WOW! Nature is truly remarkable!
The image in your header (especially the concept) looks heavily influenced by Hazel Dooney's 2006 series, Venus In Hell ( http://tinyurl.com/64hcur + http://tinyurl.com/5n584j and others).Mel
It's not. It was for a 'transformations' series which involved creatures that transformed/shed, including butterflies, tadpoles and eggs. Actually there is a 'Hunters & Collectors' song I adore with the words 'shed your skin and let's get started' which is really where the snake came in.I love Dooney's work, though. I need to check more of it out/keep up to date with it.Thanks for your comment.
Mel,I submit the following image for your review: http://images.newstatesman.com/articles/2007/blairart-steadman.jpgI think it proves that Miss Dooney is heavily influenced by Ralph Steadman. Ralph Steadman is obviously heavily influenced by Otto Dix.I can see some heavy Egon Schiele, early Andy Warhol and perhaps some Yoshitoshi in Dooney's work as well.Nothing is original, and work that strives to be original is pretentious and contrary to the purpose of art. This is the reason I feel modern art was held hostage by that king of assholes, Clement Greenberg, in the 1950s: Pollack is heavily influenced by messy housepainters but was the first to mount the dropcloth.Picasso wanted nothing more than to be Toulous Latrec, Wes Montgomery wanted nothing more than to be Charlie Christian.Perhaps I'm off the mark by quite a bit regarding the influences behind Dooney's paintings, but the coincidence (if it is that) is unmistakable.
Although I would like to point out, Sarah Scott was not heavily influenced by Hazel Dooney. *laughs* But you can see from the above post how anybody can be likened to just about anybody else (Hazel's stuff does remind me of Ralph Steadman, B! Especially her Venus In Hell series!)
Post a Comment