Sam Smith portrait unveiled at London gallery

[RAMROD 104,147]

First gay man to be an angel with a lyre #HistoryMaker 

Edited July 31 by RAMROD

[Squidward T 2,029]

It’s giving Da Vinci (McDonald’s version) 

[elijahfan 24,869]

4 hours ago, Gorehound said:

I am somewhat familiar with Pierre & Gilles work, and I'm sorry but bad art is bad art. And I've never shied away from voicing my opinion when Gaga does bad art, and the og BTW album cover is a good example.

But please do me the honours of interpreting this piece I'm interested. Their description of it as aiming to "mix reality, daily life, dreams and fantasies" is very vague.

While it's perfectly fine to have your own opinion, I just find it questionable to use your art background as justification that this art is bad. These people have been working with the greatest for 40 years and have an international reputation that warranted numerous exhibitions and retrospectives, not to mention their contribution to LGBT visibility in this sphere. Who the hell are you to dismiss all that?

Art that you don't like and/or don't understand doesn't equal bad art. You in particular should have this very basic knowledge.

Edited July 31 by elijahfan

[edengowon 9,885]

8 hours ago, Didymus said:

It's beautiful but "History Maker"? I don't think.

Edit: After seeing who else is in there, I guess it's just a lame gallery.

i mean you can dislike the painting but to call the national portrait gallery a lame gallery is a slightly insane statement.

[chun li 2,604]

🤮

[Didymus 34,379]

9 hours ago, edengowon said:

i mean you can dislike the painting but to call the national portrait gallery a lame gallery is a slightly insane statement.

I meant specifically this room. I love the National Gallery, hence my surprise.

[RadioIsOurs 13,835]

Aww this is cute, half a slay!

[Bling 31,039]

16 hours ago, HelloHangoverz said:

I like it  What's wrong with it?

the dramatics in here. Sam remains unbothered 

[CautiousLurker 17,344]

So from what I'm reading, these aren't even full paintovers, they're more so prints that are touched up traditionally?

If that's the case, I'm kinda disappointed - it's just another case of famous contemporary art being famous because of a gimmick. There are so many artists with a far more impressive skillsets who don't get nearly as much exposure and opportunity and I'm really tired of being painfully aware of that

On the upside, apparently if you photograph/paint hot guys with er*ctions, you might get to work with Kylie someday - honestly, idk why I'm still a SFW illustrator, I'm literally reminded almost every day that smut does numbers - why am I still here, what the f*ck am I doing, I need to be painting c*cks and abs - the two things I love, why am I still not doing that, I could have been doing that for like a good decade by now, I could have been best friends with Kylie, and yet here I am, Kylie-less and c*ck-less - why is it so hard to get my sh*t together 

[Gorehound 3,649]

1 hour ago, BlingNotTheMusic said:

the dramatics in here. Sam remains unbothered 

Guess that's one of the many beauties of art

[Villanelle 1,247]

Right 

[Doroteyo 401]

yikes wow sam smith never fails to find tackier avenues of self-expression for themself

[Gorehound 3,649]

12 hours ago, elijahfan said:

While it's perfectly fine to have your own opinion, I just find it questionable to use your art background as justification that this art is bad. These people have been working with the greatest for 40 years and have an international reputation that warranted numerous exhibitions and retrospectives, not to mention their contribution to LGBT visibility in this sphere. Who the hell are you to dismiss all that?

Art that you don't like and/or don't understand doesn't equal bad art. You in particular should have this very basic knowledge.

 

Ok. Really no need to be aggressive mate. Go eat a sandwich or something. Whatever I say is not gonna end Pierre & Gilles’s career or anything.

At no point did I slate or dismiss their success, or their influence and support towards LGBT visibility, which is very admirable and prestigious. I’m merely judging their work from an aesthetic and technique-based perspective.

There have been (and still are) many highly successful and influential artists (many of which I like) who fundamentally make bad art from a technical and aesthetic viewpoint. And sometimes that’s the whole idea. Look at Warhol for example. Success and influence doesn’t justify visual beauty. And true I am also kinda judging their work based on personal preference, but art has always been subjective and in the eye of the beholder, no matter ‘who the hell I am.’

Also Pierre & Gilles’s work is very glamour-centric. It’s not minimal or obscure like Emin, or tongue n’ cheek vandalism like Banksy. It’s purposely loud, garish and extravagantly visual, and often prioritises style over substance. It’s impressionistic and that’s always going to divide an audience.

 

So going back to this new piece depicting Sam Smith. This is a person who has received an appalling amount of scrutiny for being brave enough to be themself while in the public eye. So depicting them as a silly cherub in my opinion doesn’t do justice to the strength and resilience of this person. Smith’s strength and struggles are something that many people experience and relate to; it’s a very real and important topic, so making Smith seem like some sort of fantasy caricature kinda distances themself from that I feel.

A far more poignant way of depicting Smith in my opinion would’ve been to just present them as a nude against a bare background, stripped from all pomp and pretence. A real, vulnerable and resilient human exposed to the world. But that would be more in the realms of Realism and wouldn’t fit in with Pierre & Gilles’s flashy style.

Perhaps you could say that this method shows Smith as being innocent and unfazed by the pain and hate they’ve received, but that would be kinda dismissive to their influence. Or maybe it’s more surface level than that and just depicts Smith’s campy style and sweet personality, being unapologetically themself. I don’t know. What do you see?

(Also if you really wanna go there; this painting is kinda poorly made. I don’t know if Smith is superimposed onto the painting or not, but it looks that way. The source of light is inconsistent, there’s no real depth of field. These techniques are important when painting figure Realism, otherwise you end up with some kind of uncanny valley like this. Plus, the composition is clunky and offset. There’s no real contrast in colours. Nothing really pops. The whole thing is a bit flat and static. An odd blend of Renaissance, Rococo and Realism. But again, this is common in Pierre & Gilles’s work and people obviously seem to like it so live and let live I guess).

Edited August 1 by Gorehound

[Gorehound 3,649]

2 hours ago, CautiousLurker said:

So from what I'm reading, these aren't even full paintovers, they're more so prints that are touched up traditionally?

If that's the case, I'm kinda disappointed - it's just another case of famous contemporary art being famous because of a gimmick. There are so many artists with a far more impressive skillsets who don't get nearly as much exposure and opportunity and I'm really tired of being painfully aware of that

On the upside, apparently if you photograph/paint hot guys with er*ctions, you might get to work with Kylie someday - honestly, idk why I'm still a SFW illustrator, I'm literally reminded almost every day that smut does numbers - why am I still here, what the f*ck am I doing, I need to be painting c*cks and abs - the two things I love, why am I still not doing that, I could have been doing that for like a good decade by now, I could have been best friends with Kylie, and yet here I am, Kylie-less and c*ck-less - why is it so hard to get my sh*t together 

Lol totally relate to this.

I tried out a career as a painter and got nowhere. I always think if I had painted **** I'd have been noticed. But I always saw that as selling out. But true, sėx does sell.

[elijahfan 24,869]

3 hours ago, Gorehound said:

There have been (and still are) many highly successful and influential artists (many of which I like) who fundamentally make bad art from a technical and aesthetic viewpoint. And sometimes that’s the whole idea. Look at Warhol for example. Success and influence doesn’t justify visual beauty.

That's precisely my point... This understanding is not what your initial wording expressed.