News - These ghoulish things
| The portrait showed a part-human face, with the upper right quarter decomposing and an eyeball popping out of the socket. A devil’s tongue poked out of her mouth. Frankly, Picasso’s Guernica would have been a more romantic present.
A young child who saw the portrait being unveiled announced it looked like a corpse. He wasn’t far off the mark. Chapman thought it was hilarious - the comment and the portrait. “I was in shock but I found myself saying I loved it and in a way I do love it,” says Ms Brovig. “I love the idea and I love the story, even if it ended up as a rather expensive joke.”
Impotence treatment Some might think she got off lightly, one woman’s portrait reportedly showed a large penis balanced on a see-saw, while another depicted a seven-headed genitalia. They, like Ms Brovig, are probably wondering what to do with their picture when they finally get their hands on them. (From December until March 2007 the portraits will be on display at the Tate Liverpool in the Jake and Dinos Chapman: Bad Art for Bad People exhibition. “I don’t know what on earth to do with it,” says Ms Brovig. I don’t think I will have it on my wall, but I will get it out to show people. It will certainly be an interesting talking point at dinner parties.”
The couple hope the portrait might be a profitable investment. Turner Prize judge Andrew Renton says it will. “It might not make them millionaires but it is certainly money in the bank. Jake and Dinos Chapman are two of the most important and respected artists in Britain today and anything they do has value.
“They couldn’t have done what they did with the portraits unless there was strong market for their art. It is very desirable and pieces have gone for millions of pounds. Paying 4,500 for the portrait is not a mistake and is a erectile dysfunction treatment It also made the artists some spare cash. Between them they painted two portraits an hour, eight hours a day for four days. That’s 288,000. ‘No Rembrandt’ Knowing what she now knows, Dea Brovig says she wouldn’t have Chapman do her portrait again. “Not that I can complain of any injustice, we knew exactly what chance we were taking when we signed up and we can hardly claim that we were expecting a Rembrandt,” she says. “While it may not be quite what we were hoping for, we’re still the lucky owners of a Jake Chapman painting. I keep reminding myself of my portrait’s one big redeeming feature. I am very pleased to note that there isn’t a single penis painted on or anywhere near my face. That, at least, is something.” Add your comments to this story, using the form below.
A fool and his money are easily parted - the buyers deserves all they got. As for the artist(?), why do we put up with pretentious rubbish like this? It’s not art and it never will be!!!
How ace! I love art and I love the Chapman brothers, they are total nutters. If I had one of these portraits done i’d so put it up on my wall, even if there was a giant penis in it. How amazing would it be? and such a talking point. I love the humour of their work and would be happy and proud to have it on my wall, especially if it was specially painted for me - how many average people can say they had a renowned artist paint their portrait?! Wack it up on your wall girl, what fun.
Trite, tasteless and talentless. i think their art is amazing. the depth and meaning. i also love their work ‘hell’ art needs more controvery and talent, as opposed to watercolour scenery and vases of flowers
New clothes Emperor? My 12 year old brother could do that.
I think these pictures have a real honesty about them, this is where art is going in the 21st Century and people have to let go of old school cliches. Some may find repulsive but I would definatly invest in them
I wish I’d have known. 4,500 for a one-off, personalised Chapman Brothers piece of artwork? It’s a steal, and no mistake. Art was never meant to be functional- you wouldn’t think him a fool who pays a brick of cash for a small pebble if was in fact a diamond, though that is all a diamond is… the same principle is at work in both situations. Okay, so it’s not my cup of tea, but you can’t say it’s not art. It’s creative and it gets people talking - what are we doing now? I like a bit of fun! Great investment, crap picture, sad world. Art is all about personal taste but too many artists are doing ‘modern’ pieces without having any real ability! I liked the picture, and I think it looked like Mrs.B. I don’t know what she was complaining about. Is it a surprise that the artist is actually laughing and smiling?? At 4,500 per painting I would be laughing too! What gives some the right to class whats art and what isn’t? what happened to being open minded and accepting other peoples tastes? This is teenage schoolroom art at its most middle-of-the-road “shock and offend” averageness. What sets it apart from the rest of the contemporary art of our time is that not only is its execution immature, but also its conceptualisation. I look forward to seeing how the art world justifies this. Even this web page is art, as artists have insisted that ‘art’ should not be constrained by definition. The point is that the painting is unattractive. Art? Sure, but unattractive, ugly and unpleasant to look at all the same. Original? Yes. But then, so is my dog’s dribbles. What a load of rubbish. GIve me a diamond ring any day! A portrait, huh? Nope, try as I might I just can’t see the resembalance. I’d get your bloke to ask for his money back, Miss Brovig; it looks like you’ve both been had. I totally agree with Robet Michell, Matt of Longon and Barry Scott Mackenzie. What will people think of us in a couple of hundred years when they see what we were calling art and were willing to pay money for it. I do like abstract art, but this has gone beyond the realms of that and I can imagine these kinds of “artists” laughing at us all the way to the bank. Ha Ha Ha. Bad art for Bad people looks like it’s going to be a cracking show. J&D have done it again. Thanks. Lucky chaps; they have hit on a particular ‘art’ formula which will make them rich celebrities: it’s just another batch of forgettable collages based on plagiarised horror motifs. None of this has anything to do with enriching or adding meaning to normal people’s lives. So, men find them rubbish, women find them fantastic - Interesting. Any psychologists out there to decipher this one? I would not have paid 4.50 and why it should take 30 mins is anyones guess. They’re having a laugh! This is fabulous. I’m so tired of ‘its not art’ comments - lazy cynisism and thoughtless accusations of pretension are exactly the things that make this work thrive. Wonderful. the chapman bros. are not original in the slightest.they are just attention seeking fools.art shouldn’t be about controversy. Martin - no he could not 4500 for that!!?? How about creating something with artistic merit rather than building your career on shock value. Amazing that people are willing to pay such an extraordinary amont to have themselves and their ignorance derided. I find it astonishing that the creators of this rubbish get away with it. good for their bank balance that they can, but it’s got no respect for self or others in it that I can fathom. “Shock art” is purile as it relies on nothing more subtle than its shock value to inspire its audience. The pretentious part is pretending that it is worth money. Art should be uplifting but, whilst it might or even should also challenge herbal impotence remedy and accepted views, I don’t relish the idea of “art” emanating from a clearly troubled mind and being accepted as “the way forward”. Pretencious crap dressed up as art. Another load of pollocks! Are you saying my bird is ugly mate? If you want a true treat for erectile dysfunction Barry Scott Mackenzie, I notice you use three names? Is this not pretentious? Well - I am really torn between condemning this non-art with the natural human envy of this girl getting a bloody good bargain for her money - who is to blame? The so called “off this planet” art critics who acclaim such dross or ourselves for buying it? Sick and revolting, and people call this art? “Hell” was one of the most impressive pieces of art I have ever seen. Shame it is no more. I think these two are taking the mickey out of all of us. Comtemporary art is sometimes interesting but often totally meaningless. What’s the point of that picture?? It certainly isn’t a potrait. It seems that ’shock and awe’ is the order the day for modern art. Despite all of that, those people will probably make a profit because some other mindless art buff with more money than sense will pay more for those pictures because they are painted by somebody called ‘Chapman’! Art is in the eye of the beholder. It doesn’t have penis on it because he has painted her face on a testicle. Brilliant I like it…it is different and unusual. For that is what Art is. It is different, it is always unusual. Painting is no longer merely about recording - for that we have photography. Art has to entertain - bear in mind that means occupying someones mind, be that because they like and enjoy the work or because they hate it. And while this may not be the most pleasant work to look at in the world, for a wedding present its a sound investment. I think Liz should stop wallowing in this self-indulgent artisitic drivel - ‘real honesty’ indeed - and get some english language lessons. It’s DEFINITELY not definatly Look beyond the shock factor and its actually quite a good likeness. “It’s not art and it never will be!!!” For those that want “pretty” take a picture of some flowers and enjoy yourself. Live with it. Label it art or label it insanity but, spend time on the work and not on your preconceptions, and, if you still get nothing from it, even disgust, then it’s not the work that’s impotent it’s you. Well considering what some “Antiques Roadshow” antiques are valued at, even if they are green and orange and covered in ceramic frogs, you can’t really judge what is worth money these days by it’s beauty. But didn’t someone once say similar things about Van Gogh, and Toulouse Lautrec, and Monet… I love the Chapmans work. The art world needs some more adventurous characters like them. I would definately hang it on my wall. Although I do feel for Ms Brovig, it is a pity that she isnt exactly thrilled with her wedding present! Barry Scott Mackenzie, art is in the eye of the beholder and not for any one person to decide what is and is not art… you don’t like it, who cares, it’s merely your opinion. Others do like it so leave them be. Martin, your 12 year old brother could have done that, but he didn’t - that is the difference between an artist and anyone else. Fascinating! I quite like it. Definitely a talking point and it wouldn’t go unnoticed like the general pieces on most walls. Whilst I can appreciate the more traditional, art is dependendant on individual creativity and this should be encouraged as unusual pieces like this challenge the traditional and demonstrate a creative open mind. That said, I don’t think I’d have a penis painting on my walls, but I love the wedding present! Emperors new Clothes summs the Chapman Brothers up. I have an appreciation for new and exciting art, but theirs is ‘Schoolboy & purile’, an excuse to draw phallic symbols, and try “shock” the world with naked child mannequins?. Tasteless tatt. To me they are quite boring !. Oh sigh … someone getting mercilessly rich again off the back of the snobs for whom it would seem expendable wealth and the mis-appreciation of utter crap as “art” are directly proportional. My 38 year old brother could do that To me, art should convey some sort of emotion or message. What exactly does this convey? As for “humour in their work”, I’ve seen funnier scribbled on toilet walls and school desks.
Terms & Conditions
|
Read another articles about erectile dysfunction treatments.
