Immigrant Actor Jim Carrey Saved Most Depraved Pic For Last Which Might Soon Be In Smithsonian
The once relatively funny but now deeply emotionally disturbed has-been comedian, actor, and artist
Jim Carrey is once again in the limelight.
But this time it's not because he made his newest movie flop, but because he made a truly
disturbing painting of President Trump's adult sons, Donald Jr. and Eric.
And this is only the beginning.
Over the past few weeks since no one is knocking on the comedian's door to give him a roll
in movies anymore the In Living Color star has also tweeted paintings of a scowling White
House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee-Sanders, a hellbound Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner,
and a gross depiction of the President's alleged affair with a porn star.
As you can see below, he is quite the artist, in a kindergarten student sort of way.
Not unlike his acting and comedy routines.
As far as the president is concerned, he's fair game, but doesn't this make you wonder
what the media would have said if someone like Clint Eastwood would have painted a portrait
of Obama and all the corruption he brought to the White House?
Although I am not much for trophy hunting, why is it that Carrey needs to paint something
like this?
The president's sons are private citizens and they have done nothing to deserve a has
been star like Carrey portraying them as dead in a painting.
Especially coming from someone who had a questionable roll in the death of his girlfriend.One thing
is for certain Jimmy, these paintings are about as funny as all the movies you made
after The Mask.
But at least to see these paintings we don't have to shell out $12 and come out wishing
we could get our money back while pondering the sad fact that we will never get those
2 wasted hours of our lives back.
Here is more on Jim Carrey's left-wing activist paintings via The Guardian:The comic actor's
short film about his paintings is painful viewing, but he's not the first star who
has tried, and failed, to moonlight as an artist
This is not a scientific law, probably, and I cannot suggest what causes the phenomenon,
but the most embarrassing and talentless of all celebrities who try their hand at art
tend to be Hollywood actors.
Jim Carrey may or may not be a great comic actor.
He is an astonishingly bad painter and sculptor.
Carrey has released a video of his artistic efforts that makes for painful viewing.
Can he be serious?
Is this all a build-up to a film in which he plays a deluded character who thinks he's
an artist?
Val Kilmer: 'Lord, I'm never going to read this tripe!'
To be fair, Carrey took up art to get over a painful end to a relationship and preaches
it as therapy rather than claiming to be the new Picasso, or even the new Sylvester Stallone,
whose fatuous daubs have been exhibited in actual museums in France and Russia.
If his art helps and heals him, that's great.
He just should not be showing this stuff to anyone and expecting anything except derision.
Crudely coloured Jesus-like faces, lurish fluorescent portraits, random abstractions
and kitshch clay figures – this is a joke.
Please, say it's a joke.
The art Carrey has been filmed making would be turned down if he offered it to a Salvation
Army store.
It gives amateurs a bad name.
Some celebrity artists put on a perfectly decent performance.
Rock stars turn to painting without completely humiliating themselves.
Ronnie Wood's portraits of the Rolling Stones are a decent visual diary of the ageing rock
'n roll life and Bob Dylan's paintings give convincing visual form to the landscapes
of his songs.
But then he is a Nobel laureate.
Perhaps musicians are more well-rounded.
Maybe actors give so much in their roles they've got no more to give.
Whatever the reason, Carrey joins Hollywood's artistic walk of shame.James Franco knows
more than Carrey about the style and language of contemporary art, spicing up his efforts
as a painter with video, performance and suchlike fashionable stuff, but this just gives his
work a glib faux-sophistication.
His art is a shallow pose, from all his "ironically" bad paintings to a daft video he made with
greased models posing as Renaissance artworks.
Val Kilmer has a bit of the same pseudo-understanding of contemporary art that Franco exhibits in
such devastatingly crass overload.
Kilmer makes text-works in the style of Ed Ruscha as well as terrible pop images of his
roles as Batman and Jim Morrison.
Didn't he already do enough harm to Morrison, whose legend was turned to tack by the Oliver
Stone biopic in which he starred?
The superficiality and lack of soul of these actors' art is telling.
Los Angeles has a thriving art world and film-star dollars help it prosper.
Stars doubtless feel they "know" art because they've got a couple of Warhols and a Ruscha.
This is a horrible delusion that encourages the worst kind of unexpressive, oddly impersonal
pretentiousness.
By contrast, rock stars tend to be much less aware of artistic fashion, and so more honest
and heartfelt in their drawings and paintings.
A bit of homespun sincerity is better than lurid exhibitionism when it comes to amateur
art.
It was not always this way.
Once Hollywood nurtured real art lovers and proper artists.
Vincent Price was a noted art expert in the 1950s.
The tough guy actor Edward G Robinson was such a sensitive collector that his paintings
were exhibited at The Museum of Modern Art.
Kirk Douglas made modern art real for the film public in his great performance as Van
Gogh in Lust for Life.
These stars had far too much taste to impose themselves as "artists" on a celebrity-addled
market.
Instead they used their talent and wealth to support and popularise real art.
One star who did become a true artist was Dennis Hopper.
This legendary actor and director who moved between Hollywood and the avant garde took
photographs with genuine power and beauty that have become part of the American canon.
It's genuinely scary to look at what stars are doing now in the name of "art".
Is a work of art a window on the soul?
Let's hope not, for Jim Carrey's sake."
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét