I find this artist quite interesting. He is a very well known Canadian realist painter. His name is a trademark and he recently won a legal battle with a celebrity site that was using his name without permission. I am truely amazed by some of his work (paricularily the one "renaissance" of Leonardo D'Vinci's home), his attention to detail, obsessively faithful reproduction of reality, and overall draughtsmanship. Still, it is really hard for me not to make fun of him. With paintings like this self portrait, and comments like, "My paintings explore my first-hand experiences. Yet, what you see is not simply what I saw,... but how I want you to see it" (Ken Danby). Megalomaniac anyone? Maybe it is this level of self assuredness that is required to attain the level of realism he does. Just for a moment though, imagine making this painting. Spend a month or more carefully brushing in the features of your own face, hand outstretched, every stitch of your sexy unzipped sweater, then standing back and saying "yup, that's me, ready for the world". Is this at least a little funny to anyone else, or am I just a big jerk? =P
23 comments:
1 CommentClose this window Jump to comment form
Macro said...
Maybe it's like Michael Bolton, he is inarguably a better singer than say, Neil Young(technically speaking of course, imagine Neil Young in American Idol). It's just not something I can relate to, unless I try really really hard. Please discuss.
no, it's funny to me too. I snickered when I saw this painting. The Young/Bolton comparison is great.
Young is genius partly because he is willing to expose himself, unarguably a human being, with all the flaws.
Bolton seems like a put on, a parody.
this artists seems like a parody of an artist...do you think that's the point of his work?
Certainly not, he is deadly serious.
I just looked at his website...he's not doing parody.
There is very little in the subject matter that resonates for me on first look,but maybe I'm distracted by the flawlessness?
Now that I think of it, if he WAS doing a parody, he would be my favorite artist of all time, lol.
Just another case of technical ability feeding the ego with no consideration for.......
(you fill it in, I have so many wods I can place here)
I get what you're saying, but I hope this won't discourage people from trying to learn their craft well. There are technically proficient artists who understand "__________" very well, and tolerate it with grace and humility (the majority in my estimation). Also, this shouldn't be used as an argument against realism. There are all sorts of artists (abstract painters included) who miss the "_____________" as much as poor Ken here. Yea, and there are lots of people who take great pleasure from their and Danby's work, so, to each their own (exluding the occaisonal playful jab at artists that think they're super man).
If you look up "Komar and Melamid", you will find, Danby is really painting what the majority of the world (thinks) they want. And who can blame them for wanting blue skies and nature? Aw, sheesh, I AM a big jerk =P.
heh. lots of good points.
i guess the question here is: what makes an artist? is "mere" technical brilliance enough? i'd say no-- referring back the neil young / michael bolton example.
that quote about "what i want you to see" though, is kind of interesting-- it does suggest a certain artfulness.
jack kerouac was once asked if his books were "true". his answer: "everything i wrote was true, because i believed in what i saw."
I would add one word. I am sure Mr. Danby is an artist, so maybe THE question is 'what makes a good artist' (good can be replaced with interesting, timeless, important, great, or whatever floats your boat). Also, I wouldn't try to answer that question for anyone but myself. It depends what you like, and a whole lot of people have Danbys on their wall. I wouldn't say they are stupid or wrong, just that they have crap...er...uh... "different" taste than myself.
As for his quote, I reeeeaaally dislike it. His intolerance for ambiguity and total disregard for the infinite possibilities of individual perception is at the same time arrogant and nieve. Clearly I am not seeing what he wants me to see in the painting I posted as an example, unless he expected me to see a ... a ...an all powerful artist-sorcerer chick magnet with his sweater half unzipped? Ooops, maybe that's it =P
PS. Danby is a "self taught" artist and "self made" multi millionaire.
LOL
Who am I to say that perfectly toned, naked chicks on horseback isn't art.
ken danby is my personal role model. I painted this image onto the wall of the langside lounge. His image inspired me all through art school to always to my best and try my hardest to achieve excellence.
I remember Andrew's recreation of this very same piece. It was pretty darn cool, but it was re-contextualized and courtnagized. Smokey you got a picture of it?
Ya, hot chicks on horses, might not be "good" art, but it does meet the basic requirements of the dictionary definition.
Anyone ever seen the movie "Idiocracy"? In the future, Danby could be as revered as Leonardo D'Vinci.
Oh wow, with a bit of help from Bobby Smoke, I found a quote by Danby about this painting.
It says he worked on it for 10 years!
My wife, Gillian would occasionally suggest that my old studio jacket was ready for the trash bin and I'd insist that it still had some life left in it. But the real reason for keeping it around was that I needed it to complete the painting! The title relates to the mirrored image (that's my 'right' hand reaching out), but it's also an understated reference to much more going on here.
It ends there, nothing else. I thought it sounded incomplete so here is my suggested ending " ...but you wouldn't understand with your little feeble non-artist brains".
And so he really painted dressed like that? (I guess it's better than my painting outfit, which lately consists of just a pair of underwear =P)
oh my, LoL and all other exclamations of hilarity.
i take much offense to the negative references about hot chicks and horses since I just finished a twelve painting series with this as my subject matter. Although I also deal with hot chicks and tigers, and hot chicks and butterflies.
in the future id apreciate your sensitivity.
Dave, all the artist-Heroes should discipline their thoughts as follows: All living creatures of whatever class, born from eggs, from wombs, from moisture, or by transformation whether with form or without form, whether in a state of thinking or exempt from thought-necessity, or wholly beyond all thought realms -- all these are caused to attain artistic liberation. Yet when vast, uncountable, immeasurable numbers of beings have thus been liberated, verily no being has been liberated. Why is this, Dave? It is because no artist who is a real artist cherishes the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality.
Ken Danby should paint himself holding a skull in his left hand, and gazing at it intently, to depict the vanitas of human pride.
he should (in my humble opinion, though i don't know the guy and only can base it on this one work) spend a bit less time considering his own super-cool awesome-ness, and spend a bit more time thinking about his own death.
vanitas, vanitas, says the teacher... everything is vanitas.
It is because no artist who is a real artist cherishes the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individuality.
If you look carefully at what I've said you will see that I give credit to danby and take efforts relate myself to him (albeit, in a rather playful way). You 're right, we are but one part of the myriad of possibilities of a whole. We should welcome you and brother Danby without prejudice.
sorry tigre.
:)
hot chicks are art, of course as are hot chicks and all other flora and/or fauna.
I gotta say, macro was pretty empathetic towards Danby. I think having a critical perspective is perfectly acceptable. (and critical perspective is different than just being critical, which macro wasn't).
I think an artist must consider who they are, who they portray as themselves. And if that's a part of their art, it's still art.
Sometimes that's the focus of the person's art. It's like that in music too. Now, these aren't always my favorite artists, but you take David Bowie or Kelly Mark or the lesbian rangers, sometimes it's about 'who' and 'what' these people. Even Dus Strange and Knick Knackerson know what this is about, as embarassing it is to admit the ego and its dance.
Not that this is what anybody's talking about. Ken Danby is great artist. Could it be that he's so great that he feels no one can relate to him? I feel sometimes that my thoughts are so idotic(unique) that nobody other than my Mom understands it. Or maybe it's her nurturing and support that make it feel right.
So nurture Danby, and support him even though you can never hope to understand him, the genius/madman/idiot that he is.
(remind me to proofread my comments, sometimes I portray my idiot)
Special thanks to unique Ken Danby and the Labelblog people (and James's mom) for providing the inspiration for a lively discussion!
=)
Post a Comment