Found this yesterday - a young contemporary London-based artist has an exhibition including a Prince inspired work. The info in the write up is a little outdated... but interesting.

There's an image of the work on the gallery website www.countergallery.com

Sorry I don't have the techno skills to put it here - maybe someone else could help out? It should go into the org Gallery too maybe...?

Available: http://www.absolutearts.c...32605.html
Retrieved: 16 December 2004

"Babak Ghazi: I Won't Let You Down"
2004-12-15 until 2005-01-22
Counter Gallery 44a Charlotte Rd EC2A 3PD (Old Street tube)
London, , UK United Kingdom
In the work ‘4U’ (2004) a poster of The Artist Formerly Known as Prince, Babak Ghazi partly obscures the image by a reflective curtain of silver foil tinsel. While this barrier deflects any intrusive gaze from seeing his visage in full, he remains, however, highly recognisable from his hyper-dandy, self-designed clothes and determinedly androgynous physique. Now a multivalent symbol, his name long since abandoned, and with a history of never fully revealed, multiple personae, he represents a triumphant act of self-definition.

Never mind edit


.
[Edited 12/16/04 13:43pm]
[Edited 12/17/04 7:53am]

No! THat's another work in the show - you need to go to www.countergallery.com and click on the exhibition title and then the image appears. Doh! I wish I knew how to insert images!!

here it is:

Universaluv said:

omg!

there he is!

andykeen said:

i could do that...actually anyone with some silver paper, that particular pic and a long box could do it.

Sigh...Yes but they and you didn't and this artist did... it's about the concept, which you're either into or you're not...

Thanks for inserting the image guys...whatever all you critics out there may think of it...

that's just silly -- come on! whatever

Snap said:

OK fair enough - on a certain level a whole lot of contemporary art is "silly" - but I'm guessing you meant my comment. Didn't mean to be nasty. Just meant a comment on pop culture is going to be a little shallow and tongue in cheek and a poster and tinsel will do that.

Oh dear
At the risk of digging myself in deeper :boxed:and of offending more people or provoking more “who cares” :bored:responses… I will try and explain myself further. I’ll wear the silly accusation as it is quite possible the artist is commenting on the silliness of celebrity or Prince or Prince’s style or indeed of art and my initial response was a little flip. The thinking behind my response to the comment that anyone with the materials could make this is that yes – they maybe could - but they did not and it is this artist who expresses his or her ideas about popular culture (according to the accompanying blurb) in images and objects, who has considered many of the ideas that we consider here on the org all the time: the paradox of Prince’s public but private being, flashy and revealed and yet obscured, celebrity vs mystery. Prince is constantly veiling himself (as echoed in my reading of this piece in the tinsel curtain partially obscuring the well-known poster image) literally with glasses, masks, fabric and chains and metaphorically with lyrics, cryptic interview responses and publicity stories – as well as revealing himself through the same (contradictions…).

A concept or idea for an art work doesn’t have to be deep and meaningful philosophy – it’s just one person’s interpretation of an idea about Prince and this reading of mine is just another person’s view. Much debate can certainly be had around whether this is a good or bad art work or successful against whatever criteria or convincing if I or anyone is to believe the statement attached to it.

I do think it is interesting that the work is out there at all – it recognizes that Prince is iconic and it brings up interesting ideas for me about celebrity personae and the public gaze. That’s what I meant by it “being about the concept”.

As with Prince himself – attention is often not on his skill and craft – but on the surface glamour or alternatively looking for the man behind the music – hidden and humanizing, personal and revealing. For what it’s worth this is how I view this art work.

Peace and love y’all.

WAS EXPECTING SOMETHING MORE INTRESTING SORTA LIKE A FRESCOE OR A MOSAIC OR A SKETCH DONE BY A FAMOUS PAINTER BUT INSTEAD THEY PUT A PRINCE PIC IN A BOX WITH GLASS AND AND STRAND OF TINSEL THAT IS JUST I THINK THE PERSON WHO DID THIS WAS OR OR OR A OR OR . NOW I WONT DENY PRINCE IS A BEAUTIFUL MAN BUT I BUY HIS MATERIAL FOR HIS TALENT! I HAPPEN TO THINK BRITTNEY IS A BEAUTIFUL GURL BUT I DON'T OWN NONE OF HER MATERIAL, THANKS MUCH !!

That's no "art". I have that poster!

Hmmm... Is the silver "curtain" rising, falling or is it static?

What the hell? And there will be some dumb ass that will pay big money for that mess. That mess is garbage!

"As with Prince himself – attention is often not on his skill and craft – but on the surface glamour or alternatively looking for the man behind the music – hidden and humanizing, personal and revealing. For what it’s worth this is how I view this art work."




Compared to an Andy Warhol portrait it does look pretty lame. Is the artist in question 12 years old?

It's kinda funny that prince is easily recognizable from the waist down...

Green said:

If it is "concept art" it has to be, indeed. Otherwise it's just total crap. Read Kant's "The Critique of Judgement" (1790) first then dive into more contemporary art philosophy like Adorno or Deleuze and you will see it has to be!

Novabreaker said:

Thank you. I have read and am familiar with the ideas of the above philosophers and contemporary theorists and I stick to my original statement. Perhaps we have different definitions of "deep and meaningful" (arguably words...like images are inherently unstable) and I challenge anyone who says that art "has to be" anything (in anything other than a specific context with a declared intent) - IMO this artist was just having some fun with the idea of the lightness of pop, the image of Prince and maybe offering some parody... and these are ideas or concepts...they may not be particularly compelling ones or presented skilfully in this instance and this piece may well be crap - but I still got the reading I got, so to a certain level this worked for me - would I pay big money for it?... no...would I enjoy it coming across it in an exhibition in a gallery - for a few minutes yes.

I apologise if folks got all excited thinking this was a major public piece in London from my thread heading.
[Edited 1/12/05 12:28pm]

I have that poster and Mine is in COLOR!

Green said:

I'm with ya.

Art should always pose a question, not an answer.

I dig it. I wouldn't buy it - but I dig it.

Green said:

Beautiful. Now the next question would be: why in the hell are you familiar with those ideas?