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

[SpookyFrank]

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.

I've got a Rothko on my sofa. Where I spilled coffee on it.

 

[8ball]

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.

Yeah, they look good to me, but I know bugger all about art.

 

[killer b]

I'm a fan of Emin - she's a bit of a dick, but a lot of the work is great

 

[spanglechick]

Compared to Jackson Pollock he's a genius.

Oh ffs. He (Pollock) originated an entire form of painting.

 

[Pickman's model]

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 don't print out screen prints.

 

[spanglechick]

…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…

Why’s that then?

My only art qualification is a grade C GCSE. I guarantee Depp’s had access to more and more recent training and support than that.

 

[8ball]

Oh ffs. He (Pollock) originated an entire form of painting.

One that not everyone is totally enamoured with tbf.

My tuppence worth (from the knowing bugger all perspective) is that I agree there’s nothing original going on, but if I owned a bar I could see myself having something like that on the wall.

 

[Pickman's model]

Why’s that then?

My only art qualification is a grade C GCSE. I guarantee Depp’s had access to more and more recent training and support than that.

Since I posted that I found out he's been artistically active for rather longer than I thought and that contrary to the thread title these aren't in fact paintings, which last is something that few people seem to have taken on board. Your art gcse is a higher qualification than any depp has.

 

[spanglechick]

One that not everyone is totally enamoured with tbf.

My tuppence worth is that I agree there’s nothing original going on, but if I owned a bar I could see myself having something like that on the wall.

Which is my point. It’s decoration.

And I don’t love Pollock either. But I’m not arrogant enough to to say it’s bad.

People slagging of the great artists of the 20th century sound like 13 year olds saying that Shakespeare’s shit. You can dislike something without imagining that your opinion on the skill and quality outweighs the consensus of informed understanding.

It’s like I personally find both “2001: A Space Odyssey”, and “Blade Runner” unwatchably dull. But they’re clearly not bad films: they’re great pieces of filmmaking art.

 

[teuchter]

You don't print out screen prints.

You'll be telling us you don't do paintings with paint next.

 

[Santino]

I've got a Rothko on my sofa. Where I spilled coffee on it.

Yeah, my three year-old could do that. Paintings should look like something. You can't even call it Christmas these days.

 

[Pickman's model]

You'll be telling us you don't do paintings with paint next.

You need these things pointed out to you

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.

 

[8ball]

Which is my point. It’s decoration.

And I don’t love Pollock either. But I’m not arrogant enough to to say it’s bad.

People slagging of the great artists of the 20th century sound like 13 year olds saying that Shakespeare’s shit. You can dislike something without imagining that your opinion on the skill and quality outweighs the consensus of informed understanding.

It’s like I personally find both “2001: A Space Odyssey”, and “Blade Runner” unwatchably dull. But they’re clearly not bad films: they’re great pieces of filmmaking art.

Yeah, don’t disagree with any of that.

 

[teuchter]

You need these things pointed out to you

I think you need to educate yourself in what screen printing is. There's a clue in the name.

 

[David Clapson]

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.

Great sleuthing! Looks like all the work was done by the filter. Where are the Depp "trademark flourishes"? Maybe all he did was sign it?

 

[David Clapson]

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.

He's getting old and looking it, he's been humiliated by a woman half his age, and he wants to keep shagging other women half his age. His post-trial activity of gigging with Jeff Beck, surprise appearances at restaurants in Birmingham, and signing some posters which he says are art, it's all a campaign to look youthful and energetic and spontaneous and hip and fuckable.

 

[xenon]

No.

No, and why?

 

[8ball]

He's getting old and looking it, he's been humiliated by a woman half his age, and he wants to keep shagging other women half his age. His post-trial activity of gigging with Jeff Beck, surprise appearances at restaurants in Birmingham, and signing some posters which he says are art, it's all a campaign to look youthful and energetic and spontaneous and hip and fuckable.

I don’t think the supply of women half his age is going to dry up for quite some time yet.

 

[xenon]

OH not this shit again.

I don't like Jaxon pollack wah, wah, it's not art.

No one said art has to be good. Art is not a synonym for good, wonderful, moving or whatever other faulty memetic notion you hold.

Anyway the whole Action painting thing was pretty good IMO.

 

[8ball]

Anyway the whole Action painting thing was pretty good IMO.

It always seemed to be making a basic error to me. Like judging Lee Harvey Oswald purely on the basis of blood spatters.

 

[hitmouse]

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 £££.

To own up to my influences/show my working here, my thinking about this is very much a product of the fact that I'm reading Raymond Williams' Keywords at the moment, which is making me think a lot about how terms such as art, creativity, imagination and so on aren't just neutral terms describing a given category but pieces of language that have come into use, and shifted their meanings, at specific times in response to specific social/historical conditions. Which isn't a subject that I think that much about on most days, but here we are.
Anyway, I suppose I'm skeptical about the importance of originality, cos... if you have some teenagers in a garage playing music that sounds an awful lot like the Ramones, is that art or not? Do they get to be art because we give them the benefit of the doubt on some category like authenticity that we might deny Depp cos we dislike him? Or do we think that the term "art" is not suitable for this particular field of human activity (and would that change if they were ripping off Gang of Four or Talking Heads instead of the Ramones)?
Similarly with acting, if someone appears in a Shakespeare play, do they need to be somehow innovative about it for it to qualify as art? (One could take this argument in an absurd direction, by pointing out that someone playing Hamlet is unlikely to be doing anything that no previous Hamlet has done, whereas no previous actor has portrayed the role of Jack Sparrow, but I dunno if that makes Depp playing Sparrow a more original or creative activity?)

Also, I do tend to be a bit skeptical about some conceptual art, especially the Emin nothing-but-the-concept end of it, cos I sort of tend to think that one Duchamp had done Duchamp, I dunno how much room there is for anyone to do conceptual art that isn't just a retreading of that, to contradict myself and make an argument for originality again. Although I do also love some conceptual art, like I'm a rabid Holzer fan and that's not really because of her skill as a painter or sculptor or whatever.

Which is my point. It’s decoration.

And this gets my Willam Morris side thinking - are Morris designs art? Does the form (e.g. print vs wallpaper) affect the answer to that question?

And I don’t love Pollock either. But I’m not arrogant enough to to say it’s bad.

People slagging of the great artists of the 20th century sound like 13 year olds saying that Shakespeare’s shit. You can dislike something without imagining that your opinion on the skill and quality outweighs the consensus of informed understanding.

It’s like I personally find both “2001: A Space Odyssey”, and “Blade Runner” unwatchably dull. But they’re clearly not bad films: they’re great pieces of filmmaking art.

Again, with my Williams glasses on, I find myself wanting to question what makes a consensus informed or not - one could talk of a consensus among the film-going public that Marvel films are good, so does that mean we can't say they're shit? Or are we required to respect the opinions of Blade Runner-likers in a way that we're not required to respect the opinions of Marvel-likers?

Hopefully it should be clear, but I'm not trying to have a go at you here, and I'd struggle to give solid answers to a lot of these questions myself, I just found your posts thought-provoking/helpful in prodding me to formulate a lot of thoughts and questions into a more solid form. I suppose that if Depp is in fact a conceptual artist trying to provoke his audience into asking questions about the nature of creativity and the border between not-art and shit art, he is quite a successful one?

 

[furluxor]

My tuppence worth (from the knowing bugger all perspective) is that I agree there’s nothing original going on, but if I owned a bar I could see myself having something like that on the wall.

I think that a lot of bar owners (and estate agents) agree with you. Depp's paintings look precisely like something you'd see in a bar/restaurant/flat for sale. I'm not trying to take a dig at your taste but I think you've put your finger on it - they give me that instant 'I've seen this a lot' feeling, like those black and white photos of London with an ultra-saturated red Big Ben in the middle.

 

[Pickman's model]

To own up to my influences/show my working here, my thinking about this is very much a product of the fact that I'm reading Raymond Williams' Keywords at the moment, which is making me think a lot about how terms such as art, creativity, imagination and so on aren't just neutral terms describing a given category but pieces of language that have come into use, and shifted their meanings, at specific times in response to specific social/historical conditions. Which isn't a subject that I think that much about on most days, but here we are.
Anyway, I suppose I'm skeptical about the importance of originality, cos... if you have some teenagers in a garage playing music that sounds an awful lot like the Ramones, is that art or not? Do they get to be art because we give them the benefit of the doubt on some category like authenticity that we might deny Depp cos we dislike him? Or do we think that the term "art" is not suitable for this particular field of human activity (and would that change if they were ripping off Gang of Four or Talking Heads instead of the Ramones)?
Similarly with acting, if someone appears in a Shakespeare play, do they need to be somehow innovative about it for it to qualify as art? (One could take this argument in an absurd direction, by pointing out that someone playing Hamlet is unlikely to be doing anything that no previous Hamlet has done, whereas no previous actor has portrayed the role of Jack Sparrow, but I dunno if that makes Depp playing Sparrow a more original or creative activity?)

Also, I do tend to be a bit skeptical about some conceptual art, especially the Emin nothing-but-the-concept end of it, cos I sort of tend to think that one Duchamp had done Duchamp, I dunno how much room there is for anyone to do conceptual art that isn't just a retreading of that, to contradict myself and make an argument for originality again. Although I do also love some conceptual art, like I'm a rabid Holzer fan and that's not really because of her skill as a painter or sculptor or whatever.

And this gets my Willam Morris side thinking - are Morris designs art? Does the form (e.g. print vs wallpaper) affect the answer to that question?

Again, with my Williams glasses on, I find myself wanting to question what makes a consensus informed or not - one could talk of a consensus among the film-going public that Marvel films are good, so does that mean we can't say they're shit? Or are we required to respect the opinions of Blade Runner-likers in a way that we're not required to respect the opinions of Marvel-likers?

Hopefully it should be clear, but I'm not trying to have a go at you here, and I'd struggle to give solid answers to a lot of these questions myself, I just found your posts thought-provoking/helpful in prodding me to formulate a lot of thoughts and questions into a more solid form. I suppose that if Depp is in fact a conceptual artist trying to provoke his audience into asking questions about the nature of creativity and the border between not-art and shit art, he is quite a successful one?

i'd like to hear your views with your kenneth williams glasses on

 

[8ball]

I think that a lot of bar owners (and estate agents) agree with you. Depp's paintings look precisely like something you'd see in a bar/restaurant/flat for sale. I'm not trying to take a dig at your taste but I think you've put your finger on it - they give me that instant 'I've seen this a lot' feeling, like those black and white photos of London with an ultra-saturated red Big Ben in the middle.

Yeah, if I was in a hurry getting stuff sorted I might point to one of them and say “that’ll do”.

I think that kind of familiar feeling is what I’d be aiming for. It’s not an art gallery.