Expecting Rain

Go to main page
It is currently Sun October 22nd, 2017, 21:19 GMT

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 182 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat December 8th, 2012, 17:54 GMT 

Joined: Wed June 25th, 2008, 22:49 GMT
Posts: 2255
Location: Joliet, IL, USA
It's getting embarrassing really.. just sayin. And keep writing and recording.. the clock is ticking.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat December 8th, 2012, 18:43 GMT 

Joined: Thu January 31st, 2008, 17:51 GMT
Posts: 957
Hey Bob,

some guy on the internet doesn't like your art work.
he wants you to dutifully focus on writing and recording.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat December 8th, 2012, 20:20 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat January 1st, 2011, 20:57 GMT
Posts: 6695
Location: Out in the West Texas town of El Paso
Tom Waits said it best,

Quote:
"People don't really trust people to do two things well. If they're going to spend money, they want to get the guy who's the best at what he does. Otherwise, it's like getting one of those business cards that says about 8 things on it. I do aromatherapy, yard work, hauling, acupressure."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat December 8th, 2012, 20:59 GMT 

Joined: Mon December 6th, 2004, 08:17 GMT
Posts: 2891
mjeff wrote:
It's getting embarrassing really.. just sayin. And keep writing and recording.. the clock is ticking.


People said the same thing about his music 50 years ago.

He didn't listen then, he shouldn't listen now.

Keep it going, Bob.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat December 8th, 2012, 21:03 GMT 

Joined: Mon December 6th, 2004, 08:17 GMT
Posts: 2891
If the reviews had been good, no one would be saying to stop. People are so easily swayed by what they read.

Luckily Dylan isn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat December 8th, 2012, 21:04 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 1st, 2009, 03:26 GMT
Posts: 1387
Location: With the winds in Chicago
He's still doing 80 shows and at least 1 official album at year. I don't think the painting (or photoshopping) is slowing him down. I think it's inspiring him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat December 8th, 2012, 22:42 GMT 
Titanium Member

Joined: Wed April 27th, 2011, 03:44 GMT
Posts: 7568
Location: the home for teenage dirt
"And it just goes to show things are not what they seem......"


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


injunction against Richard Prince:


http://art-unwashed.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... ctors.html



Interview with Richard Prince:

http://bombsite.com/issues/24/articles/1090


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat December 8th, 2012, 22:48 GMT 
Mercury Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed June 6th, 2007, 15:58 GMT
Posts: 11455
Location: in the land where dreams are made....
mjeff wrote:
It's getting embarrassing really.. just sayin. And keep writing and recording.. the clock is ticking.

I have seen this word 'embarrassing' used before about things that Dylan is doing..... I don't get it..... why would anyone else be embarrassed by anything that someone else is doing...??? By the way, I am sure Dylan is having a good time doing the paintings and is being "embarrassed" all the way to the bank :P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat December 8th, 2012, 22:54 GMT 

Joined: Mon December 6th, 2004, 08:17 GMT
Posts: 2891
mjeff wrote:
It's getting embarrassing really.. just sayin. And keep writing and recording.. the clock is ticking.


"Embarrassing" to whom?

"Bob Dylan should go back home to Hibbing and work in his father's appliance store; he's just embarrassing himself." - critic, 1962

"Dylan should ditch the beat band. The way he has sold himself out is just plain embarrassing." - critic in 1965

"Dylan doing country? It's just embarrassing. Go away and write some proper songs." - critic in 1968

"Dylan should stop making embarrassing films and get back to doing what he does best, making music." - critic in 1978

"Oh, so now we have Born Again Christian Dylan. How embarrassing." - critic in 1979

"Dylan should just stop embarrassing himself; he's past it. Irrelevant." - critic in 1985

"Why does he keep doing this? Touring, I mean. Why keep trashing your reputation, embarrassing yourself?" - critic in 1991

And we could on and on and on, right up till the just completed tour. People have always tried to find reasons to stop Bob Dylan. Right from day one. Personally, I find the people who say these things, to be embarrassing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun December 9th, 2012, 00:28 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun June 5th, 2011, 06:05 GMT
Posts: 6356
Location: One Too Many Mornings and 1000 Miles Behind
mjeff wrote:
It's getting embarrassing really.. just sayin. And keep writing and recording.. the clock is ticking.


I've never been particularly impressed with Bob Dylan's artwork in comparison to other Painters, but he's not embarassing himself. Art for Art's sake, why not? If it's what he wants to do with his time, he has every right. He can draw much better than me though for the record...then again, so can a lot of 10 year olds. I can't draw for s**t

I have a few close personal friends though who are amazing artist, so I'm a bit spoiled by seeing their work.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun December 9th, 2012, 03:01 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon August 31st, 2009, 00:16 GMT
Posts: 2074
In Rev's first link, the author links to an ER discussion from 9/2011: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=63507&start=150

It's about the Asia series and Fred@Dreamtime refers to Prince and his approach to art on the last page.

I linked above to page 7 of the thread, as the article does. Fred's comment in on page 36.

What a weird place art is in.

And how recursive this whole discussion is.

Curiouser and curiouser.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun December 9th, 2012, 03:16 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri July 15th, 2011, 02:23 GMT
Posts: 20917
Yes. Just read it. Thanks for pulling it together revelator. Fascinating.
If you open your mind and go with it, it makes some sense.
Bob giving the finger to the art world with a smile on his face.
Funny really.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun December 9th, 2012, 03:17 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed October 1st, 2008, 17:15 GMT
Posts: 8343
Location: This Town Ain't Big Enough...
It certainly is interesting to think about. The fluidity of "Bob Dylan" as an identity has been explicit in Dylan's work since at least Renaldo And Clara (and implicit since practically the beginning). The whole thing seems very "Claire Danes at the bulletin board" to me. The again, Claire Danes was right...

If Dylan starts covering "Purple Rain" next year, we'll know the jig is up...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun December 9th, 2012, 03:38 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 1st, 2009, 03:26 GMT
Posts: 1387
Location: With the winds in Chicago
After reading that article, I am now convinced that Dylan is the most brilliant artist ever in all of history. All that talk about transfiguration should of been a clue to what Dylan was really up to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun December 9th, 2012, 04:36 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed October 11th, 2006, 04:33 GMT
Posts: 5106
Bob should stop calling his songs "art." He has more in common with Tina Turner than, say, a truly great artist like Wesley Willis.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun December 9th, 2012, 05:06 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri July 15th, 2011, 02:23 GMT
Posts: 20917
MMD wrote:
Still Go Barefoot wrote:
Yes. Just read it. Thanks for pulling it together revelator. Fascinating.
If you open your mind and go with it, it makes some sense.
Bob giving the finger to the art world with a smile on his face.
Funny really.


See, that was a long thing, and you always act like you don't like to read long posts. And, no, don't snark me back. I am ending the snark here. Right....here. OK. Good.

Since when is "snark" a self-defined one-way street?

Anyhow, it was layed out logically, without running on and on. When that happens I can follow with patience.

Interesting stuff, no doubt.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun December 9th, 2012, 06:03 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Tue January 6th, 2009, 18:09 GMT
Posts: 213
Lily Rose wrote:
mjeff wrote:
It's getting embarrassing really.. just sayin. And keep writing and recording.. the clock is ticking.

I have seen this word 'embarrassing' used before about things that Dylan is doing..... I don't get it..... why would anyone else be embarrassed by anything that someone else is doing...??? By the way, I am sure Dylan is having a good time doing the paintings and is being "embarrassed" all the way to the bank :P


If he wasn't embarrassed by Christmas in the Heart, he won't be embarrassed by anything. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun December 9th, 2012, 15:28 GMT 
Senior Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu October 26th, 2006, 02:28 GMT
Posts: 24048
Location: I'm in Bostontown in some restaurant.
As briefly noted in one of the posted attachments,something similar happened to buyers of Andy Warhol's portrait pieces. Here's a pretty good overview of what's transpired as it relates to the authenticity of Warhol's work. The article is a couple of years old so there may have been some settlements by now but some suits are still pending.

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/featu ... shnayerson

For those who don't want to read the whole article - in a nutshell, Warhol employed many people at The Factory who were on hand to assist with the screenprinting of his oversized canvas'. A collector bought a "Jackie O" (it might be a "Marilyn" piece; I'm not going to take the time to re-read the article). Some years later the collector decided to sell it only to be told it wasn't an authentic Warhol. There's a wide assortment of opinion on whether or not the artist created the piece; or whether directing an employee in it's creation justifies authenticity. Lawsuits ensued and a number of collectors have been stuck holding the bag to the tune of millions of dollars in art or lawsuits (or both).

Although Prince (and Bob) may be suspect here, more than anything, I find it hard to believe that the Gagosian would gamble with their reputation within the art & collecting community (not to mention their financial welfare) by representing works that are created to purposely defraud collectors/investors. It would be a massively stupid move. Also, representing an artist and requiring them to sign a release would not exonerate the gallery from financial liability. It would also be impossible for them to procure insurance. IMO, Gagosian, more than anyone (besides the collecting communitiy) has more at stake than Prince or Dylan.

BTW, I like what I've seen so far. I'd like to find out more about this subject.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun December 9th, 2012, 17:54 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Thu September 3rd, 2009, 23:38 GMT
Posts: 1911
Location: Mount Vernon, Washington, USA
the_revelator wrote:
"And it just goes to show things are not what they seem......"


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


injunction against Richard Prince:


http://art-unwashed.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... ctors.html



Interview with Richard Prince:

http://bombsite.com/issues/24/articles/1090


I don't have time to comb through the 40-odd posts between people berating each other over who's berating whom, so I'm just going to respond to this directly. I read the article theorizing that Richard Prince was behind both this latest installation and the previous one credited to "Bob Dylan" at the Gagosian. It's a fascinating read. The Art World is so bizarrely out of touch with anything resembling reality that it's difficult for those of us who live out here in Nowheresville to even care, let alone form an educated opinion. I saw most of the magazine covers from the latest show, and they don't have much of an effect on me, but then, I'm not their target audience, am I? Whether Bob had anything at all to do with creating them or not, they exist as some sort of post-post-modern meta-commentary on something-or-other that is beyond the concern of 99.9% of us.

Compared to an album or even a single concert, these "works of art" have almost zero significance in the scheme of things. That's actually good to know, since they appear to be really terrible, something that most certainly cannot be said of Tempest. If the Bob Dylan Art Thing is actually a big put-on, all the better, I say. Bob gets to have a laugh, a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals get to ruffle their feathers, and some guy named Richard Prince gets to add a few more zeroes to the end of his already perversely large income. Good for him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun December 9th, 2012, 18:17 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun January 4th, 2009, 08:02 GMT
Posts: 16078
Location: South of the mountains of Madrid.
I do not understand why some people want that Bob to stop doing something.. :?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun December 9th, 2012, 18:43 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue April 1st, 2008, 16:38 GMT
Posts: 7563
Location: The North Country
the_revelator wrote:
"And it just goes to show things are not what they seem......"


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


injunction against Richard Prince:


http://art-unwashed.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... ctors.html



Interview with Richard Prince:

http://bombsite.com/issues/24/articles/1090


Was great fun reading these. I kinda hope it's true. But--wouldn't a put-on like this be subject to massive law suits?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun December 9th, 2012, 18:50 GMT 
Senior Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu October 26th, 2006, 02:28 GMT
Posts: 24048
Location: I'm in Bostontown in some restaurant.
Absolutely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun December 9th, 2012, 19:07 GMT 
Titanium Member

Joined: Wed April 27th, 2011, 03:44 GMT
Posts: 7568
Location: the home for teenage dirt
Responding to the post by Boston:

Although the Warhol problem deals with whether or not work executed by an artist's assistants, based on the creation and plans for execution by the artist, are fraudulent, it's interesting but not really applicable to why Prince is in legal hot water. Many artists use studio assistants to 'build' or 'execute' work they have made the conceptual framework for, sketched out and specified the dimensions and materials to be used, and oversee the execution of the work. Sculptors like Richard Serra, Claes Oldenberg and Jeff Koons have used assistants (and in many cases metal workers and foundries) to build huge metal sculptures for decades. Koons, like many modern artists, now employs over 120 studio assistants to 'execute' his work, including transferring images to canvas. Koons has stated this gives him the opportunity to make a lot more work and that in his defense, he hires people he knows to work as his studio assistants, which form a 'community', unlike a number of artists who now outsource their work to be 'executed' in China.

Prince's current legal problems about "appropriating" imagery created by another person and incorporating it into his work hark back to the lawsuit Blanch v Koons in which photographer Andrea Blanch sued Koons for using a photograph from a fashion magazine that Blanch had taken that Koons incorporated into a large "collage painting." Koons won the lawsuit by arguing 'transformative' use of Blanch's image, with the court buying his argument because the court believed that Koons had altered the image in color, size and had placed in a context in which it changed the meaning of the image and was used as a 'parody.'

In Cariou v Prince, Richard Prince is accused of copying over 41 photographs from a book that Patrick Cariou published about Rastafarian culture. Prince lost the initial round in court, and I want to quote here from an article about the case from artnet because I like the quote:

In her original decision Judge Batts ruled that Cariou's copyright was infringed because Prince failed to comment on Cariou's photos, saying that Prince didn't 'really have a message' and has 'no interest in the original meaning of the photographs he uses.'

This finding is answered with an argument that seems to come straight out of postmodernist picture theory i.e., that Prince, as an artist, should not be required to give the final word on his own artworks. Prince's 'reluctance to impute a definitive artistic meaning is consonant with the core postmodern belief that that an artist's intent is irrelevant because an artwork's meaning is manifold, malleable, and does not have one single meaning in the eye of the viewer,' according to the brief."



http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/c ... 1-4-11.asp

Prince's case is currently on appeal, and his attorney is using the Koon's argument about 'tranformative' use to try to overthrow the original verdict for Cariou in appeals court.

Prince's initial refusal to "explain" his art hurt him in the first round of the court case.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun December 9th, 2012, 19:31 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed October 1st, 2008, 17:15 GMT
Posts: 8343
Location: This Town Ain't Big Enough...
Train-I-Ride wrote:
jcastro wrote:
I do not understand why some people want that Bob to stop doing something.. :?

I do. Stop doing something you can't do in a professional manner any more (sing live), or never could do that well in the first place (paint, manufacture 'art') and put out another autobiography, even if it does mean lifting lines wholesale from famous writers and barely known travel writers.


...OR we could express a modicum of gratitude for the half century of music he's given us and say the guy should do whatever makes him happy.


Last edited by Warren Peace on Sun December 9th, 2012, 19:32 GMT, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun December 9th, 2012, 19:44 GMT 
Senior Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu October 26th, 2006, 02:28 GMT
Posts: 24048
Location: I'm in Bostontown in some restaurant.
I posted the Warhol article only as a point of reference for what can happen when facts are hidden and culpability is sought and deflected. I don't think both of these cases are the same; they're not. However, both have a common thread if it's discovered that what's been alleged is true - a blatant & ethical ambiguity of the true artist at the expense of everyone else. Even now, experts don't agree on certain points of both cases (as we know Prince's case is under appeal and Warhol's investors continue to sue).

My points on Gagosian are a different kettle of fish all together but all of them are valid.

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave......"


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 182 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  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