Expecting Rain

Go to main page
It is currently Sat December 16th, 2017, 09:07 GMT

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 251 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed December 5th, 2012, 04:02 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri April 14th, 2006, 18:43 GMT
Posts: 5427
scottw wrote:
Professional wrestler Exotic Adrian Street, the subject of one of Dylan's new paintings, is also a main focus of the Jeremy Deller retrospective Joy In People, curated by Ralph Rugoff. The original installation, called The Life & Times of Adrian Street, included a video documentary and several large murals depicting Street - check one out here - http://styleandthensome.wordpress.com/2 ... da-nylind/

The retrospective is showing in Philadelphia until the end of the month; it goes to St. Louis in January.

Jeremy Deller also has a smaller one-man show going on right now in New York City at Gavin Brown's Enterprise. Here's a description from New York Magazine, "Known for his epic reenactments of sociological events, Deller presents intriguing text-based silk-screens as well as three long videos. The highlight: a half-hour mini-biography of seventysomething Welsh cross-dressing wrestler Adrian Street."

It seems the combination of Adrian Street and silk-screens with intriguing text are all the rage in the New York art world at the moment.

Joy In People curator Ralph Rugoff should be familiar to Dylan fans for creating the imaginary outlaw artist Robyn Whitlaw, someone Dylan claims to have met in his memoir Chronicles: Volume One. Rugoff's essay on Whitlaw appears in his book Circus Americanus, which happens to feature a professional wrestler on the cover.
Image

Here's video of Rugoff and Deller talking about Joy In People. It includes a clip of one of the Adrian Street murals: http://youtu.be/HKZz-AeEWqU

I think it is also valuable to consider Dylan's The Asia Series in the context of contemporaries who also use photographs as the basis for paintings. Ralph Rugoff lays out the playing field in this video while describing an exhibition he curated called The Painting of Modern Life, a show where all of the paintings are based on photographs. He says, "I think for anyone who is interested in contemporary painting this is a crucial show to see because this development, this use by artists of photographic materials and the way they translate and reinvent the photograph, has really been one of the most important developments in painting over the past half-century." http://youtu.be/zr2WMYrXrB4


Thanks Scott!! That Jeremy and Bob seem to plumb the same socio-pathological gutters - and Rugoff won't ruboff - bob is such a softie - these references of his are his way of gifting - his affections are his constants - keep walking the galleries for us please!

Lone Pilgrim wrote:
bobschool, I'm not sure if I quite see where you're going, but I think it's spot-on to say that the circularity to the whole thing - whereby the total effect of the work of 'art' encompasses the response to that art, including this thread, as absolutely integral to the concept. But I don't pretend to know whether that was part of Bob's intention. He may have thought that these pieces were clever as stand-alone works, in which case he is simply a mediocre-to-bad visual artist. What I'm saying is that the effect of these pieces is such as to render absurd the cultures of both celebrity and fine art. And that's a cool effect.

I also think there's a basic difference between Dylan-the-visual-artist and Dylan the singer-songwriter. The latter is certainly a magpie taking whatever he wants from found elements and transmuting them into something amazing. I don't see this as a 'wind up' - it would only be taken that way if we have a childish notion of 'originality' as the hallmark of art, a delusion from which Bob clearly does not suffer. Bob may be doing the same kind of thing as a visual artist, but there is absolutely no danger of his visual art rising to the level of his musical work. Otherwise put, if this artist's name was Joe Blow instead of Bob Dylan, nobody would give a rip about it.


thanks Lone Pilgrim - yea -absurdity! - you're right!

and absurdity is for those who don't take out the trash enough - hard work is the antidote for malaise, as a fifties-style Man Talk magazine would headline it, har har!!

My Echo, My Shadow And Me wrote:
Lone Pilgrim wrote:
Otherwise put, if this artist's name was Joe Blow instead of Bob Dylan, nobody would give a rip about it.


The name Bob Dylan helps to get galleries interested in the works and it helps to get them exhibited but it keeps many people from taking the works seriously.

If the "Revisionist " works had been done by young Joe Blow, fresh out of art school they would be taken far more seriously and they would be celebrated for their "fresh conceptual approach", "clever critique of mass media and celebrity culture", "juxtaposition of the mainstream and underground phenomena", "absurdist take on news media", "retro chic" and "vibrant color schemes". I work in art and design, I have seen it happen again and again and again.


so i guess "Bob Dylan" is a Concept that is heavy with Lust and Bloody Ravages!!

thanks Echo - great great point!! :P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun December 9th, 2012, 02:21 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri April 14th, 2006, 18:43 GMT
Posts: 5427
To all the jokes I've loved before
Who traveled in and out my door....

Bob! The Zoomer Artist! http://www.zoomerradio.ca/


now we're talking! i mean joking... i mean - oh...---

I want some too (Oh yeah)
Everybody wants some!
How about you?


http://greg.org/archive/2012/12/05/if_he_did_it.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun December 9th, 2012, 02:33 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue February 17th, 2009, 02:57 GMT
Posts: 6244
Lone Pilgrim wrote:

I also think there's a basic difference between Dylan-the-visual-artist and Dylan the singer-songwriter. The latter is certainly a magpie taking whatever he wants from found elements and transmuting them into something amazing. I don't see this as a 'wind up' - it would only be taken that way if we have a childish notion of 'originality' as the hallmark of art, a delusion from which Bob clearly does not suffer. Bob may be doing the same kind of thing as a visual artist, but there is absolutely no danger of his visual art rising to the level of his musical work. Otherwise put, if this artist's name was Joe Blow instead of Bob Dylan, nobody would give a rip about it.


A public person trying to cast off some of his psychic trash. Would be no different than he's done in his songwriting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue December 11th, 2012, 03:10 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sun September 16th, 2012, 12:31 GMT
Posts: 99
Location: cincinnati ohio
i dig how BabyTalk is the lead on this show

he is having fun

the transfigurations are hilarious


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue December 11th, 2012, 23:44 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed October 1st, 2008, 17:15 GMT
Posts: 8343
Location: This Town Ain't Big Enough...
People act like the ugliness of the magazine covers is unintentional because the artist (whoever he may be) doesn't know what he's doing or something. I'm really surprised by that. I mean, this is work by someone who really, really hates magazines (and/or the culture that produces them). That they're supposed to be aesthetically jarring seems beyond obvious to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed December 12th, 2012, 00:26 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 25th, 2007, 20:56 GMT
Posts: 1494
Location: New York City
Warren Peace wrote:
People act like the ugliness of the magazine covers is unintentional because the artist (whoever he may be) doesn't know what he's doing or something. I'm really surprised by that. I mean, this is work by someone who really, really hates magazines (and/or the culture that produces them). That they're supposed to be aesthetically jarring seems beyond obvious to me.


Thank you for making that point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed December 12th, 2012, 00:32 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue April 1st, 2008, 16:38 GMT
Posts: 7571
Location: The North Country
True, Warren. I have no doubt Bob realizes they look "awful". My take is that it is either another way for Bob to knock himself off of a pedestal (he seems to enjoy doing that!), a big FU to the art world (he likes FU's!), or a compelling commentary on media, culture, etc--and the richness of the work will reveal itself over time. Maybe it's all of the above. They look terrible to me, but what do I know--very little about visual art, I tells ya--and I am willing to accept that something's going on here that I don't get. (But I am holding out hope it's a hoax--maybe 'cause I am a little bored and that seems like some fun)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed December 12th, 2012, 00:50 GMT 
Mercury Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed September 14th, 2011, 13:25 GMT
Posts: 12325
Location: Wherever I am welcome
John B. Stetson wrote:
True, Warren. I have no doubt Bob realizes they look "awful". My take is that it is either another way for Bob to knock himself off of a pedestal (he seems to enjoy doing that!), a big FU to the art world (he likes FU's!), or a compelling commentary on media, culture, etc--and the richness of the work will reveal itself over time. Maybe it's all of the above. They look terrible to me, but what do I know--very little about visual art, I tells ya--and I am willing to accept that something's going on here that I don't get. (But I am holding out hope it's a hoax--maybe 'cause I am a little bored and that seems like some fun)


I agree with Warren and I also think it's all three of the things you mentioned, John B.

The more I think about the hoax thing, I am inclined to believe that there isn't any validity to that theory at all. These are Bob's, alright. I don't think he gives a flying x what anyone thinks. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed December 12th, 2012, 05:20 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon December 6th, 2004, 06:22 GMT
Posts: 15016
Location: Scarlet Town
Of course these works are bobs.... It would be considered fraud if they were marketed by gagosian and dylan as done by dylan and they weren't.
First, that's illegal.... These are selling for 200 grand
Second, bob can be a complete douche bag, but to ruin his integrity by doing that? No friggin way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed December 12th, 2012, 05:43 GMT 

Joined: Sat June 9th, 2012, 19:31 GMT
Posts: 654
While I don't doubt Dylan was deeply involved he may well have not done the "nuts and bolts" of the silkscreen process. It's well known Warhol had a shop. On the other hand Dylan is apparently quite handy, there are documented instances of him welding various things.
I understand his next art project will be a series of 77 finger paintings with one image in common, and not a bit of difference between any of them aside from the first finger painting being titled "#1" and the last "77." Here's what he's working on.

http://a.d-cd.net/6f1fd8u/480.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed December 12th, 2012, 06:08 GMT 
Senior Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu October 26th, 2006, 02:28 GMT
Posts: 24048
Location: I'm in Bostontown in some restaurant.
If you look at the other thread on this subject, I mentioned the huge exposure to lawsuits that would be filed if these were intentionally (or unintentionally) misrepresented. Nobody commented on my post there but there's no doubt in my mind that the $hit would hit the fan if an international gallery like Gagosian bought into a scheme like what's being alledged. I don't buy that someone else is responsible for this work. It's Bob's.

I like this exhibit alot and hope to see it over the holidays. Bob's taking (mostly) respected mainstream periodicals we grew up with and reducing them to the cheap and vulgar Pulp Fiction book covers of the 50s and 60s. Here are a couple of examples.

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7369 ... tothec.jpg

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3290 ... apcany.jpg

Do you see a similarity in subject matter or style? I'm guessing he took great pleasure at jabbing the very thing he's been so critical of for years.

Pulp Fiction art has a really interesting history and there's an indie film maker who did a good documentary about it. If I can find it, I'll post the name. I'm a big fan of the whole Pulp Fiction thing anyway - of course the campier they are, the better.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed December 12th, 2012, 06:14 GMT 
Senior Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu October 26th, 2006, 02:28 GMT
Posts: 24048
Location: I'm in Bostontown in some restaurant.
Here's the name of the documentary:

Pulp Fiction Art: Cheap Thrills and Painted Nightmares

http://www.societyillustrators.org/Even ... mares.aspx


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed December 12th, 2012, 06:58 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri July 15th, 2011, 02:23 GMT
Posts: 21438
John B. Stetson wrote:
True, Warren. I have no doubt Bob realizes they look "awful". My take is that it is either another way for Bob to knock himself off of a pedestal (he seems to enjoy doing that!), a big FU to the art world (he likes FU's!), or a compelling commentary on media, culture, etc--and the richness of the work will reveal itself over time. Maybe it's all of the above. They look terrible to me, but what do I know--very little about visual art, I tells ya--and I am willing to accept that something's going on here that I don't get. (But I am holding out hope it's a hoax--maybe 'cause I am a little bored and that seems like some fun)

I'll go with that theory John.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed December 12th, 2012, 07:34 GMT 
Titanium Member

Joined: Wed April 27th, 2011, 03:44 GMT
Posts: 7568
Location: the home for teenage dirt
BostonAreaBobFan wrote:
If you look at the other thread on this subject, I mentioned the huge exposure to lawsuits that would be filed if these were intentionally (or unintentionally) misrepresented. Nobody commented on my post there but there's no doubt in my mind that the $hit would hit the fan if an international gallery like Gagosian bought into a scheme like what's being alledged. I don't buy that someone else is responsible for this work. It's Bob's.

I like this exhibit alot and hope to see it over the holidays. Bob's taking (mostly) respected mainstream periodicals we grew up with and reducing them to the cheap and vulgar Pulp Fiction book covers of the 50s and 60s. Here are a couple of examples.

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7369 ... tothec.jpg

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3290 ... apcany.jpg

Do you see a similarity in subject matter or style? I'm guessing he took great pleasure at jabbing the very thing he's been so critical of for years.

Pulp Fiction art has a really interesting history and there's an indie film maker who did a good documentary about it. If I can find it, I'll post the name. I'm a big fan of the whole Pulp Fiction thing anyway - of course the campier they are, the better.




Yes and almost all of Richard Prince's work is based on pulp media, like girlie magazines, porn, biker magazines,
and other 'lowlife' media sensibility. Prince famously has a massive collection of pulp books and magazines extending back over decades that he works from or, in some instances, just reproduces it and sells as his own 'creations.' This is what gave rise to the speculation about the current show. Lots of artists have used pulp as a jumping off point, going back into the 50s. But Prince is more famous for doing so than anyone else.

I found a collection online of some of Prince's private books, including a book that BD inscribed to him. I'm starting to wonder who it was with an interest in pulp junk that put that book about Sonny Barger in Bob's hands years ago..........


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed December 12th, 2012, 08:21 GMT 

Joined: Tue November 13th, 2012, 17:27 GMT
Posts: 1967
Location: Passing through
Milkcow wrote:
Of course these works are bobs.... It would be considered fraud if they were marketed by gagosian and dylan as done by dylan and they weren't.
First, that's illegal.... These are selling for 200 grand
Second, bob can be a complete douche bag, but to ruin his integrity by doing that? No friggin way.


Not as long as Dylan aknowledges them as his, I think. Why should he not use other people to do part or all of the actual work? Rembrandt, Da Vinci and others had people who painted part of their pictures for them. Have I not read somewhere that the new pieces are not signed. It takes therefore a believer to buy them as Dylan's anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed December 12th, 2012, 08:25 GMT 

Joined: Tue November 13th, 2012, 17:27 GMT
Posts: 1967
Location: Passing through
Warren Peace wrote:
People act like the ugliness of the magazine covers is unintentional because the artist (whoever he may be) doesn't know what he's doing or something. I'm really surprised by that. I mean, this is work by someone who really, really hates magazines (and/or the culture that produces them). That they're supposed to be aesthetically jarring seems beyond obvious to me.


I agree, and that's the only thing good about them. After all, he exposes the not so pretty side of todays world over and over in song and the video clips for Duquesne Whistle and Beyond Here are at least as disturbing as the pictures.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed December 12th, 2012, 08:36 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed October 1st, 2008, 17:15 GMT
Posts: 8343
Location: This Town Ain't Big Enough...
They remind me a lot of David Lynch's type of thing, shoving the garish horror of everyday life right in your face. The blank backgrounds with the oppressive colors might be the worst part, evoking a very hollow feeling. Which is certainly intentional...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed December 12th, 2012, 13:48 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue December 14th, 2010, 14:22 GMT
Posts: 43311
Location: Beneath the Southern X
Is their not selling a book/catalogue of these prints part of the scheme, or has anyone ever gotten a reply as to when one will be published? And they're telling me collecting is easy....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed December 12th, 2012, 13:58 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Fri March 11th, 2005, 14:15 GMT
Posts: 598
Location: Albuquerque
Johanna Parker wrote:
Is their not selling a book/catalogue of these prints part of the scheme, or has anyone ever gotten a reply as to when one will be published? And they're telling me collecting is easy....


The Gagosian told me that they are working on the catalog and are aiming for a January release.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed December 12th, 2012, 14:14 GMT 
Senior Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri March 2nd, 2007, 15:48 GMT
Posts: 3447
Location: beneath the diamond sky with one hand waving free
Johanna Parker wrote:
Is their not selling a book/catalogue of these prints part of the scheme, or has anyone ever gotten a reply as to when one will be published? And they're telling me collecting is easy....


Good point JP- I think I'd might buy one. So curious to see the complete exhibit.

PS Welcome back


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed December 12th, 2012, 16:10 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon December 6th, 2004, 06:22 GMT
Posts: 15016
Location: Scarlet Town
Mutabor wrote:
Milkcow wrote:
Of course these works are bobs.... It would be considered fraud if they were marketed by gagosian and dylan as done by dylan and they weren't.
First, that's illegal.... These are selling for 200 grand
Second, bob can be a complete douche bag, but to ruin his integrity by doing that? No friggin way.


Not as long as Dylan aknowledges them as his, I think. Why should he not use other people to do part or all of the actual work? Rembrandt, Da Vinci and others had people who painted part of their pictures for them. Have I not read somewhere that the new pieces are not signed. It takes therefore a believer to buy them as Dylan's anyway.

Well there can be helpers of course. And like I said on the other thread I'm sure it is a graphic artist putting all the stuff on photoshop. Bob is just cutting and pasting what he wants where he wants. The graphic artist puts it onto the computer bob finalizes it by givin plays and they are test printed.

As for finding the pics and headlines, of course it is possible to have help. Or someone's input wouldn't be out of the question. But people are claiming these works are totally someone else's and that I am sure is not the case.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed December 12th, 2012, 18:07 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue December 14th, 2010, 14:22 GMT
Posts: 43311
Location: Beneath the Southern X
scottw wrote:
Johanna Parker wrote:
Is their not selling a book/catalogue of these prints part of the scheme, or has anyone ever gotten a reply as to when one will be published? And they're telling me collecting is easy....


The Gagosian told me that they are working on the catalog and are aiming for a January release.


Thanks, scott and ABAR.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun December 16th, 2012, 00:31 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri April 14th, 2006, 18:43 GMT
Posts: 5427
thanks Scott - i was really wondering about the Catalogue! We want the Words, the Sentences, the Exegesis, Dudes!

Pow! Right in the Kisser!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon December 17th, 2012, 05:16 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon December 6th, 2004, 06:22 GMT
Posts: 15016
Location: Scarlet Town
Milkcow wrote:
Mutabor wrote:
Not as long as Dylan aknowledges them as his, I think. Why should he not use other people to do part or all of the actual work? Rembrandt, Da Vinci and others had people who painted part of their pictures for them. Have I not read somewhere that the new pieces are not signed. It takes therefore a believer to buy them as Dylan's anyway.

Well there can be helpers of course. And like I said on the other thread I'm sure it is a graphic artist putting all the stuff on photoshop. Bob is just cutting and pasting what he wants where he wants. The graphic artist puts it onto the computer bob finalizes it by givin plays and they are test printed.

As for finding the pics and headlines, of course it is possible to have help. Or someone's input wouldn't be out of the question. But people are claiming these works are totally someone else's and that I am sure is not the case.



what the hell is that???? friggin auto correct on my friggin iPad... GAD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon December 17th, 2012, 11:55 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Fri March 11th, 2005, 14:15 GMT
Posts: 598
Location: Albuquerque
This Tumblr account has posted photos of a couple of the paintings: http://artsceneseen.tumblr.com/page/3


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 251 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group