Celebrity Art: Inspired or Insipid?

Fascination by mere mortals with the rich and famous or celebrity is nothing new. It’s been around for hundreds of years and has grown like topsy with trashy journalism, dozens of magazines that definitely seem to scrape the bottom of the “celebrity” barrel and the fact that paparazzi outnumber news reporters, and celebrity and TV seems to be the staple of the tabloids. Some so called celebs do take commercial advantage of their five minutes of fame – whether it’s deserved or undeserved – through perfumes, gifts and gimmicks that have no intrinsic value or purpose other than that assumed through the association with celebrity. Even so, it’s difficult to believe that anyone really wants to smell like Katie Price or Jade Goody for that matter!

The art world also has its role in this continued fascination. After all, the revered Holbein or Rembrandt in today’s museums and galleries is really nothing more than a portrait of the contemporary “celebrities” of the time – kings, generals, writers, poets etc. These portraits were received enthusiastically by the audience of the day partially because of their technical artistic execution (why we appreciate them now) but also because of the “fame” of the subjects themselves. The same is true today, with artists such as Roy Lichtenstein, Jasper Johns, David Hockney and Andy Warhol picking up the zeitgeist fascination with fame and celebrity and paving the way for what was to come. What’s also been thrown into the mix is those celebrities producing their own artworks. There are even art dealers who specialise in celebrity- produced art with names like Muhammad Ali, Ronnie Wood of the Rolling Stones, Grace Slick, and Sly Stallone (whose work is surprisingly good!) on their books.

So why do celebrities, famed in one field but not known for their visual talents do it? Many rock stars studied at art school, so the likes of David Bowie produces work that is pretty competent. Others paint to prevent themselves becoming stale, believing that the creative integrity of their “day job” will be enhanced by exploring other creative outlets. Others adhere to Einstein’s dictum that “true art is characterised by an irresistible urge in the creative artist” and feel they have no option but to do it. And there are others of course who just do it for the cash. It seems that any old piece of rubbish can be inflated in value (monetary if not artistic) provided a famous name is associated with it.

Some, Like Ronnie Wood, have their works picked up by others and seem willing to collaborate. Liberty of London’s Creative Director, Tamara Salman, used Ronnie Wood’s paintings for a new Autumn Winter 09 collection, translating the images from canvas into leather, cotton and jersey. In this case, someone else saw merit in the work beyond simply association with a famous name. Ronnie presumably was equally willing to have the kudos of being associated with such a respected name as Liberty of London. More importantly, at an average price of £195 for Tee shirts and £600 for dresses, we can assume that Ronnie won’t exactly suffer for his art either!