure of the intellectual provenance of the work, as it was implied by Dylan, or his agent, either way it's the same, that these were personal observations of life from travels in Asia, which they clearly are not.
There is the question of where does a copy start? I believe these are straight copies as Dylan added nothing either aesthetical or by narrative to them, just some colour to the B&W photograph copies, many don't agree. But these were not variations on the originals as has been suggested by comments about Da Vinci etc, they are simple lay over copies! They can’t be compared to Warhol’s Soup can etc, that was the first time anyone had taken advertising-consumer images-products and made them art, and set a style in the arts that lives to this day.
I'd love to see Juan's response if it was his works that were copied, knowing there are probably plenty of idiots out there prepared to buy Dylan's paintings.
And there is the ethical issue, that I see anyway, where senior artists should lead by example, especially those who have made millions as Dylan has. Why of all people did he have to ignore paying written or spoken homage the original creators of the works? If he had done so nothing would have changed, the gallery would have still shown them, the idiots would have still brought them, and his ego would have still been suitably inflated.
There was simply no good reason not to recognise the origins of the works regardless of which side of this debate your on, and that makes me seriously wonder and question his motives and ethics! [/FONT]
Sparrow
Veteran
Well we disagree, sorry. They are paintings of photographs they are not direct copies, for one thing, and Dylan has said nothing about the issue, that I can see for another, it's the gallery blurb which is exciting everyone so far.
I've been keeping and working from scrapbooks and mood-boards since I was at college, without feeling the need to credit anyone. It seems to me that most of the disapproval here is a personal enmity to the artist rather than a critique of the work.
I've been keeping and working from scrapbooks and mood-boards since I was at college, without feeling the need to credit anyone. It seems to me that most of the disapproval here is a personal enmity to the artist rather than a critique of the work.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Homage. Excellent. My new album will be called "Firsthand Compositions -- An Homage". Genius.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Scrapbooks of things found vs. paintings from firsthand experience are nowhere on the same level. Again, people are confusing "firsthand" with "not firsthand". If I sold you a dog and you got a parrot, you wouldn't buy the argument that it's OK because they're both animals and certainly they can be pets, so why get upset about getting a parrot instead of a dog.
Sparrow
Veteran
Well, except one is buying a painting and getting a painting, not a photograph ... hardly firsthand is it? if we accept your definition Marvel should really be suing Lichtenstein
j j
Well-known
This is the point. Artists (whatever medium) rarely write their own copy. I see nothing to suggest Dylan had anything to do with the offending text, which has gallery copy writ large between the lines.
FrankS
Registered User
Okay, then is/was the gallery wrong/unethical/dishonest in their description of Dylan's work?
Sparrow
Veteran
I think commercial galleries are amoral rather than immoral, they say what gives them the best return ... personally I'd condemn almost all of them, but I couldn't do the same to the artists without some proper evidence
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I'm sure Marvel has better things to keep their lawyers occupied on.
So...let me get this (winded) story straight: the gallery is, I would say, misrepresenting Dylan's work? I thought galleries asked artists to write their own statement and description. Which then leads to another point: Dylan, as a singer gets a pass as a painter by the gallery, with the blind "who cares!" eye from the fans. No irony intended.
d_ross
Registered User
Absolutely, and one would have to assume that they do so with Dylan's knowledge!
Most galleries are pretty well versed in how to embellish an artists work, or to create an academic-intellectual twist to it, known as art speak. However rarely will a gallery misrepresent an artists actual practice, as in saying "these are paintings from daily life observed by Mr Dillon" when they are not. This is not art speak as some here would claim!
d_ross
Registered User
If the gallery wrote the whole copy themselves without any input from Dylan then how exactly did they know he made them from personal real life first hand observations, when, they would clearly know these they were not?
However this is all mute as to follow is a quote from the gallery!
The gallery also pointed to an interview with Mr. Dylan in its exhibition catalog, in which he is asked whether he paints from sketches or photographs. He responds:
“I paint mostly from real life. It has to start with that. Real people, real street scenes, behind the curtain scenes...
:bang: