Can we talk about Johnny Depp's 'paintings'?

[spanglechick]

I should add, not all art is about originating a new technique or concept. Oil painting naked people is also art, and that’s been done Quite A Lot. But the artistry then is how you communicate something about feeling, emotion, the relationship between the model and artist…

 

[Duncan2]

Fwiw there's nothing wrong with working with photos to create fine art - it's the results that matter, and the results here are particularly dull.

Not even sure he would get top grade at A level don't get me wrong I am in no doubt that as an actor he is something of a genius but why pick up a brush?

 

[spanglechick]

I’m always impressed when people can critique art because to me they look really good, really well done. I just wouldn’t be able to tell that they were better or worse than other art if that makes sense. I can’t see it.

Art is one of those areas (actually all the arts are) where you get this exponential growth in understanding after you spend just a bit of time learning about it. Tbf, I’m hopeless on classical art, really.

 

[David Clapson]

Not even sure he would get top grade at A level don't get me wrong I am in no doubt that as an actor he is something of a genius but why pick up a brush?

Ego. He wants to be perceived as some sort of polymath.

 

[teuchter]

I’m always impressed when people can critique art because to me they look really good, really well done. I just wouldn’t be able to tell that they were better or worse than other art if that makes sense. I can’t see it.

A lot of art critique is based on prior knowledge, and a lot of (especially modern) art has nothing special about it unless it's judged in the context of that prior knowledge.

I think it's perfectly valid to say you're not interested in that prior knowledge and just judge the thing as it is, and feel free simply to judge it as it is and on the basis of what it does for you.

Increasingly I'm of the opinion that a lot of well regarded art is actually quite rubbish because even if you have that prior knowledge, and can understand that yes it's a reference to this or it was created by so and so in this context or whatever, actually in the end it's all just incredibly boring (the art piece itself and the background knowledge it relies on). It turns out that the main response it provokes is for people looking at it to show off their knowledge to someone else looking at it with them.

For me that doesn't apply to all "art" by any means but it does to some. And it's quite liberating to realise you can just say something doesn't do anything for you, and it still doesn't do anything for you once you've read the stupid text on the label next to it. Going to exhibitions is more fun when you don't waste time staring at things out of duty rather than choice.

 

[spanglechick]

I find the line between art and decoration interesting.

I love Rothko. Above the arm of my sofa I have a framed Rothko poster, and ngl - part of the reason it’s there is that the colours and shapes work in this room. It’s not my favourite bit of Rothko though.

Next to that, above the sofa back, is a huge, Rothko-derivative decorative picture that I bought from ikea twenty five or more years ago, before I knew I liked Rothko.

 

[Pickman's model]

Not even sure he would get top grade at A level don't get me wrong I am in no doubt that as an actor he is something of a genius but why pick up a brush?

A levels have nothing to do with it. And it's a bloody stupid comparison imo. I think that the pictures are interesting because of the flat colours, the restricted range of colours, the absence of much paint mixture. Is it great art? Not imo. But it is art, and many people on this thread seem to be coming from a much greater knowledge of art than Depp can be expected to possess. He's never going to be a van gogh or caspar david friedrich. Don't suppose he wants to be.

 

[Pickman's model]

Ego. He wants to be perceived as some sort of polymath.

Wonder how you want to be perceived for your posts on this thread, presumably as a sneering snob

 

[Pickman's model]

Derivative of earlier art movements. Notably Warhol’s pop art.

Warhol’s artistry wasn’t in technique, or really even in composition. It was in the ideas. And ideas are personal, individual, they communicate to the audience.

Warhol took the commonplace (like the soup can or detergent boxes), and said “what if these cheap, ordinary bits of design that epitomise American life were rarified, made iconic?” Which is kind of different for us where we stand because later brand identities have done that.
Or he took the celebrity imagery that said “these people are rarified and special” but whose images were mass produced and disposable in magazines etc, and he distorted those photos, their colours, or overlaying them etc. - making them expensive and unusual but also challenging their perfection.
And then the mass production of his imagery adds another layer of these contradictions.

And Warhol wasn’t alone - Lichtenstein did it with comic books and so on… and they’re art because those ideas are new and intriguing and they speak about that time and place and the artists.

But if you create art which very directly uses the same ideas as another artist, and many of the same techniques and compositions, it’s derivative. It’s not art.

I disagree. If you look at literature there are many authors who in their early works draw heavily on other authors - for example, Clark Ashton Smith and lovecraft having a phase where they drew greatly on Lord dunsany. Numerous other examples could be given. Those works tho derivative are nonetheless literature. In music for several hundred years the chord sequence of the folia d'espagne were very popular, but their use by numerous composers (see e.g. Jordi savall's albums 'altre follie' and 'la folia') doesn't stop the compositions being music.

In this case it may be that Depp has drawn greatly or entirely from warhol. But I don't think that stops his pieces being art. I suspect he'll turn his brush to different techniques and find a voice as it were that's distinctively his own. But many people struggle with originality in their early artworks and I see no reason why Depp should be deplored for unoriginality here.

 

[campanula]

Hard to fucking know innit. How would this sort of thing be received in the (smirk) art world without the cachet of fame? How to separate the celebrity from the actual art? Should you even try? What exactly is art? blah blah.

My personal view - trite.

 

[teuchter]

The gallery have printed out some giant images for him (which one of their employees probably made in photoshop) and he's daubed a bit of paint onto some corners, probably being given a tightly restricted area in which he may make his mark.

These items are then sold at great price because they are associated with a famous person.

Probably the commercial director of the gallery & Johnny Depp's agent should get most of the credit for the conceptual thinking behind this piece of performance art.

 

[bimble]

Is he completely skint ? For a famous person to be flogging these bland potato prints of other famous people is really very embarrassing. He’d have been better off doing pop art portraits of a series of root vegetables, or anything really.

 

[Pickman's model]

Johnny Depp raises around £3m in hours by selling prints from his debut art collection

The Pirates Of The Caribbean star's work depicts four people who have inspired him and feature "characteristic freehand flourishes".

news.sky.com

I think he's just coloured in some photos.

They're silk screen prints apparently

 

[cesare]

I saw a video of him screen printing the images then painting on highlights and lowlights etc over the screen painted images, raising money for Great Ormond Street and the Children's Hospital of LA. Are these the same ones? From about 6 months ago?

 

[cesare]

Snap !

 

[bimble]

I think people just bought them in the same way they, the same people, would buy his autograph, or some underpants he once wore. People are strange. Oh he’s got his own logo, that’s very artistic and admirable.

Johnny Depp | Friends & Heroes | 2022

online.flippingbook.com

 

[hitmouse]

Derivative of earlier art movements. Notably Warhol’s pop art.

Warhol’s artistry wasn’t in technique, or really even in composition. It was in the ideas. And ideas are personal, individual, they communicate to the audience.

Warhol took the commonplace (like the soup can or detergent boxes), and said “what if these cheap, ordinary bits of design that epitomise American life were rarified, made iconic?” Which is kind of different for us where we stand because later brand identities have done that.
Or he took the celebrity imagery that said “these people are rarified and special” but whose images were mass produced and disposable in magazines etc, and he distorted those photos, their colours, or overlaying them etc. - making them expensive and unusual but also challenging their perfection.
And then the mass production of his imagery adds another layer of these contradictions.

And Warhol wasn’t alone - Lichtenstein did it with comic books and so on… and they’re art because those ideas are new and intriguing and they speak about that time and place and the artists.

But if you create art which very directly uses the same ideas as another artist, and many of the same techniques and compositions, it’s derivative. It’s not art.

Interesting, but I think I'd feel more comfortable saying that it's derivative art, or shit art, or whatever, than that it's not art?

 

[TopCat]

If Tracy the Tory Emin can shit her bed and sell it then art is a fairly wide spectrum

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

Not even sure he would get top grade at A level

Well you can't really tell from the final piece. You'd need to check the sketch books and assessment criteria.

 

[Pickman's model]

If Tracy the Tory Emin can shit her bed and sell it then art is a fairly wide spectrum

Tracey Emin: 'Tories are only hope for the arts'

She used to upset the establishment, now the artist risks upsetting the left with her strident support for Conservative arts policy

www.theguardian.com

if she hasn't changed her tune in the last few months there's no hope for her

 

[cesare]

Tracey Emin: 'Tories are only hope for the arts'

She used to upset the establishment, now the artist risks upsetting the left with her strident support for Conservative arts policy

www.theguardian.com

if she hasn't changed her tune in the last few months there's no hope for her

Was her art ever anything than presenting eg the bed and scooping up the £s. Did she ever donate it? Not sure. Her art isn't some step change better than JD's?

 

[Pickman's model]

Was her art ever anything than presenting eg the bed and scooping up the £s. Did she ever donate it? Not sure. Her art isn't some step change better than JD's?

think jd has been politics than te. it's certainly on the cards

 

[Sasaferrato]

They’re a bit A level. But yeah, fine. They’re highly decorative, not really art but the sort of thing they sell in IKEA.

Compared to Jackson Pollock he's a genius.

 

[cesare]

Was her art ever anything than presenting eg the bed and scooping up the £s. Did she ever donate it? Not sure. Her art isn't some step change better than JD's?

TE is just strictly profit thought or have I got that wrong?

 

[bimble]

Well you can't really tell from the final piece. You'd need to check the sketch books as assessment criteria.

Theres no claim at all that these are based on his own drawings, or 'sketch books'.
the blurb says
"Working from photographic references, each image has been stripped back to a simpler and iconic portrayal of the subject, which Johnny has then developed and energised with his characteristic freehand flourishes.' so no claim that he got involved at all until it was all printed out for him to colour in?


eg)



is from this old photo that is everywhere online



but with this written next to it by the gallery 'This portrait shows Dylan as handsome and heroic, at the height of his powers. But he also has his head bowed, with his eyes and ears open to the issues of humanity.'
Deep.

 

[cesare]

Theres no claim at all that these are based on his own drawings, or 'sketch books'.
the blurb says
"Working from photographic references, each image has been stripped back to a simpler and iconic portrayal of the subject, which Johnny has then developed and energised with his characteristic freehand flourishes.' so no claim that he got involved at all until it was all printed out for him to colour in?


eg)

View attachment 335250

is from this old photo that is everywhere online
View attachment 335251


but with this written next to it by the gallery 'This portrait shows Dylan as handsome and heroic, at the height of his powers. But he also has his head bowed, with his eyes and ears open to the issues of humanity.'
Deep.

You should boycott this shit and make sure that no-one benefits from it. Fuck the recipients etc.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

Theres no claim at all that these are based on his own drawings, or 'sketch books'.

You don't even know if this was AQA or OCR

 

[bimble]

You don't even know if this was AQA or OCR

i have absolutely no idea what any of your post means and that is ok. its probably art.

 

[Shippou-Sensei]

i have absolutely no idea what any of your post means and that is ok. its probably art.

A level art specifically


Artbteacher jokes

 

[spanglechick]

Interesting, but I think I'd feel more comfortable saying that it's derivative art, or shit art, or whatever, than that it's not art?

That’s where we differ. Art is a field of practice, but for a finished piece to be considered art, there’s more to it than practice.

Btw, I love a lot of conceptual art. Emin’s tent, and especially Whiteread’s concrete houses genuinely make me quite excited. Emin’s bed gets stick, and I see why - because it’s not skilful mark-making. It begins and ends with the concept. Part of which is part of this confrontational autobiographical exposure she was doing at that point, along with some challenges to patriarchal expectations, and yes, there was, with all the YBAs, a knowing audacity to do with how the art world spends money… but it’s not ALL about the £££.