
In general, I’m against artists in one field going into another. Part of it is just that we already live in a winner-take-all society. There are damned few ways for artists to make a living. Does Jeff Bridges really need the extra income from doing voice-overs for commercials? Couldn’t he leave some work for struggling voice-actors? But another problem is just that the famous don’t have to be particularly good at their new field. If Madonna wants to publish a novel, she will publish a novel. And after a team of editors and book doctors fine tune what would probably been a fairly pathetic attempt, she would end up looking like, you know, a novelist as opposed to what she is.
We see this a lot in painting. In the late 1980s, I saw a book, Doubly Gifted. It is a book filled with the visual art of writers. It sounded really interesting, but what I immediately noticed was that all the artwork was derivative. There really wasn’t anything that was original. But I will allow that most of the writers in the book were reasonably decent amateur artists.
Yesterday, I came upon an article on Hub Pages, Famous People Who Are Also Artists. It included 7 people and a sample of their artwork.
The Beatles
The first two famous people are John and Paul. Paul’s work is not wholly unworthy. He does a kind of abstract expressionism combined with primitive representational stuff. It look more like real art than I’m used to from celebrities who decide to paint.
Lennon, on the other hand, is pathetic. Or at least, the people who take his doodles seriously are. There really is nothing on offer here. He has no sense of design, his representations look like bad comics, and it is all very much the same—which wouldn’t be bad if the work were good. There is far too much mythology surrounding Lennon anyway. People care about his art because he was the coolest Beatle. But do we need anything more than Strawberry Fields Forever?[1]
Tony Bennett
Bennett’s work is entirely typical of what I hate about celebrity painting. It isn’t that he’s bad. He’s clearly worked hard at the craft of painting. But I can never look at a painting of his without thinking of someone else. Edward Hopper here. Camille Pissarro there. I know I’m going piss off a few people with this, but it doesn’t help matters that I just don’t like Bennett that much as a singer. Sorry, but I’m a Sinatra man. I even like Martin more.
Tony Curtis
Ladies and gentleman: Henri Matisse! Except without much of a clue regarding composition. The colors are nice. Lots of cats.
The Good
The work of both Dennis Hopper and Anthony Hopkins strike me as rather good. Hopper was a photographer with a keen idea. Hopkins creates some very intense portraits. (I could live without his landscapes.) Both men have an artistic vision combined with technical ability.
The Ugly
Last of the seven is everyone’s favorite Austrian painter, Adolf Hitler. Since I was a child, I’ve heard that Hitler was a failed artist. But I had never seen his work. It is uncomfortable for me to admit that the man had talent. The image above is one of his from when he was 25 year old. What I especially like about it is the great composition. He clearly has an eye. And you see this again and again in his art work. I think he might well have become a fine artist in time. There is nothing that says that artists have to be nice. Had Pablo Picasso failed as an artist, who knows what vile political philosophy he would have created.
I don’t much believe if artistic gifts. In general, people get better the more they do something. Celebrities—because they are rich—have the time to get good at whatever they want. I do, however, wish they would keep it private. Art is narcissistic enough. Going public is more so, but understandable for the talented nobody. Going public when you already can’t go out to a restaurant without being mobbed by adoring fans strikes me as uber-narcissistic, or maybe just plain pathetic.
[1] Or Happiness Is a Warm Gun. Or A Day in the Life (with assist from McCartney). Or Come Together. Or Across the Universe. I could go on.