Expecting Rain

A decrescendo, a decline. A distancing. A long slow journey from light to dark.

I certainly hope you're wrong. But think it this way, how would you like the cockfight in those sunny colors, or the opium addict, or the gangsters?

this.

oh, and also RESPECT. i just love screaming the word.

I understand your point. But then, it still reverts back to the depressing subject matter. I wouldn't want a cockfight, an opium addict, or a gangster in any color.

I think Bob needs a shot of love. He says it perfectly in Every Grain of Sand

Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear
Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer
The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way
To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay


Quoting Jman


Jman, if you are referring to my use of caps in 'real', I wasn't screaming. I was emphasizing the quality I like most in Bob's art and art in general. That's my personal preference and has nothing to do with not respecting Bob. Honest is what I admire and respect most in a person and in a work of art. Bob's honesty is what initially drew me to him 46 years ago. I think I would be the best person to know where I stand on the issue of respect for Bob Dylan.

I agree, come to think of it, not very flattering choices for Asia

I was not. have a nice day.

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.

In that case, "never mind." You have a nice day too.

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.

"Ursie Green Pastures"

Quoting Ursie:

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.


Quoting Moonpeeler

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.

This entire discussion and the way that they have been presented hasn't taken anything away from the painting......... yes, I have my catalog and love it.... The painting are still the same fabulous works that they were no matter what is said about questions of their inspirations..... and as to a marketing question..... behind close doors I bet they are smiling like crazy..... this whole tempest in a teapot is putting nothing but fuel on the publicity fire....... There are people checking out Dylan artwork that would not have given it a second glance before..... they could not have given this a bigger sent off if they had plan it down to the last drop...... and as to Bob..... say nothing.... silence is all we will hear..... nothing is needed to be said. Does anyone REALLY think that he didn't know that the source material would be found?????? It's not like he has been able to get away with much for years now..... he assumes we (or at least someone among us) is smartest enough to find the sources of his inspirations....

Clapton plays the same stuff the same way over and over again. you can change paintings, why not? you can splash paint on it or add wiggly or straight lines or tags. nothing to stop you.

Quoting Lily


Regarding the marketing: You could very well be right, Lily. And then again, you could very well be wrong. And still again, maybe there is no right or wrong. There is speculation only at this point. As to the paintings themselves, there are only opinions and there is certainly no right or wrong in opinions when it comes to taste in art. Art is a lot like love. You see a woman with a certain man and you think "What in God's name does she see in him?" There's just no explaining it.

You do know that "copyright" is only a new thing? It's about 60 years old. Before that it was a free for all.

Do we want to live in a free-spirited, creative, artistic environment, or an environment of court houses and lawyers?

Everything belongs to everyone. The digital age once again renders obsolete notions of artistic "ownership".

Bob is living in the 21st century.

As Rimbaud said: "One must be throughly modern."

Thank you Rimbaud, that's what I wanted to say, you got it right.

Yes I saw that... That is a sigh of relief....

but they are not credited and I still say the way it was marketed was very deceiving.

yes I do.... and I guess that's what makes the world turn b/c I completely disagree with you.

ah-ha! i see now what this is about!! WARNING - WHAT FOLLOWS IS done in hyperbole for fun...

THE TOTAL DISCONNECT OF THE RICH LEISURE CLASS (SELF-ENTITLED)MINDSET SERVED BY A TOADY TOP-DOWN DYING MEDIA-PROPAGANDA APPARATCHIK SET THAT HAS KILLED ART FOR ART'S SAKE AND ONLY NOW TRADES IN money and POWER GRABS.

AND THE bonhomie of a CREATIVELY CONNECTING WORLD-WIDE COMMUNITY OF MUSIC/ART LOVERS GATHERED AROUND A GREAT ARTIST THEY RESPECT SERVED BY A CENSOR-FREE LATERAL (REVOLUTIONARY) WORLD-WIDE-WEB KEEPING ALIVE THE QUESTIONS OF WHAT MAKES LIFE LIVING: IS IT POWER, quantity OR ART, quality? THE BEST IS IT'S FREE, IT ONLY COSTS HEART - WE TRADE ONLY IN THE REAL EXPERIENCE OF INSPIRATION and togetherness.

THUS, BOB HAS TAUGHT US HOW TO EXPERIENCE ART how he taught us in his music. What's more, here's the radical statement, the payoff:

BOB HAS FULFULLED HIS ARTISTIC PROMISE AGAIN - I FULLY BELIEVE HE ANTICIPATED AND PLANNED THIS:
- that his FOLLOWERS (that would be us here at ERain, our cherished home-scholars Scott Warmuth and Fred Bals batting Wilentz and Marcus out of the ballpark) WOULD FIND OUT AND AGAIN EXPOSE THE QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ASKED - WHAT IS ART? WHAT IS 18 MILLION FOR A SKETCH? WHAT IS A BORDER COPIED FROM A FLICKER ARCHIVIST? WHO'S BIG BROTHER? WHY IS RICHARD PRINCE AND GAGOSIAN IN A COURT FIGHT OVER PHOTOGRAPHER'S COPYRIGHT ISSUES SURROUNDING THOSE AWESOME RASTA DUDES? that's why Richard Prince commenting in Bob's catalog is insider-funny, get it?

spliff for jah, orginal photos of originally experienced humans: http://www.patrickcariou.com/rasbook.html

controversial Richard Prince exhibition http://www.gagosian.com/exhibitions/200 ... rd-prince/
Photographer beats Gallery and Prince:http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/03/19/richard-prince-loses-fair-use-argument/

lawyerly art:http://blogs.geniocity.com/friedman/tag/authorship/

http://blogs.geniocity.com/friedman/201 ... -think-so/


... and NOW for the proof, the giveaway, the frission, the money shot, the white hott afterburner shot in the face:
THE TOTAL MISSING and anomalous VIET NAM MAGAZINE from the exhibition walls and catalog!! JUST FOR US HERE WHO GET BOB, HOW BOB GIVES US ALL AT THE RAIL A WINK!!

EXAMPLE:perhaps a nod to Scott Warmuth's sleuthing out of Bob's Fu Manchu fascination with the added text of The Mask and The Shadow as in "The Mask of Fu Manchu" (1932) and "The Shadow of Fu Manchu" (1948)?
:
http://swarmuth.blogspot.com/2010/05/no ... n-and.html
and http://newhavenreview.com/wp-content/up ... armuth.pdf

ArtInfo now copies the narrative, so perfect -

http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/38716 ... -evidence/

infinity on trial

Bobschool - That was the best thing I read all day. I'm printing it out (with or without your permission) and keeping it in a special place alongside my Bob stuff, maybe even in a frame under glass.

From what we have been able to gather thus far, six of the 18 paintings of the Asia Series were inspired by photos. What about the other dozen?
For the sake of argument, let us presume that all 18 are "copies" of photos. What's more, that neither Dylan nor the gallery has credited the photographers.
From an artistic standpoint, has Dylan committed an unpardonable sin? As has been mentioned previously, many painters paint from photos - either from pictures that they have taken or from photos by others.
Michael Gray - who at first had ridiculed Dylan's Christmas album and then recanted after actually listening to it - is suddenly an art expert and has criticized Dylan's paintings for being exact copies. But are they? Most, if not all of the six photos that have been obsessively scrutinized, are black and white. Dylan has made the artistic decision to use specific and vibrant colors, and brush strokes of a certain texture. Although he is very faithful in his representation of the photos, there are clear differences. And the scale of his paintings are different, too.
Which brings me to the Gagosian gallery. It clearly left the impression that Dylan had actually witnessed the images that he painted, although that strains credulity simply because so much of what is depicted is of a bygone era. But is that Dylan's fault? In his reply to an interview published in the catalog, Dylan does acknowledge that some of his source material are photos. Well, what about the other dozen paintings that might not be sourced from photos?
Before we condemn the man, let us wait for the all the facts.
This reminds me of the trumped-up controversy of Dylan yielding to Chinese censors earlier this year. In fact, Dylan did no such thing. His set lists from his shows in China more or less similar to other concerts he had been performing for months. But the presumption was that he should have spoken out against Chinese human rights abuses (as if there are none in the U.S?) Dylan gave up finger-pointing songs back in the early 1960s, and it is presumptuous of us to expect him to revert to that protest role today.
Similarly, the fixation with so-called uncredited sourcing of paintings reflects an ignorance of art. From Andy Warhol to many artists today, appropriation of images is part of the artistic process. We all inscribe on the palimpsest. Check out Ecclesiastes 1:9. Or better yet: James Joyce's dictum that the role of the artist is to make the same anew.
It is wonderfully inspiring that Dylan is continuing to produce art, and to branch out in different directions. Obviously, he's not doing this to profit. He does it because he doesn't look back.
Positively 4th Street, indeed!

renaldo45, did you read the whole thread? Throughout, there have been links to sources for 11 out of 18 paintings in the Asia Series. Flickr is not the only source.

Apart from that, uh-oh.... I didn't think the press would catch on so soon. The front page is full of it. Thb, it raises suspicion that it was a plot all along to keep Bob controversial.

Wow, the story really blew up on Tuesday!
Now, according to 'Dylan Paints Just like a Painter' here, http://chalktalkbooks.blogspot.com/2011/09/bob-dylan-paints-just-like-painter.html it's a standard technique. But the end results shouldn't look just like they were traced. They've got that somewhat-warped-yet-closely-copied quality that screams amateur learning from copying an image. These pieces just don't rise above the level of an art student project.
To quote Rufus, who commented on the New York Observer article, "Those paintings cited--in their composition and direct subject matter--are much more literally imitative of their "antecedents" than are Dylan's songs, influenced as they are by the body and tradition of folk music. In fact, they're more like studies, done by artists, of work they admire by other artists."

The gallery is really straining their credibility here. Now they concede that only the colors and textures were 'found in everyday scenes he observed during his travels', which is an oblique acknowledgement that their original press release, widely quoted, was misleading and has ticked people off to the tune of the backlash we're starting to see with articles that came out Tuesday.
I was glad to see the Arty Semite article quoting Soba, whose good natured response to all this belies the fact that dylan is operating in a vacuum.

How is this not a smear job? Good grief, y’all.

Interesting details re the Gagosian/Prince v. Cariou lawsuit, from today's lead story at ArtInfo
http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/38716/did-bob-dylan-rip-off-classic-photos-for-his-gagosian-show-see-the-evidence/

In this very thread, Fred@Dreamtime stated that he was in contact with an executive at Magnum Photos, who implied that the photographers are being paid for the use of their work. Just because it doesn't say so in the catalogue doesn't mean it's not true. There is no copyright issue - Bob's people are too smart for that!