"Ursie Green Pastures"
Quoted from the NYT:
When the gallery announced the exhibition, called “The Asia Series,” this month, it said the collection of paintings and other artwork would provide “a visual journal” of Mr. Dylan’s travels “in Japan, China, Vietnam, and Korea” with “firsthand depictions of people, street scenes, architecture and landscape.”
On Monday, a press representative for the Gagosian Gallery said in a statement, “While the composition of some of Bob Dylan’s paintings are based on a variety of sources, including archival, historic images, the paintings’ vibrancy and freshness come from the colors and textures found in everyday scenes he observed during his travels.”
-Say what you will, this is a poor far-fetched way of trying to save some bad start-up marketing. Like saying, "Ehm, weell, you see, as a matter of fact..."
It would have created a worthy stir, if the Gargosian people had started out with the latest statement, and let people know what it was. Wouldn't have taken anything from the pictures, I don't think.
I agree. Everything would be up front, Bob would have been saved the embarrassment, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. What I would like to know is: did Bob know and approve of the initial marketing statements? If the Gagosian Gallery issued that description of the Asian series without Bob's knowledge, it puts an entirely different slant on things. Maybe Bob should clear the air by writing another letter to his "fans and followers" and post it on Bobdylan.com.
There's one thing I didn't see in this thread, so here it goes:
One fundamental difference between painting and playing music is music changes everytime it's played, at least with Dylan, and that's not the case with painting of course, once it's done it can't be changed. So I don't mind Bob Dylan borrowing his music because I know he will re-interpret it at his shows, but I do mind when he borrows his painting.
Very good and interesting point. I hadn't thought of that. Music is very much a living thing, a dynamic performance art, not so with a painting. Only a work in progress can vaguely said to be living. Once an original painting is completed it can't experience change without destroying it's originality and integrity. It can be re-painted or copied, even by the original artist, but it will no longer be what it first was. All of this verges on a very delicate balance though, take for example an original written musical manuscript. Any change that is made to the original composition, even the slightest change, and wham, the piece is no longer what its creator originally intended it to be. It gets very hairy. Still, wonderful to think about.