[Pookie]

As bad as it looks?

Anybody seen/going to see the exhibition?

 

[Toilet & Bowels]

i saw some more in a magazine, it was as bad as that one

[Lurker]

Originally Posted by Pookie

As bad as it looks?

Anybody seen/going to see the exhibition?

 

Wow! I would say that's at least a C at GCSE.

[This Is Not Here]

I like his paintings they're very... psychedelic. Theres an exhibtion of very limited edition prints of his paintings in Farnham, so I'll check that out. Don't know where I can see originals, don't know if I care that much...

[king_buzzo]

Originally Posted by Pookie

As bad as it looks?

Anybody seen/going to see the exhibition?

 

well, at least its better than me.

[Tokolosh]

That painting has Cezanne's name written all over it.

[atari 2600]

Yeah, I see the Cezanne, and a bit of a Van Gogh-interior, but, moreover, a stong Fauvist (the colors) Matisse feel.

___________________
http://atari2600.muxtape.com

[luisxvi]

I dont like it all that much. It somehow seems very obvious and a bit boring.

If it wasn't signed by Bob Dylan this would be the sort of stuff that normally ends up on cheap Mother'd Day cards. Awful.

[✌➬]

I agree with the poster above me.

[Tokolosh]

The same can be said about Boyd Rice's "art".
The only difference being that it wouldn't even land up on a Mothers Day card, now would it Sarra?

Boyd Rice's art IS awful, with none of the pretenciousness that sodding Bob Dylan's rubbish has.

Originally Posted by Nefeli

sure thing, but this fact works against him in my way of thinking, as i believe it will be the case for many other people.
- because he ll have it more easy.

still i feel nothing looking at the painting. i wont waste more time on it. edit- i shouldnt waste more time. anyways-----------

If it was some more overexposed musician that was on the papers all the time I'd agree with you. I'ts more likely, in Dylan's case, that because he is quite the reclusive - a fact that allowed him to retain this quasi-mystical persona in the media - that galleries will have a turd in their hands thinking that Blobby put gold in them. Trust me on this one, baby.

[Tokolosh]

Originally Posted by sarramkrop

Boyd Rice's art IS awful, with none of the pretenciousness that sodding Bob Dylan's rubbish has.

That's a matter of opinion, not to say that I don't agree with you.

PS: Something tells me you despise Dylan, and the air he breaths.

I find him highly overrated as a musician at best. As a visual artist I wouldn't really say I despise him much 'cause his art isn't going to set the art world on fire now or in a million years, if you get what I mean. I just happen to think that he is a bad painter with no creative skills that set him apart from anyone, that's all.

[Tokolosh]

Name a brilliant musician who is also a great painter?
Help me out here, 'cause I can't think of many right now.

David Bowie might not be a brilliant one but he is certainly better than Dylan.

Marylin Manson is even better than Bowie, and I happen to think that he's a twat of the highest order.

Non-musician film director whose paintings and poetry I like: David Lynch.

Film director who I prefer as a musician: Gus Van Sant (he's brilliant at music).

[Tokolosh]

Manson's work is slightly better yes, but it wouldn't see the light of day if his name wasn't on it.

Speaking of shite.

 

Bowie spewing
1990, Oil on canvas
51 x 41 cm

^Paul McCartney's art is the pits.

Lynch and Beefheart are another story altogether. Good call.