Fascination by mere mortals with the rich and famous or celebrity is nothing new. It’s been around for hundreds of years and has grown like topsy with trashy journalism, dozens of magazines that definitely seem to scrape the bottom of the “celebrity” barrel and the fact that celebrity and TV seems to be the staple content of the tabloids. Some so called celebs do take commercial advantage of their five minutes of fame – whether it’s deserved or undeserved – through perfumes, gifts and gimmicks that have no intrinsic value or purpose other than that assumed through the association with celebrity. But does anyone really want to smell like Katie Price or Jade Goody for that matter!
The world of art also has its role in this continued fascination. After all, the revered Holbein or Rembrandt in today’s museums and galleries is really nothing more than a portrait of contemporary “celebrities” – kings, generals, writers, poets etc. These portraits were received enthusiastically by the audience of the day partially because of their technical artistic execution (why we appreciate them today) but also because of the “celebrity” of the subjects themselves. The same is true today, with artists such as Roy Lichtenstein, Jasper Johns, David Hockney and Andy Warhol catching on to the zeitgeist fascination with fame and celebrity and paving the way for what was to come. What’s also been thrown into the mix is the fact of celebrities producing their own artworks. There are even art dealers who specialise in celebrity- produced art with names like Muhammad Ali, Ronnie Wood of the Rolling Stones, Grace Slick, and Sly Stallone (whose work is surprisingly good!) on the books.
So why do celebrities not known for their visual talents do it? Many rock stars got their bands together in art school, so the likes of David Bowie produces work that is pretty competent. Others paint to prevent themselves becoming stale, believing that the creative integrity of their “day job” will be enhanced by exploring other creative outlets. Others adhere to Einstein’s dictum that “true art is characterised by an irresistible urge in the creative artist” and feel they have no option but to do it. And there are others of course who just do it for the cold hard cash. It seems that any old piece of rubbish can be inflated in value (monetary if not artistic) provided a famous name is associated with it.
Some, Like Ronnie Wood, have their works picked up by others and seem willing to collaborate. Liberty of London’s Creative Director, Tamara Salman, used Ronnie Wood’s paintings for a new Autumn Winter 09 collection, translating the images from canvas into leather, cotton and jersey. In this case, someone else saw merit in the work beyond simply association with a famous name. Ronnie presumably was equally willing to have the kudos of being associated with such a respected name as Liberty of London. More importantly, with an average price of £195 for Tee shirts and £600 for dresses, we can rest assured that Ronnie won’t exactly suffer for his art either!
Related posts:
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.
Leave a Comment