Sparrow
Mentor
... another, and lesser universe? it sounds like a bit of jealousy to me ... as for the paintings, they look like they were made by the finest singer-songwriter of the modern era, who's doesn't paint to quite the same standard
Texsport
Well-known
I'm with Joni Mitchell.
BTW---I've been to Mr. Zimmerman's childhood home---in Hibbing, Minnesota.
Just happened to be in the area and somebody took me there. Not worth the trip.
Texsport
BTW---I've been to Mr. Zimmerman's childhood home---in Hibbing, Minnesota.
Just happened to be in the area and somebody took me there. Not worth the trip.
Texsport
FrankS
Registered User
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!
Joni is a genius in her own right IMO but where did that blast come from?
A few years ago I watched a documentary on BD in the early years of his career, during the peace movement, Joan Biaz was there too. What struck me the most was the opportunity he passed on to have a prominent if not leadership role in this movement. A lot of people were hoping and waiting for him to step up, but he didn't, disappointing a lot of people.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/bob-dylan-no-direction-home/
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The thing about Dylan is he's fallible ... He's done albums that I haven't liked much and as a person he leaves me a little non plussed but I still think he's the most significant singer/songwriter of our time.
Yes, and commericalism. It's in the gallery because the gallery thinks they can sell it.
Perhaps because he knew he was just a singer / songwriter and not a movement leader? It was probably the right choice.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
d_ross
Registered User
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]True and being celebrity art they probably will sell it!
I find this thread very interesting on all the levels that have been discussed here. But primarily in his responsibility as a great artist in his own right.
In that they were conveyed as being Dylan's observations of Asia there was deception over the origins of the works there's little doubt about that, whether that was the gallery or Bob it doesn't matter, it was done in his name!
Senior artists like Dylan have a responsibility that comes with their fame money and positions. He must have known that people would see this deception. So, if he did it deliberately to get attention that truly is pathetic for a man of his stature, if not then he is stupid, or if he thought there was some kind of conceptual irony in his work, as with say Jeff Koons, he is sadly mistaken. I simply cannot understand why he would go down this road, but by doing so I believe he failed in his responsibilities as a senior artist.
Call it commercialism, call it freedom, call it whatever you like. I call it simply narcissism and all the more pathetic considering his status.
[/FONT]
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
I was as Frank surprised at that... From memory I remember she said something like he's never been there and he never will... I guess he discovered too soon how hard changing the world is... But yes, it was deeply surprising to me... Maybe he's preferred to remain influential from his works only...
Cheers,
Juan
Cheers,
Juan
Teuthida
-
I'll give a pass to Mr. Zimmerman on this one, given he once packed more genius in one 11 minute 45 in 1965 (Like a rolling stone/B Side: Postively 4th St) that HCB did in his entire 50 year oeuvre. And I really like HCB.
Teuthida
-
Read Chronicles Part 1. Fascinating read. All Dylan ever wanted to do was play folk music. His political hero was Barry Goldwater of all people. He stepped away from the music scene in 67 not because of his motorcycle accident but rather because he was sick of being press-ganged into other people's political agendas. He didn't care to be the spokesperson for anybody or anything. I admire that.
Landshark
Well-known
As Juan mentioned above, they're not copies nor photocopies. A copy is "a thing made just like another"
At first this would suggest that a "copy" would be a black and white photograph.
Since Dylans paintings are 1. in color. 2. Not accurate in detail. they are interpretations.
I don't know if this is an apple/orange comparison but wasn't a LOT of Warhols work "borrowed" and given a new interpretation?
At first this would suggest that a "copy" would be a black and white photograph.
Since Dylans paintings are 1. in color. 2. Not accurate in detail. they are interpretations.
I don't know if this is an apple/orange comparison but wasn't a LOT of Warhols work "borrowed" and given a new interpretation?
d_ross
Registered User
Maybe they are not exact, as in absolutely exactly to the last pixel the same, but still very close to it. The thing is they were put out there as being his personal observations of life in Asia, which they are very clearly not. I'm interested in this because of his stature as an artist in his own right, yet still feeling compelled to appropriate things and then say they are his own! why would he need/want to do this? and why wouldn't he, of all people, want to pay some note to the actual creators of the images?
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Perhaps it's not easy to go on with this thread without adding to its speculative smell... At the risk of speculating again, I'd add: when you say "he", you might be wrong because instead of him, maybe it's some other people really who are involved in that description of what his paintings are about in general... A bit more speculation: you enjoy trying to judge in public both his aesthetics (non creative artist) and his ethics (false human being)... With such deeply relevant artist at a world/historic level, you might be trying to stop the sun from shining by placing your hands on your eyes...
Cheers,
Juan
d_ross
Registered User
Yes Juan perhaps other people awere involved in that description, but in his interview he said "I" and then went on to say the works are etc etc. I don't really care what Dylan does, but he's only deeply relevant as a musician! and I wonder why being so he couldn't be gracious enough to pay homage to other deeply relevant visual artists who's work he copied! Just as other singers give credit to him when they sing his songs.
And lastly from me anyway
True covering ones eyes does not make the crap that exists in the world go away, but it (the world) can do without another f*ing celebrity painter, really.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Yes Juan perhaps other people awere involved in that description, but in his interview he said "I" and then went on to say the works are etc etc. I don't really care what Dylan does, but he's only deeply relevant as a musician! and I wonder why being so he couldn't be gracious enough to pay homage to other deeply relevant visual artists who's work he copied! Just as other singers give credit to him when they sing his songs.
And lastly from me anyway
What you don't want to see is he is paying homage and being humble by using others' works.
And Bob Dylan is not a celebrity. There are 10,000 celebrities everywhere, all good for nothing.
Cheers,
Juan
FrankS
Registered User
It is clear that one is a copy of another. It is clear which was first.
d_ross
Registered User
Simple appropriation/copying isnt paying homage, paying homage means exactly that, ie a performer saying this next song I'm going to sing was written by Bob Dylan in bla bla. instead of saying I'd like to sing you my new song, which is in a visual sense what Dylan did here.
d_ross
Registered User
Dylan is a real celebrity the other 10,000 you mention are simply people who hijacked the term celebrity to their own ends
uhoh7
Mentor
This is the real Dylan. Hard to imagine a better metaphor for his initial rise to fame. He stole 100 Guthrie albums from a collector and player (i forget the guys name) and made his name in NYC with unabashed Guthrie impersonation.
He was pretty dang good at it, enough to really impress Hammond who single-handedly made a space for Dylan in the record industry.
Dylan pushed the plug to electric, sort of like he (or someone) laid the paints on the classic photos.
He knew exactly what he was doing. The photos are known. It's hard to imagine anything he could have done to get more attention.
Don't get me wrong, I love alot of the Dylan music, especially the early stuff. But I even liked his christian phase when I heard it from time to time.
Dylan has always been the ultimate opportunist, the ultimate manipulator. Some of his greatest inspiration came when it didn't work, like when that chick dumped him--the one on the album cover.
It doesn't matter what you think of the paintings. If you are reading this, Dylan has won.
again.
He was pretty dang good at it, enough to really impress Hammond who single-handedly made a space for Dylan in the record industry.
Dylan pushed the plug to electric, sort of like he (or someone) laid the paints on the classic photos.
He knew exactly what he was doing. The photos are known. It's hard to imagine anything he could have done to get more attention.
Don't get me wrong, I love alot of the Dylan music, especially the early stuff. But I even liked his christian phase when I heard it from time to time.
Dylan has always been the ultimate opportunist, the ultimate manipulator. Some of his greatest inspiration came when it didn't work, like when that chick dumped him--the one on the album cover.
It doesn't matter what you think of the paintings. If you are reading this, Dylan has won.
again.
Last edited: