Art imitating Art: Dylan Paintings Draw Scrutiny

Totally understand what your saying Max, so after paying magnum for the rights to paint them why did he not paint personal interpretations of them and also not then claim them as his own visions from travels in Asia! It's pathetic really!
 
One can only assume he didn't pay homage to the original artists, paid or not, as he wanted to think people would see this as his own original work. And if that's the case it's even more pathetic coming from a great musician and one of the worlds most famous people! he of all people should be secure enough in his own fame and paying respect to those he copied by acknowledging them.
 
d_ross said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, I don't feel I'm being naive because of feeling he's creating, and I don' think he claimed other people's vision as his own. And IMO he pays homage to other great artists by using their originals as inspiration and departure points... Dalí did it with Millet, or Warhol with DaVinci, just to name very few names and modern art only...

Cheers,

Juan
 
As I read about this the first time, my mind immediately created a scene in which Dylan, almost inaudibaly mumbled to himself "This one looks like a good one to paint.. I doubt anyooooone knooooows who Henri Cartier-Bresson iiiizz"
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
No, I don't feel I'm being naive because of feeling he's creating, and I don' think he claimed other people's vision as his own. And IMO he pays homage to other great artists by using their originals as inspiration and departure points... Dalí did it with Millet, or Warhol with DaVinci, just to name very few names and modern art only...

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...
I do somewhat understand what your saying but lets face it
What exactly did he create? and what were the departure points from the originals? These are exact copies Juan, and paying homage would be saying "after Cartier Bresson" the act of copying is not paying homage. Most artists like those you have mentioned here use other peoples work as inspiration and even incorporate it in their own work or make versions of them as Picasso did often, but with difference to them, Bob sadly isn't one of them.
 
d_ross said:
Totally understand what your saying Max, so after paying magnum for the rights to paint them why did he not paint personal interpretations of them and also not then claim them as his own visions from travels in Asia! It's pathetic really!
Click to expand...

Well, I won't argue that it's not "pathetic" - but I feel that way about celebrity "art" in general. Pretty lame. I'm thinking of 'Dancing with the Stars" lame. When I see that show I think "Forget this - why don't we watch REAL dancers instead of this crap? Who cares if they're celebrities?" Only the feeble minded, that who....

I do think the paintings, while plainly derivative, show a creative interpretation of the original - he added the color and brushwork - not unlike Van Gogh did for the Millet photos... although I'm pretty sure we won't be seeing Bob's work in the Met anytime soon...
 
MaxElmar said:
Well, I won't argue that it's not "pathetic" - but I feel that way about celebrity "art" in general. Pretty lame. I'm thinking of 'Dancing with the Stars" lame. When I see that show I think "Forget this - why don't we watch REAL dancers instead of this crap? Who cares if they're celebrities?" Only the feeble minded, that who....

I do think the paintings, while plainly derivative, show a creative interpretation of the original - he added the color and brushwork - not unlike Van Gogh did for the Millet photos... although I'm pretty sure we won't be seeing Bob's work in the Met anytime soon...
Click to expand...

I agree, the heart of this issue I guess is the status of celebrity and it's infiltration into every aspect of our lives! it annoys me to think of the thousands of hard working true visual artists, not visual art wannabee wankers like Mr Dylan, who can't get exposure anywhere even by begging, while celebrities like this walk can into virtually every door of our lives and bore us to death with their personal gratification and celebrity status elevating!

Is this freedom?
 
I agree that painting a photograph can be a creative act (except for simply "photocopying," which this seems to be bordering on). My main problem with this is that it was not presented as such. The gallery or Bob Dylan didn't say "here are some paintings of famous photographs of asian places and people." It was sold as here are some paintings of asian places and people from Bob Dylan's travels through the continent. This whole thing defies comprehension, really.

Juan Valdenebro said:
No, I don't feel I'm being naive because of feeling he's creating, and I don' think he claimed other people's vision as his own. And IMO he pays homage to other great artists by using their originals as inspiration and departure points... Dalí did it with Millet, or Warhol with DaVinci, just to name very few names and modern art only...

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...
 
d_ross said:
I do somewhat understand what your saying but lets face it
What exactly did he create? and what were the departure points from the originals? These are exact copies Juan, and paying homage would be saying "after Cartier Bresson" the act of copying is not paying homage. Most artists like those you have mentioned here use other peoples work as inspiration and even incorporate it in their own work or make versions of them as Picasso did often, but with difference to them, Bob sadly isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the complete catalog, but the painting in the OP is not an identical copy... Identical would be photographing the original photoraph... 🙂 Color can be interesting, as adding music to a poem... Honestly I find what he's done both interesting and humble, and I find very naive to imagine he ever wanted anyone to believe no painting was inspired in any other artist's work... As others said, he must consider those images just what they are: world-known images.

Cheers,

Juan
 
v_roma said:
I agree that painting a photograph can be a creative act (except for simply "photocopying," which this seems to be bordering on). My main problem with this is that it was not presented as such. The gallery or Bob Dylan didn't say "here are some paintings of famous photographs of asian places and people." It was sold as here are some paintings of asian places and people from Bob Dylan's travels through the continent. This whole thing defies comprehension, really.
Click to expand...

There's a previous post with Dylan's own words stating the paintings appeared in different ways.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
I haven't seen the complete catalog, but the painting in the OP is not an identical copy... Identical would be photographing the original photoraph... 🙂 Color can be interesting, as adding music to a poem... Honestly I find what he's done both interesting and humble, and I find very naive to imagine he ever wanted anyone to believe no painting was inspired in any other artist's work... As others said, he must consider those images just what they are: world-known images.

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

from what Ive seen every piece in the show is a direct copy, but that's just online. I'm a fair way from NY so I cant say about the entire show either. But I find what he's done neither intersting nor humble. Now if he had added music or a poem to them, or added anything to them for that matter, then maybe 🙂
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
There's a previous post with Dylan's own words stating the paintings appeared in different ways.

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

Bob said "

“I paint mostly from real life. It has to start with that. Real people, real street scenes, behind the curtain scenes, live models, paintings, photographs, staged setups, architecture, grids, graphic design. Whatever it takes to make it work. What I’m trying to bring out in complex scenes, landscapes, or personality clashes, I do it in a lot of different ways. I have the cause and effect in mind from the beginning to the end. But it has to start with something tangible.”

even though he mentions paintings and photography what omitted to say was these were all made from real life while looking at photographs and paintings, as opposed to people in the street etc 🙂 very clever art speak to make the reader believe something other than the truth.
 
Maybe he painted other real scenes too, or he uses to do it as he says... Perhaps he didn't decide entirely what was going to be shown... Maybe some interest in controversy? The gallery? Himself? Who knows... I think all this is too much noise for too simple things... I don't need to consider Dylan a musician or poet exclusively. I would presume he did some real life paintings too...

Cheers,

Juan
 
I remember many years ago, a truck was stopped in Italy that turned out to have, depending on which story you believed, 5,000 or 50,000 large, blank sheets of paper. Blank....except for Dali's prominent signature on them. "Yes ma'am, this is an unauthentic Dali painting. We had the signature authenticated". I guess the next line is" and would you be interested in this week's special deal of free aluminum siding w/ each Dali painting"? If they stopped that one truck, how many didn't they stop?

Chagal was infamous for sending off a small, cursory sketch to the lithographer's, w/ instructions on how large and how many of them he wanted. The lithographer, an artist-in-reserve, the neighbor's dog, SOMEBODY did their best to create a large version of Marc's little sketch. When they were finished, they were sent to "The Master" to be signed and dated. If you bought one, you had better have been told that it was "after Chagal", but don't bet on it. If you buy ANY Dali print, you deserve what you get. In the Renaissance, it was common for an established artist to have his students paint the entire work, save for the faces and the hands. Hands especially are tough.

Then you had Georges Rouault, a very talented artist (especially if you like pictures of Christs and prostitutes, and who doesn't?) that was starving to death. The famous art dealer Ambroise Vollard tried to help him by commissioning a series of beautiful color etchings based on some of Rouault's paintings. I'm not sure how much he actually tried to help him, vs exploit him, as he had Rouault sign an exclusive contract for everything he produced. Period. He also gave him a small room to work in above his gallery. Maybe a bowl and some newspapers spread out in the corner, I don't know. But Rouault, being the perfectionist that he was, kept reworking and reworking the plates endlessly to get them just right, while Vollard cooled his heels and wasn't able to print the series until many, many years later. Art is neat. And it's all diddly until you walk into a museum and see a Beckman masterpiece next to another Beckman masterpiece, and it stops you dead in your tracks. How it got there, who really painted it, who authenticated it, mean very little then.
 
Last edited:
Steve M. said:
I remember many years ago, a truck was stopped in Italy that turned out to have, depending on which story you believed, 5,000 or 50,000 large, blank sheets of paper. Blank....except for Dali's prominent signature on them. "Yes ma'am, this is an unauthentic Dali painting. We had the signature authenticated". I guess the next line is" and would you be interested in this week's special deal of free aluminum siding w/ each Dali painting"? If they stopped that one truck, how many didn't they stop?

Chagal was infamous for sending off a small, cursory sketch to the lithographer's, w/ instructions on how large and how many of them he wanted. The lithographer, an artist-in-reserve, the neighbor's dog, SOMEBODY did their best to create a large version of Marc's little sketch. When they were finished, they were sent to "The Master" to be signed and dated. If you bought one, you had better have been told that it was "after Chagal", but don't bet on it. If you buy ANY Dali print, you deserve what you get. In the Renaissance, it was common for an established artist to have his students paint the entire work, save for the faces and the hands. Hands especially are tough.

Then you had Georges Rouault, a very talented artist (especially if you like pictures of Christs and prostitutes, and who doesn't?) that was starving to death. The famous art dealer Ambroise Vollard tried to help him by commissioning a series of beautiful color etchings based on some of Rouault's paintings. I'm not sure how much he actually tried to help him, vs exploit him, as he had Rouault sign an exclusive contract for everything he produced. Period. He also gave him a small room to work in above his gallery. Maybe a bowl and some newspapers spread out in the corner, I don't know. But Rouault, being the perfectionist that he was, kept reworking and reworking the plates endlessly to get them just right, while Vollard cooled his heels and wasn't able to print the series until many, many years later. Art is neat. And it's all diddly until you walk into a museum and see a Beckman masterpiece next to another Beckman masterpiece, and it stops you dead in your tracks. How it got there, who really painted it, who authenticated it, mean very little then.
Click to expand...

All so true Steve, although I'm not sure what that has to do with Bob's fax's but I hope your not saying one day we'll see his paintings in MOMA 🙂

Regarding those Dali/nonDali prints Ive seen a show of them here in NZ, pretty much everyone who would be remotely interested knows they are fake, but some poor sod here who didn't has been trying to sell them for years now I believe.
 
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! 🙄

"Bob is not authentic at all," she said. "He's a plagiarist and his name and voice are fake. Everything about Bob is a deception. We are like night and day, he and I."
Click to expand...

Joni is a genius in her own right IMO but where did that blast come from?
 
I think it's because she's aware of the material he used/appropriated as his own. His voice being fake refers to his rather "put on" sound.

I do like a lot of his older stuff, but musically and lyrically, Ms. Mitchell is in another universe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom