Jump to content

Talk:Jack Vettriano

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reference book

[edit]

It was reported in yesterday's Independent, the many of Jack Vettriano's most famous images were actually copied directly from an artistic reference book. [1] (unfortunately the online edition doesn't have the illustrations to compare). This story has now been reported in several other places. [2], but they only show the copied dancers. Jooler 06:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You could just hear the collective gleeful chuckle from the art establishment as they read their papers over a cup of Earl Grey yesterday ;-)
The BBC news is one of the few websites to show the comparison. However I guess it is not at all uncommon to use reference sources to construct compositions and the argument that it doesn't particularly detract from the popularity of the painting is quite valid. It will be open season on finding the sources for most of his other paintings now... -- Solipsist 09:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just take a look at the earlier work of his old studio-mate Robert Saunders. The maid in "The Singing Butler" is pretty much a direct lift of one of Saunders' waitresses from his early work, with possibly a nod to the figure in "Red Ribbon Run". Gordonjcp (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This revelation did little to tarnish Vettriano's reputation, however. -- I find this sentence a little puzzling and think perhaps it should be deleted. Does it really mean it didn't lower the monetary value of his paintings? His reputation among critics was never high in the first place, and how exactly do we know what the print-buyer in the street thinks about it? Flapdragon 16:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"He uses himself and a model for all his paintings." - given the revelation that he uses/used reference books, this statement is obviously incorrect. duncan 10:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite possible to use oneself, or any number of people, as models and simultaneously use reference books or, indeed, any number of other sources. Thus there is nothing wrong with the part of the sentence you have criticised.
However, you failed to point out the obvious error that he does not use himself and a model for *all* his paintings: only for *some* of them.

FyiFoff 00:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC) I never heard of him until I just found his 2007 calendar.[reply]

With respect, your ignorance on the matter is of little importance to an encyclopaedia article.

Is there a "master list" of drawings he did that are "copies" from photographes(which in a way is a drawing but done with a camera)? In school I was told if you altered an image 10% you could say this is your drawing rather then my verison of so and so. Did he alter the images or copy layout 100%? FyiFoff FyiFoff 00:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In some respects, this shouldn't be overplayed. If you check some of the externally linked stories on this issue (if those links are still active), you can see that Vettriano largely uses the photographs in old dancing guides as a starting point for the poses of figures in his paintings. Other folks use those wooden manequins. In The Singing Butler, the pose of the central two figures is taken from a dancing book, but for the most part what makes the painting is its style and atmosphere. -- Solipsist 21:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

00:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)thanks, I didn't think it was that bad, people only don't like art copying art, art copying a photo has never been that bad of a "art crime". Is there any information who "broke the news"? FyiFoff00:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Andy Worhol copied photographs of Marilyn Monroe. Degas used photographic sources extensively. Copying a photograph can result in art, but need not.

"... a good artist copies. A great artist steals." - Pablo Picasso. Mike Spilligan (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Singing Butler

[edit]

Yes, there is a direct link to a picture in the text, but doesn't this famous painting deserved to be thumbnailed on the side of the article? -- User:81.99.181.231 17:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its an idea. The picture would of course be still under copyright (I guess we could now claim it is a derivative work of the dancing manual ;-) but as that was published in 1987 its photos would most likely still be copyright in any case). However, if you could find an example of the painting on Vettriano's own web site, or perhaps a gallery representing him, then it might be possible to use it under Fair use provisions as long as it was small enough that it couldn't be used by anyone in place of say buying the postcard of it. -- Solipsist 19:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The link doesn't seem to work any more so I have deleted it. It seems to be common Wikipedia practice in such cases to use a small image of a famous picture under fair use. Flapdragon 16:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-- does anybody have the original, actual size of this painting? It seems to be unknown an unstated.

Nice-biscuit 20:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)I read that the book used was an artists reference book and not a dance manual. All the images used were specifically for artists to use as Jack Vittriano did. Being copyright free images there should be no issues with copyright. He only used these type of reference books for his early work. Attending a Private View of 'Chimes at Midnight' in 1994 at the Portland Gallery ,I noticed many of the female figures in the paintings were based on a girl attending the show. Therefore he was using his own reference/models from at least 1993.[reply]

I am thinking of writing my essay for my final year of FINE ART BA(hons)around Vettriano and the vilification of him by the fine art police. I dont understand their attitude to him at all. Is it just envy that he makes so much money from his art whilst they, having suffered degree studies, signally fail to? Is it because he is popular? So he uses images from books........who doesnt? He also uses himself for so many of his sexually charged paintings too. Although now that he is older he has started using a younger man to model for him. He doesnt want to look a letch with a young woman !! I have never seen his paintings in the flesh, are they any good close up? SBR1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.210.224 (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It because he's not technically very good, his work is derivative and incidentally badly titled (the singing butler for instance cannot be seen singing because of the clumsy composition.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.91.169 (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pastiche

[edit]

Pastiche is an acceptable practice in postmodernist art as justified by deconstruction art theorists. A number of artists in the 80s and 90s made a point of it, with obvious references to classical paintings, techniques and layered images. In deconstruction, it's also argued there's no such thing as an "original". The great masters also copied and copied, firstly their forerunners and then each other. This approach is not very different, only it's from the mass mediated image. It's not always the artist who justifies their method and approach, but it can help. Usually a thoughtful critic can contextualise the work and give it cred. Mostly, though the most compelling argument for it is the marketplace. The way the artist personally puts it all together makes it signfiicant. Covers, compilation and sampling could be said to be the musical equivalent.Julia Rossi 23:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC) PS Another mark of this way of art making is to use copying and projections as a way of refusing the "skills" that were formerly so exalted, and using that to visually comment on the effect of reproducible media to talk about the "original". It is a discourse and not the be-all to end-all since personally, there's nothing like a high-level inherent skill to take your breath away.Julia Rossi 23:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Vincent van Gogh did pastiches of Japanese woodcuts at the beginning of his career, didn"t he?Robert Schediwy, Vienna --208.114.113.103 (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backgrounds

[edit]

While Vettriano is accused of pinching figures from a manual, when you compare the painting and the figures from the manual, the painting is much more informed and informing; as well, the backgrounds are not in the manual – see this site: http://www.aref-adib.com/archives000303.html They look pretty cool – any idea where he learned to do these?Julia Rossi 10:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iconic Bluebird

[edit]

One of Vettriano's Bluebird pics is described as "the most iconic of the series". How does one measure a degree of iconicity? Can there be a superlative? What does it really mean? Can a phrase be at the same time POV, original research and utterly meaningless? Tsuguya (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nude?

[edit]

The sentence:

"His paintings are reminiscent of the film noir genre, often with romantic or nude themes."

was, presumably, written carelessly or by someone either not familiar with JV's work or who doesn't understand the definition of the word 'nude', in art or general usage.

A more accurate sentence would be:

"His paintings are reminiscent of the film noir genre, often with romantic or erotic themes."

Nudity (nakedness, absence of all clothing) is almost never apparent in JV's paintings. The arguably stronger images that arise from a state of partial undress, with hints of what is to come or what went before, are often present in the paintings, however, and definitely constitute eroticism.

(Film noir, romanticism: definitely). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.114.148 (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does 'DIY painting' add?

[edit]

"Vettriano had used the DIY-painting artists' reference manual The Illustrator's Figure Reference Manual"

Better would be: "Vettriano had used the artists' reference manual The Illustrator's Figure Reference Manual"

Adding "DIY-painting" smacks of POV / bias and adds nothing to the normal description of an "artists' reference manual" as just that: an artists' reference manual.

In fact, what exactly is "DIY-painting" supposed to mean? Every painter does DIY painting, hence being called a painter. (Obviously excluded are the 'artists' who pay someone else to make 'their' 'art', such as Damien Hirst).

Suggest expunging "DIY-painting". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.115.74 (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]

There seems to be nothing in this article about the paintings themselves and more importantly there is nothing about the controversy over whether he is just a commercially sucessful producer of kitsch illustrations or an 'artist' , whatever that means. Surely the fact that painter who is so hugely sucessful is ignored by the art establishment: seem to recall an incident where somebody offered one of his pictures to the Tate and the offers was refused. Liewise, the President of the Royal West of England academy has recently resigned, allegedly partly because of an exhibition including some of these paintings. Similarly, he is totally ignored by critics: an article I read recently was most interting, a whole slew of critics just saying ' in effect, 'errr, but he's rubbish': I thin only Adrian Searle of the Guardian actually adressed the issue of why. The controversy is signifcant because it relats to the rift between contemporary art practise & what most people actually gain a significant aethetic experience from. I have an entirely neutral point of view on this, btw. I've never seen the work 'in the paint', and therefore have an open mind on the issue at the moment, although since I am about to actually look at some of the thingsa this may change.TheLongTone (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have created a stub criticism section- please expand.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested removal of philanthropy edits by Publicists based on Vettriano's Website

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Laurabrudenell added an number of items to the philanthropy section, including the donation of a painting to a charity auction that raised only £2,000. These were sourced to Vettriano's website. That sourcing has since been removed. I think that the text should be removed, unless the philanthropy was noteworthy enough to be reported in a reliable source. http://uk.linkedin.com/in/laurabrudenell belongs to a publicist, and the editor also edited the philanthropy section for another artist from Vettriano's gallery.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that philanthropy is the right title for the scholarship he endowed or the paintings he donated to auctions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philanthropy#Modern_Vernacular_Uses_of_the_Word describes it as charitable giving on a large scale.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Isabelledelacroix has also been adding information to the philanthropy section based on Jack Vetriano's website, and removing information about his conviction - [[3]]. While there may be no connection, http://www.facebook.com/isabelle.delacroix.773 describes herself as PA to Jack Vettriano, and all the edits associated with this account relate to Jack, or artists represented by Heartbreak.87.194.44.183 (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism heavily biased

[edit]

The Criticism section is very heavily biased towards negative criticism by a small number of journalist critics, a group which is paid to be controversial. Positive criticism, of which there is plenty, is totally absent.

The section reads like a soap-box for people who make a living by writing opinion pieces, regardless of their own knowledge, which is usually secondary, or ability and experience, which is usually absent.

Suggest either removing the section or, preferably, presenting a balanced set of views rather than a biased set of opinions by the over-opinionated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.55.26.134 (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Over 18 months later and the blatant bias referred to above remains unaddressed. Such is the quality of Wikipedia and its bunch of "editors", in contrast to a real encyclopaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.102.208 (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have either of you added positive criticism, and had it removed? Show us the edit history, and if there's something nefarious it can be addressed. Otherwise, This is your own fault, no one else's. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jack Vettriano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jack Vettriano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Vettriano&oldid=1211090542"