A recent exhibition opened on September 20 at the Gagosian Gallery on the Upper East Side, featuring the artwork of legendary musician, Bob Dylan. The exhibition, entitled The Asia Series was presented to the public as a collection of Dylan’s paintings providing a first-hand documentation of his travel experiences in Japan, China, Vietnam and Korea. Yet, since its opening, the show has stirred controversy and provoked questions about whether many of Dylan’s paintings are based on his own observations or on a number of well-known photographs to which major parallels can be discerned.
This issue was drawn to my attention by the New York Times ArtsBeat article, “Dylan’s Paintings Draw Scrutiny,” which discusses the observed relation between a number of Dylan’s “Asia” paintings and existing works of art. For example, Dylan’s painting, Opium, which the Gagosian employed as an image on their website to promote the exhibition, bears an uncanny resemblance to the photograph, Woman Smoking Opium, by the early-20th-century photographer, Léon Busy. In addition, Dylan’s painting of three boys playing a sidewalk game is almost identical to a photograph taken by Dmitri Kessel. And he didn’t simply use such photographs as inspiration for his paintings: he copied them almost exactly, replicating everything as closely as possible. It is also interesting that such questions about Dylan’s sources extend into his musical production: in 2006, lyrics on Dylan’s No. 1 album “Modern Times” were shown to bare a powerful resemblance to the poems of Henry Timrod, who composed verses about the Civil War, and lyrics from a previous album, “Love and Theft,” proved similar to passages from the gangster novel “Confessions of a Yakuza,” by the Japanese writer Junichi Saga.
According to the article, when asked whether he paints from sketches or photographs in an interview featured in the exhibition catalog, Dylan responded: “I paint mostly from real life. It has to start with that. Real people, real street scenes, behind the curtain scenes, live models, paintings, photographs, staged setups, architecture, grids, graphic design. Whatever it takes to make it work. What I’m trying to bring out in complex scenes, landscapes, or personality clashes, I do it in a lot of different ways. I have the cause and effect in mind from the beginning to the end. But it has to start with something tangible.” Thus, Dylan remains rather ambiguous regarding his sources, but claims that his own experiences and observations are paramount in his artistic production. A look at his actual works, however, would suggest otherwise.
This situation relates to broader issues of appropriation in art. Some bemoan the lack of originality present in Dylan’s supposedly “copied” images, but should his works be devalued because of this? Does art have to be about originality? Or can these paintings be seen as new works that add to and transform existing creations (based on what Dylan claims are his own experiences)? It will be interesting to keep an eye out for the implications of this controversy for the show at the Gagosian and if any new issues arise over the course of the exhibition...
Frankly, I thought this was a lot of hoopla about nothing. First, because Dylan's best work is his music (although even more recently there are have been accusations that he's lifted lyrics from others' writings: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/arts/music/14dyla.html?pagewanted=print. Appropriation in the arts is an old chestnut, whether it's Rubens borrowing from Titian, or Sherrie Levine literally taking Walker Evan's work and calling it her own. I am quite sure Dylan doesn't care much to categorize his art nor to put himself in any particular trend of thought. He seems rather mute on the subject--but I understand he's generally that way--except for when he sings of course.
ReplyDelete