Expecting Rain

Good point.

bloody pedants

It's a giant blown up copy, it is.

I think he's great - the joker and the thief.

I went to the Gagosian, it's not presented like the other paintings, but the paintings aren't presented with information. I suspect if you offered 350,000 for it, it would suddenly become a Dylan work.

twilight, are you saying that the Life image is at the gallery now, just apart from the other works?

It wasn't on display when I was there on Saturday.

All information on the paintings were on a flyer given out prior to entering the gallery space. The floorplans to the show where there, too.

That's what I understood, so I was surprised.

tOoM....
Then she says, “I know you’re an artist, draw a picture of me!”
I say, “I would if I could, but
I don’t do sketches from memory”
......
I make a few lines and I show it for her to see
Well she takes the napkin and throws it back
And says, “That don’t look a thing like me!”

I said, “Oh, kind Miss, it most certainly does”
She says, “You must be jokin’.” I say, “I wish I was!”

good point, benny, about the LIFE piece being transparent as air

IT IS - IT EXISTS ONLY ON THE WEB - IT IS LIGHT AND IT IS FREE

perhaps as a readymade homage to Warhol and his progenitor Duchamp -
in bob's first NY art show where he and andy knew each other,

it is POP ART

elitism vs populism get it - that hermetic spectrum the bible teaches bob teaches us about

It's interesting.
Most artists do sign work, but not all.
Some artists sign work on the back of the canvas. Some sign on the side if the work is unframed. But there is usually a signature (initials, mark) somewhere that identifies the work.

Maybe Dylan's just being Dylan. Doesn't sign autographs (usually). Doesn't sign paintings. Maybe he wanted to avoid the 'that painting sold because of the signature' comment.

Yeah, I think someone mentioned that one of the Brazil Series paintings also had a 'borrowed photo', but so far that's all that I've heard. But I am surprised he hasn't signed this series either.

The Asia Series paintings were painted from 'borrowed' photos. It's not unusual for artists to use other sources for inspiration. It is also not unusual that they don't credit sources. Many times that is because the sources that were a part of the inspiration were not heavily relied upon or 'borrowed' from. They were used as a point of reference or inspiration. If you saw the paintng and the source together they would be two different looking pieces. Here, these paintings from The Asia Series clearly shows that they heavily relied on their photo sources. And many people feel that Dylan should have credited the photographers whose photos he 'borrowed'. Because he's Dylan, and because these paintings were being exhibited at Gagosian, and because these paintings were done from appropriated photos that bear very clear resemblance to the paintings, he would have avoided the controversy that not crediting his sources has created. In light of that, I think it is very interesting. He didn't credited his sources. AND he didn't sign this work. There may be other reasons. But it is interesting.

I went too... the Life canvas is not on display and it is by private showing. It cost 200,000 and the one we all saw is not for sale anymore. The paintings are 350,000.

There was a flier showing where each piece was in the gallery. It didn't say anything about the paintings nor the price. You had to ask to speak to the representative for any info. the info given was the price, what was still available and which were the most popular. He never even mentioned the Life cover to me. So I wrote to him the other day and asked if the Vietnam cover was for sale and how I could see it. He sent me photos of 2 other different covers that were presently for sale.

Twilight did you ask to see the Life cover? They only do a private showing. Did you happen to see Uganda or Lyndon Johnson? I like the Vietnam one the best out of those 3.

why private?

200,000?

canvas?

what? is it like these blow-ups of family photos you can have placed on canvas, or mugs or even computer-woven blankets?

i'm getting mine done like this to wrap myself in bob's-life

http://www.personalthrows.com/?Click=2& ... 5QodyhxgOA

do one on canvas too -
(so funny a knock-off of warhol's marilyn is their publicity photo on their homepage!!)
laugh-out-loud

http://www.canvasondemand.com/

still POP ART

You should come if you can. I would love to see them. The Monk looks like somebody, but I haven't figured out who yet. Love, Joanna XXOXOX

OMG.... so there is a Life Magazine Series? Who did you write to to get this info??

He's selling the paintings for how much?

Greedy little fucker.

I don't have a clue what this thread is about anymore.

Larry Gagosian is the most powerful art dealer in the world. Rest assured that Bob Dylan did not pull any kind of "fast one" over on Gagosian about whether there would be a lawsuit in regard to the paintings. It seems like it's been very easy for amateurs to source the photographs they reference. If you can do it, what makes you think the staff at Gagosian didn't do this long ago or that Bob hasn't discussed it at length with many people he knows. Bob is way beyond stretching his own canvases. It's likely he employs a number of assistants in his painting studio who are well aware much of his work is "appropriated" from photographs. It's not like he has tried to keep all of this some big secret. Dylan has been friends with some of the most successful artists in Los Angeles for decades. It's not reasonable to think these people have never been in Dylan's studio or ever seen his work. L.A. is a fairly small town, art-wise. It's likely a large number of people have viewed his work long before it was every commercially displayed. Paintings based on photographs, or photographs based on other artists imagery are extremely common in contemporary art. There's nothing weird or underhanded about Dylan painting from photographs. As far as any interviews Dylan has given about his paintings, he can, like other artists, claim any inspiration he wants to about how or why he paints what he paints. He's never been all that forthcoming about his music, has he? Why would anyone expect him to be clinically exact about his paintings?

Why is Gagosian showing Bob's work? Gagosian has always been willing to exhibit people who were just as much celebrities as artists. A lot of famous artists at this point are little more than celebrities (check out Tracy Emin).
Once it became obvious to someone at Gagosian's Gallery there would be a huge amount of publicity for the galleries and possibly a large amount of money to be made by exhibiting Dylan's work, there was no reason not to show it. Look at the huge amount of publicity it has already brought Gagosian, albeit some of it bad. Even bad publicity is useful publicity.

Many artists do not sign their work. It means nothing. There are other ways of establishing provenance of an artwork besides it having a signature. I used to buy photographic prints from galleries in New York by well known photographers. In the same edition, some prints would be signed and some would not. It was often totally random which photographs bore a signature. The fact that there is a receipt from the gallery for the purchase of the work is usually adequate authentication for contemporary art. There are also unique aspects to the work of any artist that make them fairly easy to establish as someone's work. Anyone fretting about buying an unsigned Dylan painting from Gagosian should just find a reputable autograph dealer and purchase a signature. Buying a painting by Dylan just because he signed it is like the art collector Daniel Stern played in "Hannah and Her Sisters" who tells the painter played by Max Von Sydow that he's looking to buy a painting with orange in it to complement his orange sofa.

It's also not at all unusual for galleries to make you ask for a price list if you want to know if a painting is available for sale, and if so, how much it cost. News flash - many of the works by the most prestigious artists showing in the most prestigious galleries in New York, who may be asking half a million dollars for a painting - their work is not for sale to people who visit the gallery. There are waiting lists of collectors who are waiting for the privilege of buying works by particularly successful artists, lists people get on by being early patrons of particular artists, by repeatedly buying their work, or by repeatedly buying a lot of work from the same dealer, or because they have an impressive collection of paintings that an artist would like their work to become a part of. Just because you have half a million dollars and can afford to buy someone's painting doesn't mean the gallery will sell it to you. The art world has some very byzantine rules about who is allowed to own what, where someone is allowed to show their work, what work is allowed to travel to be shown in museums. And don't forget that unlike buying a book or a cd, paintings and other kinds of plastic art are typically one of a kind commodities and as such, represent major investment opportunities and your viewing pleasure in a gallery has next to nothing to do with why a particularly successful artist has a show in that gallery, especially a gallery like Gagosian's. If people think music has become extremely commercialized, they would gag if they knew the truth about the art world. Transactions in galleries like his typically involve breath-taking amounts of money. Bob is probably on the very low end of the price scale in terms of the work sold at Gagosian. His work is likely considered more a novelty than fine art.

Likely that Bob has the show at Gagosian because he's the famous musician Bob Dylan (like this is news to any of you?) and there's no big conspiracy about why a particular piece of work may not be hung in the gallery but only shown to private visitors. This could be because the work has already been sold, because it's not for sale to anyone, because it's only available for sale to certain people, or because the work is especially fragile and cannot withstand being shown in the normal gallery space without the possibility it might incur some damage.

As to the person who mentioned that the painting in question has no brushstrokes: neither do many paintings done using airbrushing.

It's still a photograph, it's not that hard to accept.

I'm not sure what your point is. Accept what? That the painting is in large part a copy of a photograph?

Bottom line - Bob's a canny businessman who is profiting to the tune of insane amounts for what are essentially copies of other peoples' works. And just like with his songs, he fails to credit the original source material.

The point is that the word "painting" suggest someone used paint and paint brushes. This picture / image / artwork / collage is not a painting by that definition. It's a photograph with additional typeface on canvas. Nobody painted it.

the thing with art, so take the opium den. who really has the credit for that womans pose? the photographer obviously copied it, or did he steal it? I dont see the woman being credited anywhere and in a logical world she created the photo and the painting, or maybe she was the figment of someones imagination. presumably not in this case if its a genuine photograph. but thats not even proven. so the point being, is that all Bob Dylan is doing is putting it out there. a messenger. maybe thats why he doesnt sign them. works of art have there own life

Interestingly, there is no Life cover that I can find that featured Idi Amin, although he was featured in Life's sister publication, TIME in March 1977.

I thought about just posting the above without comment, but why make people crazier? It's a photoshopped cover that constantly shows up in Google searches for "Idi Amin" and Life.

[Edit]

I should note that Milkcow wrote "Uganda" rather than "Idi Amin." I still can't find an Uganda Life cover, although one might be out there.

The first link to come up when googling "bob dylan life magazine".
http://www.warholstars.org/stars/edie.html