Much hubbub has been made recently about Bob Dylan’s horrifically bad second solo art show in New York. Even yours truly attempted to take it seriously, but something wasn’t right. No one casually strolls into the Madison Avenue Gagosian Gallery. The gallery won’t release more than two images, but there are 30 giant, glossy screen-printed canvases of faux-magazine covers that are allegedly meant to comment on pop culture or something like that, but they make very little sense, are unfunny and just look like crap.
So why, the hell why would Bob Dylan stage another shit-show, considering how the last one blew up? That his epic exotic Asian adventure manifested in Dylan’s own real paintings from real life, was actually a bunch of photorealistic paintings of Henri Cartier-Bresson photos and pictures plundered from unfamous Flickr accounts, all easily traced, all easily outed as a farce?
Because he is fucking with you.
I’m not much into conspiracy theories, but following on the Gallerist’s jab, Greg of Greg.Org provides substantial evidence linking Richard Prince (the artist known to re-appropriate visuals) and his buddy Bob Dylan (the artist known to historically be full of shit) in a scheme to make all of us look very silly.
His list of connections is extensive and amusing: From a few odd comments Richard Prince made about Bob Dylan’s Asia “work,” Prince’s own discourse during a 2009 deposition on using pulp fiction book covers as image sources for his Nurse paintings, personal connections between the two and Bob Dylan’s instinct to mess with journalists — as well as the fact that this work has nothing to do with the Bob Dylan we know — this could very well be just another staged rebirth of the artist.
There’s this ridiculous Rolling Stone interview wherein in Bob “Don’t Call Me Bobby Zimmerman” Dylan declares that that when another Bobby Zimmerman — a Hells Angels biker — got into a motorcycle accident at the same time as his infamous motorcycle accident, Dylan literally transmutated into a different being, thanks to that other Bobby’s death.
I’m not like you, am I? I’m not like him, either. I’m not like many others. I’m only like another person who’s been transfigured. How many people like that or like me do you know?
Alright, Bobby. Good show. Good show.
Because something is happening here
But you don’t know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?
Or whatever. Don’t even care anymore. Just thought you might want to know.
(Image: Inspired by Shiba Confessions)
I'm not sure how I feel about the Gagosian supporting this farce.
It did strike me that the word "Gag" at the beginning of their name might have more weight than I thought. However i did see the show last fall of paintings, which were successful in my opinion attempts to paint with an impressionist technique. they were painted by Dylan, they were consistent with his portrait/caricature style sketches, and they were well executed if youknow how to look at art. the subject and composition was not thepurpose of the work, it was about paint and brushwork and lighting, and it was good. While i was at the exhibit I saw someone come in and quickly graze each piece at a distance of about 12 inches and scan the show quickly. I immediately thought "Art Critic". I of course took myself to the far corner of each room and watched the images become 3-D and the balance/perspective/and light were right on the money.
So I'm sorry to hear all the discussion about subject being un-original. Campbell soup cans come to mind.
Anyway, it seems to me that the gallery is dropping their ball, or maybe it's just part exclusive insider only info pipeline that snobby galleries are all about. While at the Dylan exhibit last year I saw 3 other serious exhibits, so I can't totally believe in your hoax theory. I do believe that it's possible Dylan has decided to create something that gives his fans a puzzle to work out, have already found discussions on-line
regarding content of the first images released. I think if anything it's a statement about the medium of "Copying" that caused so much stir on the last exhibit. The first thing that came to my mind was the old Madd Magazines and this is the kind of place that we don't think of as plagierism, but recreating a photographic image on a large canvas with acrylic and oil paint mixed together(a feat unto itself) is something we should poopoo as "total crap". Oh well, if Mr Prince is creating such a hoax,
with the blessing of mr Dylan, i guess the word I have to say is, long live the spirit of Lenny Bruce 2-d style.
Look, Dylan is a genius, but that doesn't mean he has to be a good artist. Take a look at The Band album cover he did — he's definitely capable of silly art. Just because Fitzgerald and Faulkner couldn't write scripts doesn't mean they're wackos who couldn't write novels, so let's just agree that Dylan is the greatest songwriter ever and the shittiest painter to ever hang at the Gagosian.
I recently viewed an exhibit at the Institute of Contemporary Art in Boston. A very expensive piece of architecture. i left there with a headache and nausea. These were pieces of artwork that actually belonged to different private collectors. What is good art and what isn't is up to the viewer. If you take a look at the album cover from Self Portrait, perhaps you have to agree that Bob is a painter. And that is pretty much all you have to be these days. Someone who paints and keeps painting is a painter. And if you can convince someone to give you a show in a posh gallery that is all it takes to be a success.
But because he's Dylan, we're holding him to a higher standard. One I'm sure he cares very little about.
The Big Pink cover is a very good painting. As is the cover of Dylan's Self Portrait. Dylan''s Gagosian show work isn't nearly as good. Why don't you use your eyes?
Yeah, I can find fault with some of the pieces in last years show. I wish I could have seen the brazilian series in person. I had the sense that the show was finished in a shorter amount of time than might usually be taken to complete that many paintings. But I really just wanted to find out what his purpose was as an amateur painter. What has he learned and what is he doing when he's in his studio relaxing. I don't think anyone expects anymore than that from some one who is so prolific at another craft. So I felt several of the paintings were complete and was impressed with the technique. It's always a disappointment when an impressionist artist tries to cross over somewhere into realism. I think there is always a struggle like that going on, until you find your sea legs with it, but some of us never get that chance. Let's face it he gets shows because he is Dylan, but if you can look deeper, his paintings are good, the stuff on his art site and in the London based gallery are really good, clean, graphic approaches to visual art. Today, I don't even know how to define art anymore. it's all hype isn't it?
As far as the Madd magazine technique, printed on canvas. I think it's a waste of time, but then that's because it's my own medium. I'd rather see actual brushwork. The subject matter is less important than the process. The process for the new exhibit is un-interesting to me. No matter if it is a hoax or not.