Art imitating Art: Dylan Paintings Draw Scrutiny

Sparrow said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's it.

Cheers,

Juan
 
FrankS said:
Okay, then is/was the gallery wrong/unethical/dishonest in their description of Dylan's work?
Click to expand...

I'd say possibly yes, Frank, if none of Dylan's paintings came from reality, and that (reality) includes painting in Asia, and painting in the US after his trips, back home thinking of Asia: memories, and it also includes using what's found on good/honest photographs: reality... To him, part of what he considers Asia can be photographs from Asia he's loved for long... If someone decides to start a series on Asia, it includes lots of feelings and perceptions about Asia...

I really doubt there was a huge lie planned, even from gallery people. Anyway, I'd expect at least a few paintings exist that were not made from photographs: that would make that description of his paintings a true one.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
That's it.

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...


You guys totally amaze me 🙂

here's a dictionary meaning for you

Copy

"an imitation, reproduction, or transcript of an original, to follow as a pattern or model; to imitate"

I don't see anywhere where it says using the same medium! His paintings are mere imitations of many other peoples experiences of Asia, so to falsely say they are personal observations makes them not only copies but fakes!
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
I'd say possibly yes, Frank, if none of Dylan's paintings came from reality, and that (reality) includes painting in Asia, and painting in the US after his trips, back home thinking of Asia: memories, and it also includes using what's found on good/honest photographs: reality... To him, part of what he considers Asia can be photographs from Asia he's loved for long... If someone decides to start a series on Asia, it includes lots of feelings and perceptions about Asia...

I really doubt there was a huge lie planned, even from gallery people. Anyway, I'd expect at least a few paintings exist that were not made from photographs: that would make that description of his paintings a true one.

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

So please tell me, why on earth didn't he fess up and say where he painted them from then? rather than create or allow the perception that they were pure observations of life from life.

From what Ive been able to find out even previous exhibitions of his paintings, from various other parts of the world, were done the same way, ie copied from other peoples work. I can't guarantee this as it's only what Ive been told by other people, however considering this show I wouldn't be surprised.
 
Last edited:
Is there a statute of limitations on copyright, 'cus by the time you two have finished arguing this issue, it will be moot point. 🙂

At some point, just agree to disagree. Not likely going to change either mind on this.
 
Here is a piece from a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/18/141423977/new-paintings-reignite-the-bob-dylan-copycat-debate

There's more there but I like this part:

"Rob Oechsle is an American photographer who's lived in Japan for much of the past 40 years. He runs a Flickr blog called Okinawa Soba, where he posts historical photos from his substantial archive and personal collection. He says he was surprised to recognize a few of his own photos in Dylan's show.

"I said, 'Wow, that's my stuff. Those are pictures from my archive,' " Oechsle remembers./


It's perfectly legal to copy images like Oechsle's, which are in the public domain, but Oechsle wishes Dylan had given some credit to his sources. He says Dylan is guilty of creating work that isn't part of his experience in Asia.
"It's plagiarism, plain and simple," Oechsle says. "To take something that's beautiful that someone else composed and just trace over it, get out your little paintbrushes and poster paints, paint over the lines, put that up and say, 'This is my experience; this is my composition; that is what I saw; this is what I did.' "

Way to take advantage of people's work. Bob Dylan is really pushing the boundaries on that particular area. That's soooo Dylan, though, so that makes it ok.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is an ex-photograph: it is no more. It has ceased to be. Bereft of life, it rests in peace.

Lovely plumage, though.

Cheers,

R.
 
Ulimately the person in the gallery viewing Dylan's current efforts can make the decision for themselves .. and walk away if they don't like it!
 
v_roma said:
Here is a piece from a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/18/141423977/new-paintings-reignite-the-bob-dylan-copycat-debate

There's more there but I like this part:

"Rob Oechsle is an American photographer who's lived in Japan for much of the past 40 years. He runs a Flickr blog called Okinawa Soba, where he posts historical photos from his substantial archive and personal collection. He says he was surprised to recognize a few of his own photos in Dylan's show.

"I said, 'Wow, that's my stuff. Those are pictures from my archive,' " Oechsle remembers./


It's perfectly legal to copy images like Oechsle's, which are in the public domain, but Oechsle wishes Dylan had given some credit to his sources. He says Dylan is guilty of creating work that isn't part of his experience in Asia.
"It's plagiarism, plain and simple," Oechsle says. "To take something that's beautiful that someone else composed and just trace over it, get out your little paintbrushes and poster paints, paint over the lines, put that up and say, 'This is my experience; this is my composition; that is what I saw; this is what I did.' "

Way to take advantage of people's work. Bob Dylan is really pushing the boundaries on that particular area. That's soooo Dylan, though, so that makes it ok.
Click to expand...

It is simply sad on so many levels! none less than creative people supporting him!
 
FrankS said:
Is there a statute of limitations on copyright, 'cus by the time you two have finished arguing this issue, it will be moot point. 🙂

At some point, just agree to disagree. Not likely going to change either mind on this.
Click to expand...

Although I can't speak for d ross, I'd say both of us agree about disagreeing is one of the healthiest things in life... 🙂 What would we poor conscious human beings be if we couldn't disagree?

I don't want (never did) to change anyone's mind.

I'm afraid disagreeing -just that- is one of the poorest ways to add to a thread... I think yet there are things that can be said about this very interesting story...

What if as I said before HCB did add nothing to reality when his camera captured the image? What if someone's camera gets its shutter accidentally hit and Dylan likes the image and paints a close painting? What if Dylan paints from a photograph he did? Isn't it painting from reality? Isn't basically everything, painting from reality? How can we get far from reality? What does it matter whose camera did capture an instant of reality? Do we own fragments of reality over the rest of mortals, forever, and for any kind of re-creation of that reality, including any imaginable media, just because we used a camera back then? Owners? Was Vermeer a bad painter because he did paint from photographs? What if an Asian image is taken by a parking/security camera and there's no "original creator" involved? Am I allowed to paint that one? What if Dylan thinks lots of photographers take their photographs too seriously as art and creation and he wants to do all this just to push some stupid barriers?

All this means I think the line that divides what should and should not be done about what really is or not painting from reality, are arbitrary, and shouldn't be taken seriously. All criticizing against Bob Dylan's paintings if he wanted to paint from photographs because he enjoys it, have no serious base. I'm open to real arguments... Saying "his paintings are close to photographs" implies nothing bad at all...

Finally, we don't do too much as photographers, do we?

Painters do a lot just to have one painting....

Cheers,

Juan
 
Quote: "I'm afraid disagreeing -just that- is one of the poorest ways to add to a thread."

I just don't feel like engaging with you on this issue. Nothing you can say to change my mind on this one, Juan.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Although I can't speak for d ross, I'd say both of us agree about disagreeing is one of the healthiest things in life... 🙂 What would we poor conscious human beings be if we couldn't disagree?

I don't want (never did) to change anyone's mind.

I'm afraid disagreeing -just that- is one of the poorest ways to add to a thread... I think yet there are things that can be said about this very interesting story...

What if as I said before HCB did add nothing to reality when his camera captured the image? What if someone's camera gets its shutter accidentally hit and Dylan likes the image and paints a close painting? What if Dylan paints from a photograph he did? Isn't it painting from reality? Isn't basically everything, painting from reality? How can we get far from reality? What does it matter whose camera did capture an instant of reality? Do we own fragments of reality over the rest of mortals, forever, and for any kind of re-creation of that reality, including any imaginable media, just because we used a camera back then? Owners? Was Vermeer a bad painter because he did paint from photographs? What if an Asian image is taken by a parking/security camera and there's no "original creator" involved? Am I allowed to paint that one? What if Dylan thinks lots of photographers take their photographs too seriously as art and creation and he wants to do all this just to push some stupid barriers?

All this means I think the line that divides what should and should not be done about what really is or not painting from reality, are arbitrary, and shouldn't be taken seriously. All criticizing against Bob Dylan's paintings if he wanted to paint from photographs because he enjoys it, have no serious base. I'm open to real arguments... Saying "his paintings are close to photographs" implies nothing bad at all...

Finally, we don't do too much as photographers, do we?

Painters do a lot just to have one painting....

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]Intrinsically I don't really disagree with you Juan, but I prefer to call it debating a point.

There is nothing wrong with painting from photographs, even other people's, but this isn't really about that. it's about not giving any credit to the original maker of the image, that is, as much as anything, just simple courtesy. True no one owns reality, but we do own the moments of reality that we capture on film, you own yours, I own mine, and Cartier Bresson owned his. If Dylan painted from his own photographs of reality then yes they would be first hand observations, but he didn’t, he just trawled books and the internet as his reality. Chances are he never even got into similar real life situations being such a big celebrity🙂

I doubt very much Cartier Bresson’s shutter was ever accidentally released to make a picture 🙂 and did he add anything? Well he saw that moment of interaction between the two people evolving and then chose the moment to capture. Regardless of how well, or not in this case, it was copied as a painting by Dylan, to not give credit to Cartier Bresson for his part in the painting, i.e., actually seeing the moment in the first hand reality of what was probably a very busy bustling situation, and having the ability to capture it, is an insult to him by Dylan. What Cartier Bresson, and the others copied did, in creating that image is the photographers skill, and Dylan,[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial] for god knows what reason,[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial] refused to acknowledge that skill, and as a result he insults all photographers!
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom