The launch of a new exhibition at New York's Gagosian Gallery of Dylan's Asia series has seen a number of online bloggers come forward to point out the similarities between his paintings and photographs by a number of as-yet-uncredited sources.
Among the examples cited elsewhere include the painting on the right in this installation view which draws on a photo by Magnum photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson, and another shot by Dmitri Kessel (reproduced here on the Bob Dylan Encyclopedia blog), that bears a striking resemblane to a painting seen in this second view from the gallery show.
One fan going by the name of Okinawa Soba even spotted that six of the late 19th and early 20th century photographs he owned and posted on his personal Flickr stream had been appropriated for the exhibition in a similar way. While other versions of these old photographs may exist, Dylan's painted homages incorporated edits Soba had made in Photoshop.
The real cheek comes in that the exhibition, which runs until 22 October, originally described Dylan's paintings as a "visual journal" containing "first-hand depictions" of life in the Far East. That description has since been amended to remove both phrases, referring now to the works as mere "reflections".
While Dylan wasn't breaking the law here by painting these compositions (at least as far as we are aware!), it is odd that he has failed to credit any of his sources, particular given that one assumes these paintings will be sold on to wealthy international collectors.
So what do you make of it all? Has he done enough to change the original images? Should we give Dylan some leeway and chalk it up to a senior moment? Or should he be forced to pay compensation to the photographers and their estates?
Artists & Illustrators first looked at the paintings of Bob Dylan in our May 2008 issue - call back issues on (01858) 438 789 to order your copy today.
Posts
A less famous person wouldn't be able to get away with that, so why should he?
ReplyDeleteBut then...does he really care?
given that using photographs is common practice in painting these days I have no real problem with the fact he used old photographs. However, it is cowardly not to acknowledge his source. It almost as if he is ashamed of the fact as by admitting he used those sources,people might think the work is inferior.
ReplyDeleteHaving not seen the original paintings, I cannot really tell, but even if I knew they were sourced from a photograph I might appreciate a painting from a known photograph, as a painting is not just about the subject but all the other parts. Like the way it has be painted, the colour and the intangible, what feelings the artist's has managed to emote with the handling of the subject.
Having look at the work via another site, I would say they have been done by a competent amateur with very little understanding of the underlying structure of the figures. As to the colour, that is a difficult thing to assess via the internet but they seem wishy washy at best. As to the intangible get again hard to tell from the internet but I do know that often from a good painting, I get that feeling of WOW, even on the internet. A good example is the new work of Eileen Cooper, (the first woman elected to Keeper of the (Royal) Academies) at Art First. The very first image on their site made my heart jump with joy. I didn't get that with Mr Dylan's work.