The curators: Richard Grindy and Rachelle Lunnon
From your perspective, what was the thinking and approach behind this project?
We had always been fans of Terry's photography and were keen to host an exhibition featuring his work. We were aware that his work had been exhibited in many fabulous galleries around the world, and wanted to showcase something that had never been seen before, yet incorporating Terry's imagery. This is when we came up with the concept of giving a selection of young artist the chance to 'rework' Terry's iconic photographs.
How did the artists react to your invitation? Were they already aware of Terry's work?
The reaction of all the artists was very positive. Each one knew immediately who Terry was and were keen to be associated with him and his work. A common piece of feedback we received from many of the artists was how surprised they were at how many of Terry's photographs they immediately recognised.
Does reworking change the signfiicance of art in popular culture – ie there is popular art which can be changed, and there is "high art" which is almost immortal?
We now live in a culture of remixing and sampling of artists', designers' and creators' work, often against the original creator's wishes! Having the blessing of someone as iconic as Terry O'Neill gives this new collection of reworked artwork real significance. Any piece of reworked art is an original in its own right, containing fresh perspectives and character. There is no reason why a reworked image can't go on to be highly significant and iconic in its own right.
I don't believe the significance of art is necessarily changed, but merely considered from a different point of view – bringing a breath of fresh air to work that may have otherwise 'settled into' a particular genre. No art, in our opinion, is immortal, but there are certainly some pieces that carry a lot more significance than others!
What reactions are you expecting from gallery visitors?
We hope that visitors will admire the skill and creativity that the artists have put into reworking images created by one of today's most renowned photographers.
Don't forget it's a daunting task for an artist to alter an iconic image and put it on show for all to see and judge, when many visitors will come with their own preconceptions. We're confident people will appreciate the exhibition!
The photographer: Terry O'Neill
From your personal perspective, how did your involvement with this project come about?
I've been looking at my photographs for decades and they've become very familiar to me. I'd been thinking for a while that I wanted to do something different with my images and the opportunity to work with Rook & Raven Gallery's contemporary urban artists was exciting. I was curious to see what art they might create by interpreting my images.
Does a reworking of an original piece of art change the way in which the original work is valued? Do the original and reworked pieces effectively become separate works themselves?
The original work is appreciated by its own merit. And, the reworked piece becomes a unique insight into the new generation of artists, whose perception of the original is viewed through its own prism. They are separate works of art with separate values and value.
What do you think that the reworked versions achieve?
The re-worked pieces are an homage to popular culture. The contemporary twist makes them both relevant and accessible to new audiences.
Given that, through digital media and the Internet, practically anything can now be reworked, do you support the emergence of a culture which actively "reworks" – in other words, freely creates remixed, derivative works?
Within reason, because it's too easy to cheapen the work. I don't want my work or my subjects to end up endorsing a can of soup or creating a pastiche. Too much art today is just advertising. The original works should always be treated with respect - that's why it's important to restrict such collaborations with established artists or fresh young talent you trust. New media has revolutionised how we interact on every level; it pushes the boundaries of freedom and expression with interesting results, but it not always art.
Cathy Bennett of Vue said on photography, in our recent interview with her: "If the vision is wrong from the start, no amount of technology will help you". Do you agree?
Yes I do. People often ask me how I think the digital age has affected the art of photography. And my fear is that it has been detrimental to capturing 'a moment'. In my day you had to be precious about the photographs you were taking as film was expensive. It meant that you had to have an eye for the perfect shot and could not waste frames with meaningless snaps. In the digital era, photographers do not have the same constraints and can fire of hundreds of shots a minute. I fear that this can mean that there is less care and value in creating that "one great picture".
Paradoxically, time and care is taken in the studio and in post-production on computer screens which has turned photography into a marketing tool: dishonest, mechanised, and manufactured.
Do you consider remixing / reworking of original artworks, as is the case here, to be a growing opportunity? Will we see more galleries and exhibitions adopting a similar approach?
Yes, definitely. I love the way that this collaboration has refreshed my archive and is making my images relevant to young people today.
The artist: James Marshall aka Dalek
From your personal perspective, how did your involvement with this project come about?
Daniel from Rook & Raven contacted me to see if I was interested in being involved. It was an easy decision on my part.
Does a reworking of an original piece of art change the way in which the original work is valued? Do the original and reworked pieces effectively become separate works themselves?
I don't think it changes anything. It just becomes something unique in and of itself.
What do you think that the reworked versions achieve?
It hopefully achieves enhancing what was already there. My goal was to illuminate the figures, and release the power within them by surrounding them with a visual representation of their energy.
Given that, through digital media and the Internet, practically anything can now be reworked, do you support the emergence of a culture which actively "reworks" – in other words, freely creates remixed, derivative works?
That's the basis of culture since the dawn of man.. everything has been reworked. That's just evolution, curiosity, and exploration.
Cathy Bennett of Vue said on photography, in our recent interview with her: "If the vision is wrong from the start, no amount of technology will help you". Do you agree?
I don't know. Its an easy statement to make. It depends whose vision... if the original vision is off and someone comes in and reworks it with a vision that is on, then it becomes of the new vision and not the original. I think there is a balance. Either the original will "overshine"... or the rework... or they will be balanced if both are in synch. Definitive statements on matters of subjectivity and creativity are pointless.
Do you consider remixing / reworking of original artworks, as is the case here, to be a growing opportunity? Will we see more galleries and exhibitions adopting a similar approach?
People have been doing it already. Of course, if it gathers attention and is successful, then more galleries will jump on board. It'll always come down to having the ability to choose the right artist to work together to do something interesting. This is a thing that could go horribly bad in the wrong hands, or be absolutely spectacular. I'm all for the spectacular.
The artist: James Mylne
From your personal perspective, how did your involvement with this project come about?
I had some work in the previous show at Rook & Raven. When the directors saw my photo-realist artwork up close, they saw that the technique and kind of work that I produce could go well in re-interpreting Terry O'Neill's photographs. A lot of my drawings are from black and white photos, which obviously fits in well with the brief.
Does a reworking of an original piece of art change the way in which the original work is valued? Do the original and reworked pieces effectively become separate works themselves?
I'd say they are definitely separate works. The original always remains the original, no matter what comes after it. Any work done from the original in a way is only referencing it, and it starts a new branch in the original's history. Generally, in a monetary way, the value of the original can be changed either way depending on a colossal amount of variables over time.
What do you think that the reworked versions achieve?
What working from an original does, is open up space for seeing the original in a different light. My re-working of Sean Connery as Bond seems to show him as a more menacing character than how you might view him from the original photograph. When I thought about this whilst creating it, I realised he is, in fact, a dark and troubled character - or at least should be considering what he has to do in the name of duty. Modern spies aren't seen in the same glamorous way they once were.
Given that, through digital media and the Internet, practically anything can now be reworked, do you support the emergence of a culture which actively "reworks" – in other words, freely creates remixed, derivative works?
In a way I do. We live in a 'remix culture' now. London, for instance, is a city among thousands of others where people from different backgrounds, with different tendencies, now mix together on a 24-hour basis. Inevitably, these different ways come together to form new identites within culture. This is very obvious in modern music where, for example, it is now normal and 'cool' to hear Indian instruments in what was traditionally more western songs. It's a natural emergence from the state of modern society.
Cathy Bennett of Vue said on photography, in our recent interview with her: "If the vision is wrong from the start, no amount of technology will help you". Do you agree?
Yes. In fact, the more you try, the further you will stray from achieving the desired result. But, is there a 'wrong' vision? Any idea is valid as long as it is conceived with a genuine and natural intent. From a creative point of view, inspiration can originate from anything, anywhere at any time, so as long as you stay true to the essence of what initially inspired you. You should end up with something deserving a certain amount of praise.
Do you consider remixing / reworking of original artworks, as is the case here, to be a growing opportunity? Will we see more galleries and exhibitions adopting a similar approach?
I think it's been going on for a long time but perhaps in a more subtle manner. I think it was Picasso who said "Good artists copy; great artists steal". In this show, all the reworking is happening in a very honest and up-front manner, with the blessing of the original artist. In that way it is quite original, and I think we will see more shows like this. They will be reworking what this show has set out to achieve, which is based on reworking!
The artist: Curtis Kulig
From your personal perspective, how did your involvement with this project come about?
I work with Poster Child Prints in Los Angeles. Sonja Teri & Naama Givoni are amazing and asked me if I would be interested in doing the project. I knew Terry's work, but once I saw all of the amazing images and requested my favorites, it was an absolute yes. I was honoured to be asked. I have a deep love of black & white film photography. It's nearly a lost art now, and he is a master.
Does a reworking of an original piece of art change the way in which the original work is valued? Do the original and reworked pieces effectively become separate works themselves?
For me, it was all about adding my aesthetic but honoring the image, and I hope that gives it greater value. I try never to think of anything as being precious, since a great deal of my work outside of galleries can be seen in the most un-pristine places like doorways, back alleys, and along building rooftops. It's just that first bit of paint that's always the hardest for me to place, and then I just let it flow. I think both works, the original and my collaborative piece have great value, but I mean, that's up to the viewer in the end.
What do you think that the reworked versions achieve?
It's me putting my signature on icons. Terry is an icon. Raquel is an icon. Rolling Stones- I mean... enough said. It's really strange to think I wasn't even born when these images were a part of the current culture. But, their relevance is as important today, if not more important, so being able to put my mark on it... it's just an honour.
Given that, through digital media and the Internet, practically anything can now be reworked, do you support the emergence of a culture which actively "reworks" – in other words, freely creates remixed, derivative works?
Personally, I love an original. The intention is intact. I have pieces in my house that I would never touch and I would never let anyone else either. As with anything, it's all in how it's done. It's like music... anyone can do a cover song, but to make you hear it differently and love it takes talent. I've had my signature 'Love Me' altered and used by many major brands without permission and they've denied recourse - sometimes even citing Valentine's candies as their inspiration when my writing is on a wall 2 blocks from their office, so of course I personally will always stand by an original. It's only right. But a collaboration, with permission, it can make for something unexpected and amazing.
Cathy Bennett of Vue said on photography, in our recent interview with her: "If the vision is wrong from the start, no amount of technology will help you". Do you agree?
I agree. You can't make shit shine. It just doesn't work, no matter how much you pour on top of it.
Do you consider remixing / reworking of original artworks, as is the case here, to be a growing opportunity? Will we see more galleries and exhibitions adopting a similar approach?
Remix? Ha. I didn't even think about it like that. I guess I see it as an opportunity to make some younger artists more known and some renowned artists get a sort of a fresh kick from a new perspective. Maybe it will be a trend. Who knows. In a way that's what happened when Warhol worked with Basquiat, except it was happening in real time. It's a heavy-hitter example, and very obvious, but completely changed the way you saw both of their work when it was pinned together. It just has to be the right pairing.
The artist: Daniel Lumbini
From your personal perspective, how did your involvement with this project come about?
I was asked and said yes - it was a no-brainer really; my work usually always stems from manipulating images I find, but this allowed me to pick from some amazingly iconic images without fear of legal action.
Does a reworking of an original piece of art change the way in which the original work is valued? Do the original and reworked pieces effectively become separate works themselves?
I can't speak for every artist, but I always intended to create a twisted version based on the original, and I definitely think it sits separately from the original image(s). I don't think my pieces have any bearing on the original work's value as such. It's not so much a cover version as a sample or remix. The pieces I've made look like a Daniel Lumbini more so than a Terry O'Neill, although the source is very obvious.
What do you think that the reworked versions achieve?
They've brought these amazing images to the attention of a whole new generation. I'm sure fans of our particular styles of work will see out reworks, and may seek out the originals for comparison (and they'll probably realise these are still far superior), but I hope in turn it opens peoples minds to new art forms and how diverse this project is: there are six great artists involved in the Reworked exhibition and six completely different approaches, which is amazing considering the source material is effectively the same.
Given that, through digital media and the Internet, practically anything can now be reworked, do you support the emergence of a culture which actively "reworks" – in other words, freely creates remixed, derivative works?
I make a lot of things with and from collage that are technically a re-imagining, so yes I definitely support free media, but I'm afraid I can't answer that fully without my lawyer present.
Cathy Bennett of Vue said on photography, in our recent interview with her: "If the vision is wrong from the start, no amount of technology will help you". Do you agree?
In a word, no. Maybe this is true with photography, but with painting and collage much of the magic might not happen until the last piece, or might have to be worked to death until something great is achieved, but there's always something you can pull out of the bag to make something great - something that may not have been there to begin with, but it's not over 'til it's over.
Do you consider remixing / reworking of original artworks, as is the case here, to be a growing opportunity? Will we see more galleries and exhibitions adopting a similar approach?
If the idea is good enough, sure. It's not a completely new concept, but I believe no one has pulled it off as well as Rook & Raven - The concept and artists involved are incredible and I know there are similar projects planned for the future at the gallery, so the opportunity is there. Of course, other galleries are bound to follow and I think that's exciting for the art world; conceptual shows without all the pretence, all the way.
Jean Shrimpton & Terence Stamp, reworked by Pam Glew
The artist: Pam Glew
From your personal perspective, how did your involvement with this project come about?
Rook & Raven are quite familiar with my work and the way I use portrait imagery that's cinematic, iconic and has stark contrast. When the idea of choosing artists to rework Terry O'Neills photography came about, I think they figured that I'd be suited to a collaboration with Terry. I was very keen to be involved and said "yes" immediately.
I often take cinema screen stills of film from the 1960s-1970s, so the era of the 1960-70s was familiar ground for me, and I was keen to select an image from Terry's archive from that period.
Does a reworking of an original piece of art change the way in which the original work is valued? Do the original and reworked pieces effectively become separate works themselves?
My Shrimpy/Stamp image is quite faithful to the original, so in a way I see it as a contemporary extension of the photo. I guess this reinvention brings the photo to the fore in a new way.
The original photograph that Terry took is a beautiful striking black-and-white photograph, it really conjures up the sense of London in the 60s, my reworked Shrimpy/Stamp is a separate work that references the photo while still having the vintage vibe through the flag, but its as if they are staring out of the Union Jack from a time gone by.
What do you think that the reworked versions achieve?
In the artist-reworked images, a photograph that once belonged to iconic photographic history is reinvented by a young artist, who perhaps wasn't even alive when the original was taken. I think there is a sense of homage, and also of postmodern rebellion, its terrifying to tackle something so iconic and make it new. It's like being on The X Factor and not wanting to kill a song that people love.
I think the beauty in this show is that these paintings are seen by an audience that follow Terry's work, and the original photo is seen with fresh enthusiasm by a new generation. So, it brings contemporary art and photography together, and that overlap is something that is exciting to me. When art forms overlap, there's something magic at play.
Given that, through digital media and the Internet, practically anything can now be reworked, do you support the emergence of a culture which actively "reworks" – in other words, freely creates remixed, derivative works?
I think it's essentially post-modernism, and I support that kind of work as long as its new, interesting or is stunning to look at. It's the same way that musicians sample from film, TV and the world around them, I use film a lot in my work, and often I find that bad B-movies that are terrible to the point of being unwatchable, often contain hidden gems in the best imagery.
Cathy Bennett of Vue said on photography, in our recent interview with her: "If the vision is wrong from the start, no amount of technology will help you". Do you agree?
Yes. I think that can go for many art forms. Limitation tends to feed creativity and having great ideas and dedication is far better than having lots of equipment.
Do you consider remixing / reworking of original artworks, as is the case here, to be a growing opportunity? Will we see more galleries and exhibitions adopting a similar approach?
I'm not so sure. I think its quite a brave choice, and I'm sure some artists and photographers are quite precious and protective of their work, so many might not be too keen to enter into a collaboration. I really respect Terry for allowing us to mess around with his work; it's quite trusting!
"Terry O'Neill: reworked" is showing at Rook & Raven, London, 09/03/12 – 31/03/12. For further information, visit the Rook & Raven website, or @therookandraven on Twitter.
