Kim Jong Phil
January 25, 2011 7:55 AM   Subscribe

 
I had these works re-created in China

What does this mean, exactly?
posted by empath at 7:58 AM on January 25, 2011


You can send someone in China an image file and they will paint it for you. There is a huge market for recreated paintings. They're not forgeries, just poor copies. Here's an example of a company that does this.
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 8:03 AM on January 25, 2011 [8 favorites]


empath, I assume it means he had a studio of artists in China re-create the North Korean originals, substituting himself for the beloved leader.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:04 AM on January 25, 2011


Good artists borrow, great artists steal, super-great artists pay anonymous Chinese people to do their work
posted by theodolite at 8:08 AM on January 25, 2011 [5 favorites]


I kind of want to send some rage comics to china, now. I wonder what all they'll paint? Screenshots from videogames?
posted by empath at 8:09 AM on January 25, 2011


This is awesome. (And if you're in a hurry, here's thumbnails).
posted by Nelson at 8:12 AM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]


I get it! It is ironic. Isn't it?
posted by Mei's lost sandal at 8:20 AM on January 25, 2011


I like the paintings.
posted by Mei's lost sandal at 8:20 AM on January 25, 2011


I don't like this. I don't like this at all.

How is this new series BY Phil Toledano?

I'm not a big fan of the pictures or the style of painting, but that's not the problem for me.

I just feel that if this work is going to be displayed, I'd give credit where credit is due--to the guys who actually, you know, painted them. By name. Specifically. Not just say, 'Hey, I had these re-created in China!'

I mean, normally I'd think it humorous that all the leaders' faces were replaced with this guy's image, and give a nod to how clever he is with the tongue-in-cheek, "Is there nothing I can't do?" attitude.

But in light of someone else having painted all of them for him (or several someone elses), the satirical value, for me, is cancelled out by Toledano's ego in claiming this as "his palette".
posted by misha at 8:40 AM on January 25, 2011 [3 favorites]


I just feel that if this work is going to be displayed, I'd give credit where credit is due--to the guys who actually, you know, painted them.

The technical skill it took to paint these are kind of not the point.
posted by empath at 8:41 AM on January 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


But in light of someone else having painted all of them for him (or several someone elses), the satirical value, for me, is cancelled out by Toledano's ego in claiming this as "his palette".

I doubt that he's seriously taking credit for the work of Chinese art factory workers. The project is explicitly about narcissism and solipsism so coming off as egotistical is pretty much an inherent part of the work.
posted by burnmp3s at 9:03 AM on January 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


The best would have been replacing himself into famous portraits of Mao as well. But that would have required painting it himself.
posted by Xoder at 9:10 AM on January 25, 2011 [4 favorites]



I doubt that he's seriously taking credit for the work of Chinese art factory workers.


Probably not, but there is precedence. Jeff Koons comes to mind, and he's just as good as him.
posted by IndigoJones at 9:21 AM on January 25, 2011


there is precedence. Jeff Koons comes to mind, and he's just as good as him.

Or Mister Brainwash.
posted by Dragonness at 9:32 AM on January 25, 2011


Oh, for the love of Kaopectate.

A significant part of the work is the fact that Toledano didn't paint them. He tells us that he didn't paint them. One would gravely miss the point of the work if one thought that he had. Whether the point Toledano makes/tries to make is a good or worthwhile one is an entirely separate concern.

If it helps, don't even think of them as paintings—think of them as conceptual works, since this is really what they are. Note also that a work of conceptual art (a term that has suffered tremendous abuse at the hands of non-artists and artists alike) is only one where the generative idea of the work—usually taking the form of a set of instructions, like "(1) Take North Korean propaganda paintings; (2) in Photoshop, replace Kim Jong Il's face with own; (3) have paintings made from resulting digital files by company in China"—takes precedence over the work's physical execution.

It would be a huge relief to me if people would stop bitching about the very existence of conceptual art and focus instead on critiquing the substance of those works, which, as with these, can sometimes be self-aggrandizing and dumb.

PS: I had a painting made in Hong Kong for a piece once—you don't get told the identity of the person or people who do the painting, and I doubt that information would be provided if you pressed for it.
posted by wreckingball at 9:36 AM on January 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


It's the whole 'Well, I could to that!', approach to art criticism.

I can type type 70 words a minute, but if someone dictated to a novel to me, that doesn't mean I'm the 'real author'.
posted by empath at 9:46 AM on January 25, 2011


Is it just me or is all of the new art coming out these days either:
1) Self-portraits or variations thereof
2) "Won't somebody think of the children? Because I am!"
3) Some combination of the two
posted by Anonymous at 9:52 AM on January 25, 2011


I'm on the left, near the back.

this is awesome.
posted by clavdivs at 11:03 AM on January 25, 2011


I'm really loving the idea of getting some sort of Soviet Realist or N.K. propoganda poster made for a friend that just got married. Anyone have any other ideas about how to get something like this made besides infinitefloatingbrains's example?
posted by SeanOfTheHillPeople at 12:37 PM on January 25, 2011


I just feel that if this work is going to be displayed, I'd give credit where credit is due--to the guys who actually, you know, painted them. By name. Specifically. Not just say, 'Hey, I had these re-created in China!'

You mean just like credit was given to all the hapless art students that produced most of Andy Warhol's oevre?
posted by sour cream at 12:44 PM on January 25, 2011


What if you took a picture and sent it to china to be painted, got it back, took a picture of it, sent that to china to get painted, got it back, took a picture of it, etc...

Just wondering
posted by sidereal at 12:48 PM on January 25, 2011 [2 favorites]


I just feel that if this work is going to be displayed, I'd give credit where credit is due--to the guys who actually, you know, painted them.

There is a -long- tradition of this not being the case. Warhol - as a recent example - had a controversial amount of work minimally touched (or untouched in the case of many of his silkscreens) by himself go out as his. Goes back at least as far as the Renaissance and the apprentice system: the maestro would set up the sketch and let apprentices or assistants do large portions of work, stepping in when their hand was needed, or not at all. You worked for the maestro, his name went up on it.

Retitling them is a bit lame: its good form if you're going to appropriate someone's work to properly credit the appropriation.
posted by Ogre Lawless at 12:49 PM on January 25, 2011 [1 favorite]




Okay, I'm a naif.

I had no idea that the most well-known artists routinely do this kind of thing. Are there no ethics classes in art programs?

I now more fully comprehend why there are so many starving artists. Apparently they work as assistants or paint pictures in China for next to nothing.
posted by misha at 2:53 PM on January 25, 2011


misha: "Okay, I'm a naif. I had no idea that the most well-known artists routinely do this kind of thing. Are there no ethics classes in art programs?"

Are there no art appreciation classes, where you went to school? You're missing the point. And I... honestly don't even know where to begin because it actually does take like a semester to understand why art didn't stop at a guy with a paintbrush in front of a bowl of fruit.

This isn't an issue of ethics. Did you read the artistic statement? This work would fundamentally not be what it is about if he painted these himself.



"I now more fully comprehend why there are so many starving artists. Apparently they work as assistants or paint pictures in China for next to nothing."

I... what? No! That's what you got out of this thread? Do you know the real reason why there are so many starving artists? Because the majority of people out there, like you, don't understand art! You don't get spewed out of your momma's vagina with an implicit ability to think and talk about art. You can have an opinion, on anything, but that doesn't make it meaningful, or reasonable, or worthwhile. Appreciating art isn't about finding something you like.

We're by and large in our society not taught how to value art. Because it's the first program cut out of the budget in school, and by the time you get to college it's a joke, if it's even a requirement. This is why we have the Black Eyed Peas and people standing in line for hours to look at the Mona Lisa.
posted by danny the boy at 5:39 PM on January 25, 2011


Because the majority of people out there, like you, don't understand art!

I do, however, understand that art is subjective, a belief you apparently don't subscribe to.

Be that as it may, I have taken art classes, and I appreciate the creative process. Sculpting with your hands, painting, sketching, writing, even (no matter what Roger Ebert says) creating videogames can be a kind of art, I think. I like museums and have travelled to other countries to take in art from around the world. Admittedly, my taste leans toward more traditional and classical works. But I can generally recognize the difference between a painting by a fine artist and one by a poor one. I can appreciate skill.

And I know that the fine arts need more patrons and funding and artists need more sponsorships and I agree with you that we, as a society, do not value art as it should be valued.

But that (lovely) part about "You don't get spewed out of your momma's vagina with an implicit ability to think and talk about art"? Yeah, I do. Art is meant to elicit a response in the viewer. You don't have to like my response, but I am allowed to have it.

These works we are discussing in the thread are not so very skilled in execution, unsurprisingly because they were done by some artists in China who are encouraged to just churn the things out to make a quick buck. But we are supposed to consider them of value because of the Concept behind the work, yes?

And what is the Great Concept of the Concept Art? Hey, look at me pictured as someone famous! Fine.

But forgive me for not seeing much value in the creative process Phil Toledano went through for his Concept Art: to whit, paying other people to recreate works already made with his own face.

"His Concept" has been done, and better, many times before, by artists who didn't have to get others to create the physical manifestation. For example, by Caravaggio when he replaced the faces of Medusa, Bacchus and both David and Goliath with his own image in his paintings; or, if you want a more modern example, Chinese artist Yue Minjun has put his famous smiling face on everything from Marilyn Monroe to the Pope.
posted by misha at 7:59 PM on January 25, 2011


But I can generally recognize the difference between a painting by a fine artist and one by a poor one. I can appreciate skill.

Skill at what, exactly?
posted by empath at 9:14 PM on January 25, 2011


« Older March of the philistines   |   more of the same Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments