Thanks, Patricia! We love discussion and debate here on OOTB so I would love to hear more about your thoughts on Duchamp. Is it that you don't like conceptual art in general or that you dislike Duchamp's work in particular? I'm so interested in the way that people experience different kinds of art.
Hi Jennifer, I do like conceptual art. But I see parallels between Duchamp's appropriating a urinal (which after all was designed by someone, not exactly Art with a capitol A but nevertheless someone's design, a person who never got credit for the design) and what Depp is doing, by appropriating Andy Warhol. I just wonder why we-myself included-find Depp's work so worthy of disgust while we worship an artist in a different century who did something similar.
I love that you're thinking of the people who designed the objects that Duchamp used in his work as artists. That's such a generous perspective. I'm not an art history expert (if someone reading this is, please chime in), but my take is that Duchamp is different from Depp in that he was in the vanguard of artists who recontextualized everyday functional objects in a way that got us to see them differently, to think about art differently, and that hadn't been done before. Depp is rehashing the work of another artist solely for the purpose of making money and without adding anything to the idea. He isn't offering the world anything new or groundbreaking. But that's just my perspective and opinion.
Jennifer, I so appreciate your perspective and the way you ground your arguments. Thank you for so clearly addressing this BS with Depp's "art" and for calling out the gatekeepers for being completely capital-driven, having lost all integrity. Of course the public has no idea of how to value art or artists! What kills me is how artists value themselves and each other through the lens of capitalism and become additional gatekeepers, hoarding opportunities and space.
While I was considering dropping $4,840 on a J. Depp touched up digital picture, I thought a $60 subscription to your newsletter was a better deal tonight.
What a great companion piece to the one two weeks ago (“Rich People Are Doing It Wrong”). While I will always champion anyone (everyone) pursuing any creative endeavor that moves them, these cynical manipulations of the market/public for the sake of celebrity/status/greed don’t add anything to our collective experience and make it all the harder for people who make art and really need support in order to keep doing it.
If you look up images of "Keith Richards smoking", for example, you'll find identical images to what Depp likely used to color in. Even the Keith Richards in profile was copied exactly from a photograph, although more possible to have been fully (and poorly) copied by Depp's own hand and not something he simply added color to.
LOUDER for the hacks in the back! Thank you for this article. I saw an ad was so insulted it sent me on a mission to see if I was the only one who found this incredibly insulting to the art community. You brought up many of the points that were really grating me about this whole thing. This is truly Dunning–Kruger effect at its finest.
So. Many. Things.
Great article. The art world gave up on standards a long time ago when Duchamp put a urinal on the wall and called it art.
Thanks, Patricia! We love discussion and debate here on OOTB so I would love to hear more about your thoughts on Duchamp. Is it that you don't like conceptual art in general or that you dislike Duchamp's work in particular? I'm so interested in the way that people experience different kinds of art.
Hi Jennifer, I do like conceptual art. But I see parallels between Duchamp's appropriating a urinal (which after all was designed by someone, not exactly Art with a capitol A but nevertheless someone's design, a person who never got credit for the design) and what Depp is doing, by appropriating Andy Warhol. I just wonder why we-myself included-find Depp's work so worthy of disgust while we worship an artist in a different century who did something similar.
I love that you're thinking of the people who designed the objects that Duchamp used in his work as artists. That's such a generous perspective. I'm not an art history expert (if someone reading this is, please chime in), but my take is that Duchamp is different from Depp in that he was in the vanguard of artists who recontextualized everyday functional objects in a way that got us to see them differently, to think about art differently, and that hadn't been done before. Depp is rehashing the work of another artist solely for the purpose of making money and without adding anything to the idea. He isn't offering the world anything new or groundbreaking. But that's just my perspective and opinion.
https://www.artspace.com/magazine/art_101/in_focus/duchamp-probably-didnt-make-the-fountain-urinala-look-at-the-dada-woman-who-likely-authored-the-56084
👍
Jennifer, I so appreciate your perspective and the way you ground your arguments. Thank you for so clearly addressing this BS with Depp's "art" and for calling out the gatekeepers for being completely capital-driven, having lost all integrity. Of course the public has no idea of how to value art or artists! What kills me is how artists value themselves and each other through the lens of capitalism and become additional gatekeepers, hoarding opportunities and space.
Thank you! The whole thing is such nonsense and it makes me sad how effectively the art market continues to pull the wool over the eyes of the public.
While I was considering dropping $4,840 on a J. Depp touched up digital picture, I thought a $60 subscription to your newsletter was a better deal tonight.
🤣🧡🤣🧡😂 (thank you.)
What a great companion piece to the one two weeks ago (“Rich People Are Doing It Wrong”). While I will always champion anyone (everyone) pursuing any creative endeavor that moves them, these cynical manipulations of the market/public for the sake of celebrity/status/greed don’t add anything to our collective experience and make it all the harder for people who make art and really need support in order to keep doing it.
You said it. It's all so cynical.
If you look up images of "Keith Richards smoking", for example, you'll find identical images to what Depp likely used to color in. Even the Keith Richards in profile was copied exactly from a photograph, although more possible to have been fully (and poorly) copied by Depp's own hand and not something he simply added color to.
LOUDER for the hacks in the back! Thank you for this article. I saw an ad was so insulted it sent me on a mission to see if I was the only one who found this incredibly insulting to the art community. You brought up many of the points that were really grating me about this whole thing. This is truly Dunning–Kruger effect at its finest.
Love this.
What is the opinion of his non-commercialized efforts at art. I.e the Keith Richard’s portrait? Or the elephant (yikes)
I’ve seen something he painted for himself of Marlon Brando and I thought it stunning.
Interested in the opinion of his work/art that’s not been obviously commercialized bc he needed some income after his career woes.
Love this.
What is the opinion of his non-commercialized efforts at art. I.e the Keith Richard’s portrait? Or the elephant (yikes)
I’ve seen something he painted for himself of Marlon Brando and I thought it stunning.
Interested in the opinion of his work/art that’s not been obviously commercialized bc he needed some income after his career woes.