GILBERT AND GEORGE
An iconic piece that first came about was "The singing sculpture" in 1969. Where they both decided that they weren't separate from their work, and they had to be their own living art, so they painted their faces in metallic powder and sung a song for up to 9 hours, this captivated their audience and they claim it had and mesmeric effect on them sort if hypnotising them.
They where out and proud conservatives, this made them laugh, as conservatives were not supposed to be artists, they never hid the fact that they loved Margaret Thatcher, either, and they adored how Prince Charles dressed. I strongly feel they took inspiration from the prince, as they are iconically known for dressing smart in their suits, and most of the time never being seen one without the other.
Their work was very much influenced by their home town, with all the urban rebel and spray paintings, this inspired a lot of their work, with the rawness, bright spray paint colours, and hear of there city. They said that;
"Nothing can happen in the world that couldn't happen in the west end"
I think this gave them a sense of contentment, the feeling they had all they needed to make fantastic sculptures. They call all the art "Sculptures" even their painting, (painted sculptures)
Gilbert and Georges work as time has passed has meant different things, their first piece of work being "The singing sculpture" was about them being naive, innocent artists, wanting to express themselves and to be living examples of their own work. There work today you can see they are expressing government issues, and the dark and light side of the matter as seen below.
To me this is religious and political figures and what seems to be almost
satanic/demonic looking figure in the middle, with all thee reds and dark colours, If any side was on the side of good I cant Imagine the centre image being what I have depicted, centred evil would not be mediator between the two? It would be something of a neutral stature, so this to me is saying they are both as one as the middle
(all the same).
(all the same).
This you could say is a more easier example of their work to understand. The photo below is called "Flying shit,Naked Shit Pictures (1994)"
This made me laugh coming across this, an actual LOL!
(I never use that abbreviation)
How could anyone interpret this?
Are they sharing a secret joke?
Are they mocking todays art?
Or is it telling us sometimes they are just having...a shit day.
For me its all of they above, they seem the type of character who would play an mess around with society, this in a very abstract piece, I could imagine they conspiring to put a piece out there and it be loved no matter how the "shit" it may seem.
Shitty or not shitty I think its clever.
(What is even funnier, they used their hands to collect to the poo, brilliant!)
The composition of their work is somewhat bright bold and a lot of the time symmetrical. Making it a master image, in total balance with its self being the same on both sides, strangely enough, symmetry is seen as the key factor
in defining or measurubg a persons beauty. Is this a subliminal detail bringing an admiration to their work from their audience?
Their colours in some work are be bold and brash, I think it works quite well. There work comes in all sizes, and I don't think this is of extreme importance to them as much as it would be to the likes of Michael Angelo, or Leonardo Da Vinci.
Here we have Leonardo Da Vinci painting, this is his work on the Sistine chapel, now the composition of this compared to Gilbert and Georges work are worlds apart, the above image is on the ceiling of the chapel measuring an impressive 132 x 46 feet! As you can see the size is of much importance.
It would an extreme disadvantage being 230 x 680 cm compared to Gilbert and Georges
"Us in nature painting".
Whilst performing, they made 'Postcard Sculptures', 'Magazine Sculptures' and were early pioneers of video art with their 'Sculptures on Video Tape' such as Portrait of the Artists as Young Men and In the Bush, both from 1972.
Between 1970 and 1974 they executed thirty 'Charcoal on Paper Sculptures', large drawings in charcoal with text which in some instances completely covered the gallery walls and ceilings. In 1971 they made a series of paintings in oil on canvas entitled The Paintings (with Us in the Nature), a body of work which they again referred to as 'sculpture'.
Even though they where painting or drawing they always referred their work as "Sculptures"
Photography was to become their primary medium and, from the mid 1970s to the present, they have produced an enormous body of wall based works.
From the outset, they used a grid to enable them to work on a large scale, and the early photographic work was initially limited to black and white, with the latter addition of colour. In the early 1980s they began to work on an even greater scale, introducing a more saturated field of colour and using ever more powerful and uncompromising imagery to explore their unique vision on all aspects of human nature.
??
Between 1970 and 1974 they executed thirty 'Charcoal on Paper Sculptures', large drawings in charcoal with text which in some instances completely covered the gallery walls and ceilings. In 1971 they made a series of paintings in oil on canvas entitled The Paintings (with Us in the Nature), a body of work which they again referred to as 'sculpture'.
Even though they where painting or drawing they always referred their work as "Sculptures"
Photography was to become their primary medium and, from the mid 1970s to the present, they have produced an enormous body of wall based works.
From the outset, they used a grid to enable them to work on a large scale, and the early photographic work was initially limited to black and white, with the latter addition of colour. In the early 1980s they began to work on an even greater scale, introducing a more saturated field of colour and using ever more powerful and uncompromising imagery to explore their unique vision on all aspects of human nature.
??
-Gilbert and George V.s Andy Warhol -
Its clear to see that there work is both share the same qualities, the bright vibrant colours somewhat animated and cartoon like, I think over all Gilbert and Georges work is very original it works, what I love most about them is that not only are they business partners but partners in love and partners in crime. I like their work but don't think I would take anything from it to influence my own, if anything maybe the bold colours, their work to me is more on the realms of the physical, my designs are very much on the esoteric planes of energies surrealism, editorial couture.
But I do think there are people out there who would be inspired by their work, and maybe be even to make money from it....here is a photo of a gentlemen in my home town that I see ever other day, and he is his own art work, his own sculpture, just like how Gilbert and George believe themselves to be. His clothes are laced with wire and he looks like he is being blown away constantly, even though he is static, and there is no wind. Perfect example of being the art.
