Jack Vettriano Inadvertently Kills Art.
I see that everyone is still getting their knickers in a knot about Jack Vettriano copying the figures in one of his paintings from a book. I've tried really hard to like Jack Vettriano's work but I just can't, there's something very chilly about his work that makes it impossible for me to connect on any level with the cliched imagery. Jack reckons that his work is not appreciated because of a fear of 'rampant heterosexual sex', which is odd as it is partly my fear of really dull sex that looks like an advert, that puts me off his work. The above picture doesn't even manage to produce a 'wahey a birds arse' reaction in me, which makes it a total failure in my book.
That aside I'm puzzled as to why the papers are getting hysterical about him copying a few figures out of a book. I'm all for a bit of originality but you can go too far. They might as well accuse a landscape painter of plagiarism because they didn't make the Lake District up in their head. I fail to see the difference between using life models or copying from a figure in a book. The artistic success or failure of a painting depends on what the artist does with the image that inspired it. If I were Mr Vettriano I'd refuse to speak to journalists on the grounds that everything they write is nicked out the dictionary, either that or show them a bank statement and look really, really smug.
Anyway, more power to Jack, it would be a real shame if people who fear independent thought or appearing unusual had nothing to hang on their walls.