Expecting Rain

Go to main page
It is currently Thu July 10th, 2014, 14:10 GMT

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 902 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 ... 37  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 01:48 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Fri February 11th, 2011, 00:21 GMT
Posts: 4047
I don't think Gisele is all that pretty either. I think she looks kind of masculine without makeup, but then again I am kind of short. My sister thinks she is gorgeous. All I know is that the last picture I saw of her she didn't look that good and she had darker roots than I do (or did until a few days ago! :lol: ). However, I would love to be that skinny. Really, she must have a great life. Hi Shoregirl, I hope you are doing well. I do think Tom Brady is kind of a hunk though. Cock fight! Cock fight! :lol: :lol: Love, Joanna XOXO


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 02:02 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon December 6th, 2004, 06:22 GMT
Posts: 15018
Location: Scarlet Town
Still Go Barefoot wrote:
Funny, you seem like someone that would imagine something and then believe it.


okay not usually, but we had a whole topic here about how people imagine posters look like their avatar... and of course they don't.... same idea.... sometimes when someone writes since you don't see them, you assign a gender by a guess.... and then you end up thinking they are that gender until that person tells you otherwise....that's what I meant.


PS I don't look anything like Bob's ass.... except I am also small.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 02:34 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Fri February 11th, 2011, 00:21 GMT
Posts: 4047
Milky does NOT look like Bob's ass at all. She is adorable and I do the same thing as she does - assign a gender based on the posts. It always surprises me when somebody turns out to be a girl and I thought they were a guy or vice versa. I do like Bob's ass though and it is quite adorable too especially in this picture. I wonder what it is doing tonight?? :D Love, Joanna XOXOXO


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 03:19 GMT 

Joined: Fri September 30th, 2011, 06:42 GMT
Posts: 18
AndoDoug wrote:
She's an Artist wrote:
There is something about this whole thing that just seems like there must be more to it than we know yet. Gagosian Gallery is HUGE in the artworld. Gagosian has had an interesting past. Even saying that, I don't think anyone would wish to face two lawsuits about the same issue within a year. I could be wrong. But it doesn't make much sense.

I don't see how anyone like Gagosian or also John Elderfield (a Chief Curator of Painting at MoMA for many, many years and the person who conducted the interview with Dylan that appears in the catalog for the Asia Series show) could have looked at the paintings we've seen from the photos from the Gallery and not immediately realized that these were painted from photos - they have that 'Tell Tale' look. And then asked Dylan outright to comment on his process. And if they still had any doubts, not to do a search on their own before signing a contract to show this work. Doesn't make sense.

And it is beyond laughable that they could see this work, that we've seen so far, and believe that it was Dylan's own 'visual journal' and 'firsthand depictions of people, street scenes, architecture and landscape'. It doesn't make sense.

If they knew that this work was done directly from photos that were not Dylan's - and if they knew he had cleared the rights to use this work - why would the catalog state that it was Dylan's own 'Visual journal' and 'firsthand despictions...'? And what would they have seen in this work that would make it so interesting for a major Gallery to show? (I'm hoping it was something more than the 'charm' of the signature.)

I keep thinking there has to be something more to this. Otherwise it is incredibly stupid.
Very perceptive post


Thank you, Doug.
I had one more thought which I forgot to mention in my comment. Why was the 'LIFE magazine cover' piece (which you asked the gallery to confirm as Dylan's work - and they did) used prominently on the Gagosian website to announce the upcoming Dylan show? It clearly had an 'Asian theme' - even if it bore no resemblance to the paintings in the show, beyond the fact that it was also an appropriated piece. They used it prominently, and yet, I believe that I've read, that it is not hanging with the exhibition or in the catalog. It was a 'focus' of sorts and yet not part of the actual show or included in the catalog. A missing puzzle piece, and another reason why I keep thinking there has to be something more to this. Otherwise it is incredibly stupid.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 04:30 GMT 

Joined: Wed October 5th, 2011, 04:22 GMT
Posts: 54
She's an Artist wrote:


I had one more thought which I forgot to mention in my comment. Why was the 'LIFE magazine cover' piece (which you asked the gallery to confirm as Dylan's work - and they did) used prominently on the Gagosian website to announce the upcoming Dylan show? It clearly had an 'Asian theme' - even if it bore no resemblance to the paintings in the show, beyond the fact that it was also an appropriated piece. They used it prominently, and yet, I believe that I've read, that it is not hanging with the exhibition or in the catalog. It was a 'focus' of sorts and yet not part of the actual show or included in the catalog. A missing puzzle piece, and another reason why I keep thinking there has to be something more to this. Otherwise it is incredibly stupid.

it was a clue that he was painting from life


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 04:51 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue December 14th, 2010, 14:22 GMT
Posts: 26285
Location: more barn
^^^ :shock:
Now that puts a different spin on things. Great. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 04:54 GMT 
Titanium Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue June 23rd, 2009, 09:29 GMT
Posts: 9805
Location: Sydney
everything about that vietnam cover thing was relevant to the controversy that came later.

it was adapted closely from an existing thing
the shadow and the mask and the prick refer to bob
the test of time refers to his work
what happens next is obvious


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 05:01 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Fri February 11th, 2011, 00:21 GMT
Posts: 4047
That was like a poem Tellmemomma! But I am now really confused. Obviously the photographs spoke to him and reminded him of things in his life, but can you explain it better. I am not trying to be a smartass; I am just intrigued by what you said so eloquently. Love, Joanna XOXOX


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 05:24 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Mon April 9th, 2007, 13:07 GMT
Posts: 1485
Location: garden of delights
The date of the Life magazine is also rather interesting.

Perhaps it was at one time considered as a "cover" image for the exhibition - for flyers, PR etc.?

Also, regarding the gallery's motivation for hosting the exhibition, given the hefty price of the paintings and the prominence of the artist, they are probably not concerned about possible legal costs (especially if they know it's all been cleared and paid for). 18X350,000 - gallery "cut" is considerable. Controversy can only help their sales.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 05:40 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sat September 13th, 2008, 03:43 GMT
Posts: 3075
Quote:
Controversy can only help their sales.
Duh. All those who have been wringing their hands about fellow ERers drawing attention to Bob via this thread take note.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 06:06 GMT 
Senior Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri July 8th, 2005, 09:04 GMT
Posts: 5404
geranium_kiss wrote:
The date of the Life magazine is also rather interesting.




The dimensions given for LIFE Magazine are another interesting aspect. 8 feet x 4 feet make it a pretty large work.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 06:48 GMT 

Joined: Fri September 30th, 2011, 06:42 GMT
Posts: 18
tellmemomma1966 wrote:
everything about that vietnam cover thing was relevant to the controversy that came later.

it was adapted closely from an existing thing
the shadow and the mask and the prick refer to bob
the test of time refers to his work
what happens next is obvious


I get that. I understood that - well maybe not exactly your take on the words, but the theme of the LIFE Cover. That's what I'm trying to say - and obviously not doing it well. Gagosian, Elderfield and Dylan are not stupid. There has to be something more here. According to the gallery, The LIFE Cover is confirmed to be a Dylan piece. It does seem that 'a game' was set from the start. Read that Cover. I assume Gagosian and Elderfield must have known exactly what Dylan was doing with these paintings. My guess is they have been in the artworld too long not to know what they were seeing. That Richard Prince has written a piece in the catalog leads me to believe that everyone must have known that this series was all about 'appropriation to the maximum'. The line that these paintings were Dylan's own 'visual journal' and 'firsthand depictions of people, street scenes, etc...' could only work publicly BEFORE these paintings went on view. I believe they all must have known that the photo sources would be found. And they were. So far: of the 18 paintings on view, 11 photos have been found. And what has that done? It's turned what seems to have been a PR game into a PR nightmare. Why would all of these intelligent people wish to put their credibility on the line, to this extent, if there isn't more to this than what we already know? Appropriation is not new in the art world. It is a part of art history. One artist 'borrowing' from another to create a new statement. It is USUALLY not the kind of almost total appropriating from a source that we see here. I really do believe that there is something more that we are still missing. At least I sure hope so. Because right now it seems that from the reporting of this Internationally that many people must be wondering how Gagosian could have been fool enough (or worse) to have mounted this exhibit and how Dylan could have been naiive enough (or worse) not to believe his photo sources would be found. This is alluded to on the LIFE Cover. I can't believe that they started this game to destroy their credibility. What would be the point? I believe there is a key to all this that we have not found yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 06:51 GMT 

Joined: Thu July 14th, 2011, 15:34 GMT
Posts: 33
Frank?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 06:55 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue December 14th, 2010, 14:22 GMT
Posts: 26285
Location: more barn
smlngfrgttntrth wrote:
Frank?


Exactly! :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 10:33 GMT 
Mercury Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed January 28th, 2009, 09:47 GMT
Posts: 10102
Location: A high place of darkness and light
She's an Artist wrote:
I get that. I understood that - well maybe not exactly your take on the words, but the theme of the LIFE Cover. That's what I'm trying to say - and obviously not doing it well. Gagosian, Elderfield and Dylan are not stupid. There has to be something more here. According to the gallery, The LIFE Cover is confirmed to be a Dylan piece. It does seem that 'a game' was set from the start. Read that Cover. I assume Gagosian and Elderfield must have known exactly what Dylan was doing with these paintings. My guess is they have been in the artworld too long not to know what they were seeing. That Richard Prince has written a piece in the catalog leads me to believe that everyone must have known that this series was all about 'appropriation to the maximum'. The line that these paintings were Dylan's own 'visual journal' and 'firsthand depictions of people, street scenes, etc...' could only work publicly BEFORE these paintings went on view. I believe they all must have known that the photo sources would be found. And they were. So far: of the 18 paintings on view, 11 photos have been found. And what has that done? It's turned what seems to have been a PR game into a PR nightmare. Why would all of these intelligent people wish to put their credibility on the line, to this extent, if there isn't more to this than what we already know? Appropriation is not new in the art world. It is a part of art history. One artist 'borrowing' from another to create a new statement. It is USUALLY not the kind of almost total appropriating from a source that we see here. I really do believe that there is something more that we are still missing. At least I sure hope so. Because right now it seems that from the reporting of this Internationally that many people must be wondering how Gagosian could have been fool enough (or worse) to have mounted this exhibit and how Dylan could have been naiive enough (or worse) not to believe his photo sources would be found. This is alluded to on the LIFE Cover. I can't believe that they started this game to destroy their credibility. What would be the point? I believe there is a key to all this that we have not found yet.


Or, maybe, just maybe they all got a bit greedy and either thought nobody would notice or that - more likely - the publicity would help sell more of the overpriced ripoff paintings, and promote the gallery at the same time?

There is no great mystery or game - just people wanting to fill their already overstuffed wallets. Dylan's a businessman more than artist these days.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 11:27 GMT 
Senior Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu October 26th, 2006, 02:28 GMT
Posts: 23286
Location: I'm in Bostontown in some restaurant.
I found it interesting that the original pieces on exhibit are not signed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 11:38 GMT 
Mercury Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed January 28th, 2009, 09:47 GMT
Posts: 10102
Location: A high place of darkness and light
BostonAreaBobFan wrote:
I found it interesting that the original pieces on exhibit are not signed.


He probably didnt do those ones then.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 11:41 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue December 14th, 2010, 14:22 GMT
Posts: 26285
Location: more barn
Of course not. Tony made them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 13:24 GMT 
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri December 29th, 2006, 20:42 GMT
Posts: 1188
Location: Merrimack, NH
She's an Artist wrote:

I get that. I understood that - well maybe not exactly your take on the words, but the theme of the LIFE Cover. That's what I'm trying to say - and obviously not doing it well. Gagosian, Elderfield and Dylan are not stupid. There has to be something more here. According to the gallery, The LIFE Cover is confirmed to be a Dylan piece. It does seem that 'a game' was set from the start. Read that Cover. I assume Gagosian and Elderfield must have known exactly what Dylan was doing with these paintings. My guess is they have been in the artworld too long not to know what they were seeing. That Richard Prince has written a piece in the catalog leads me to believe that everyone must have known that this series was all about 'appropriation to the maximum'. The line that these paintings were Dylan's own 'visual journal' and 'firsthand depictions of people, street scenes, etc...' could only work publicly BEFORE these paintings went on view. I believe they all must have known that the photo sources would be found. And they were. So far: of the 18 paintings on view, 11 photos have been found. And what has that done? It's turned what seems to have been a PR game into a PR nightmare. Why would all of these intelligent people wish to put their credibility on the line, to this extent, if there isn't more to this than what we already know? Appropriation is not new in the art world. It is a part of art history. One artist 'borrowing' from another to create a new statement. It is USUALLY not the kind of almost total appropriating from a source that we see here. I really do believe that there is something more that we are still missing. At least I sure hope so. Because right now it seems that from the reporting of this Internationally that many people must be wondering how Gagosian could have been fool enough (or worse) to have mounted this exhibit and how Dylan could have been naiive enough (or worse) not to believe his photo sources would be found. This is alluded to on the LIFE Cover. I can't believe that they started this game to destroy their credibility. What would be the point? I believe there is a key to all this that we have not found yet.


As you know if you've been following the thread from its start, I've also felt that the Life cover is a deliberate message and something, given the image, of a preemptive strike against the whole "Dylan steals" meme. People were speculating about its meaning even before the "Opium" painting was discovered to be based on the Leon Busy photo. I think Dylan asked that it be placed on the Gagosian site as a representative "artist work" and that the Gagosian was instructed to respond to inquiries that it was part of the "Asia Series," knowing full well that speculation would increase when the image was placed in neither installation nor catalog.

I also think it deliberately Warholian and probably connected to this...

http://expectingrain.com/discussions/vi ... =6&t=49396

Given his reference to Warhol in the Elderfield interview, one of the few times he's gone on record about Warhol and hasn't spoken of him with disdain, btw, and that the dimensions of the Life image are even larger than the Double Elvis that used to belong to Mr.D. I think someone is making a statement, as most of that (what I believe is a) bogus "interview" is a statement. The references to Duchamp, photos and camera obscura are very deliberate planted, in my opinion.

In some ways, the whole thing has become a work of art, hasn't it? as "She's an Artist" noted.

As to why the Gagosian and Elderfield would knowingly be a party to it, to misquote Una Merkel in the original "Parent Trap," I can think of more than six million reasons why, or at least a good chunk of that action, if they were actually aware that the paintings were based on photos. However, it's just as likely that they weren't, and chalked up the whole Life image thing as a wonderful example of Bob eccentricity.

And, in the end, what harm? I know from my research that Dylan licensed the two Magnum images. It's worth noting that when I contacted one of the photographers, it was obvious he wasn't aware of the situation and was shocked and a little angry when I informed him. A few days later when I followed up, he refused to make any comment. What had happened during the intervening period? I had contacted Magnum, that's what had happened. After checking with a few other sources, all of whom dried up as the story hit the media, it became clear that the lid had been clamped down and no one involved was going to say nothing to no one no how.

Anyway, if Dylan's people licensed two photos, I feel pretty confident that they also licensed any more they felt needed to be licensed. As to the Okinawa Soba photos, they're public domain and clearly stated so on his site. As he said in this thread, common Creative Commons practice is to acknowledge the source. But, as I said, would we really expect Bob Dylan to do that or expect any more or any less from someone who is a serial appropriator?

Again, I feel pretty confident that if any more photos are discovered, they also will be public domain or licensed.

And finally. just to note how over-the-top this has become, I recently received an email from someone who felt the Dylan additions to the Life cover were a hidden anagram and, when s/he had decoded them, found...

"Bob Butts Tempt," which, rather than some reference to Milkcow's obsession with Mr. D.'s posterior, my correspondent claimed was "obviously" making note of the fact that Dylan had a smoking addiction.

I'm afraid they were serious. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 13:36 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Tue August 10th, 2010, 20:02 GMT
Posts: 3016
Location: A long the levy , where the geese into the countryside have flown
Quote:
it's just as likely that they weren't, and chalked up the whole Life image thing as a wonderful example of Bob eccentricity.


How do you explain this ..... if the live time cover is a Dylan painting what is it doing in the photo book of Larry Burrows
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media ... F8&index=3

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid= ... =3&theater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 13:42 GMT 
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri December 29th, 2006, 20:42 GMT
Posts: 1188
Location: Merrimack, NH
Blue Midnight wrote:

How do you explain this ..... if the live time cover is a Dylan painting what is it doing in the photo book of Larry Burrows
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media ... F8&index=3

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid= ... =3&theater


In a word, as I said, "licensing."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 13:50 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon December 6th, 2004, 06:22 GMT
Posts: 15018
Location: Scarlet Town
Blue Midnight wrote:
Quote:
it's just as likely that they weren't, and chalked up the whole Life image thing as a wonderful example of Bob eccentricity.


How do you explain this ..... if the live time cover is a Dylan painting what is it doing in the photo book of Larry Burrows
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media ... F8&index=3

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid= ... =3&theater



Bob made the extra text on it...
that was pretty clear

@ Fred...hahahahaha oh please....it's all about me and my avatar... you're all just jealous... hahahahaha


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 14:14 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Tue August 10th, 2010, 20:02 GMT
Posts: 3016
Location: A long the levy , where the geese into the countryside have flown
So you can put some text on something and then you have the rights or license of the subject and you can say it’s yours ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 14:18 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue December 14th, 2010, 14:22 GMT
Posts: 26285
Location: more barn
No, licensing means you give money to the owner in order to use his image.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed October 5th, 2011, 14:38 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Tue August 10th, 2010, 20:02 GMT
Posts: 3016
Location: A long the levy , where the geese into the countryside have flown
Okay now I understand .

sorry guys but I will never win a Nobel prize with my bad english :oops:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 902 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 ... 37  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