I'm back in the saddle! Thanks for tolerating my absence last week. I went back to Milwaukee to see my doctor (three times) and my dentist, as well as about a dozen friends along the way. It turned out to be an absolutely lovely trip. Everything went right.
About that thing with Bob Everest...er, Dylan...
So here's why I'm uncomfortable with the Nobel Committee's decision to award the Nobel Prize in Literature to Bob Dylan. No, not that Dylan Thomas, whose first name Dylan borrowed as his last, never got one. No, not because I don't like Dylan's music, even though I've never been a big fan—he wrote the transcendent "Like a Rolling Stone" and a dozen other truly great songs, and made a handful of great albums. I even own a couple. No, not because lyrics aren't poetry, an incredibly tiresome argument I've been getting roped into since college. And finally—although this is admittedly kind of a big one—no, it's not even because Dylan appropriates/plagiarizes others—including copying other peoples' photographs just as if he thinks there was zero creativity on the part of the photographers.
My reason is very organic with me, and I've been very consistent about it over many years. I just don't like it when celebrity in one field (or subfield) trumps or marginalizes honest, hardworking accomplishment in another.
A few examples. I once reviewed a group show of unknown and emerging photographers at a major museum in Washington that was curated by one friend and included another. One of the photographers whose work was shown was a top fashion photographer then at the apogee of his fame. In my published review, I objected. I just felt he was out of place in an art photography show at an art museum, included because be was famous and "cool" within his own world, which is very different from the art world. It's not that it's wrong to consider fashion photography as art—a few practitioners have straddled the fairly large divide—it's that the rest of the photographers in the show were struggling artists who had sacrificed a lot in their lives to do their work, and a glamorpuss famous for his astronomical day rate was just pushing aside another up-and-comer who could have really used the exposure. The inclusion of the fashion photographer was, on the part of the curator, a cynical sop to popularity, meant to help with publicity; on the part of the fashion photographer it was just to burnish his cred as an artist for marketing purposes. Bah, on both counts.
Another show on which I trained both barrels in a published review was one curated by a major name in the photography field at the time. Some corporate donors had lavished a small fortune in grants to sponsor a landscape show, I think of a specific patch of wild land that had something to do with the corporation—I forget the particulars. Instead of using the opportunity to reward actual landscape photographers—you know, people who worked authentically in that genre, had done something with it, and knew something about it—the curator instead dumped the money on the heads of the usual suspects—anyone who was then hot and famous, talked about in the right cirlces, big name brands in the fine-art world—many of whom had never even turned their hands to landscape before at all. Because, you know, it's so edgy and hip to see what a guy known for photographing naked models will do with mere land. Yeah, right. When I heard about the show, I snarkily wondered (in print) how one particular high-society photographer was going to manage to photograph landscapes without getting her no doubt exquisitely fashionable boots soiled with real-life dirt. When the actual show was unveiled, some time later, I discovered to my great amusement that she (okay, it was Annie, and yes, I know I'm too hard on Annie) had hired a helicopter and photographed from the air...that is, she actually did find a way to be a "landscape photographer" without getting her shoes dirty. Funny, I admit—but, one more time, with feeling: bah!
So anyway, all the earnest dopes I used to argue with in college just won the argument, decisively. I lose, retroactively. I get that.
But here's the thing, the reason I don't like it when celebrity gets the palm and hogs the plum: it shuts out all the people who really do work in that field—in this case, actual writers who labor and toil and yes, manage to create real accomplishments in the field of literature. And who could really use the exposure, the money, and the acclaim, rather than just adding a bit more of all three to an existing pile. Giving the literature prize to a songwriter was supposed to be edgy and hip (concepts which, incidentally, are woeful clichés and diametrically opposed to anything edgy or hip) but it's also akin to saying that no real writer deserves it.
That's what I object to. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of passionate, dedicated landscape photographers out there, all but a handful of whom get too little recognition and are chronically short of support. There's nothing wrong with Annie Leibovitz snapping a few forgettable aerials from a chopper and calling it "landscape photography," except that it shunts aside some more deserving photographer who cares about that kind of work and has spent a lifetime devoted to it—someone who can fairly stand for many others who are similarly devoted, and, similarly, are too often ignored. I don't fault Annie for taking the money, but I do fault the curator of that long-ago show for giving it to her. And about the show where the hotshot fashion photographer took up a space despite not needing it, well, maybe I identified too closely with whoever might have gotten that slot but got shut out.
Whoever is most famous, wins
I don't feel strident about this—I can understand people who have the opposite opinion and are delighted about Dylan getting the honor. I'll bet they don't read much, though. (They might even go all the way the other way and feel, along with Leonard Cohen, that giving the Nobel Prize to Bob Dylan is "like pinning a medal on Everest.") I'm just explaining how I feel, not saying anyone else needs to agree. So I'll look forward to Jennifer Lawrence getting the Nobel Prize for Chemistry, because, you know, she has such good chemistry onscreen, and Dr. Oz or Barry Sears getting the Nobel Prize for Medicine, and so on.
In reality, it's not like literature is so threadbare that it has to cast around to other fields to find someone worth feting. Alex Shephard, the News Editor at The New Republic, wrote a speculative article a week and a half ago called "Who Will Win the 2016 Nobel Prize in Literature?" in which he named seventy-six potential recipients. You can argue about the names, but most of them have at least spent lifetimes working as writers. (And writing is hard work, by the way.) The 76 names did indeed include Dylan. But—and again, I do appreciate the humor—the article was subtitled "Not Bob Dylan, that's for sure," and in the body of the article he wrote, "Bob Dylan 100 percent is not going to win. Stop saying Bob Dylan should win the Nobel Prize."
I'm sure Alex is a bit embarrassed now by his prediction. But he can take solace in this: he should have been right.
Mike
Counterpoint: I have a friend who is very well qualified to speak to this subject from both sides. Jim Schley (full bio here) is a poet and a longtime lover of, facilitator of, and educator about poetry and literature, and he's been involved in publishing literary authors for decades. He has been an editor for several different publishers, is a former Director of the Frost Place in New Hampshire, and is currently Managing Editor at Tupelo Press where he helps oversee their poetry publishing program. He's also putting the finishing touches on a new book of his own, co-written. And he's a longtime Dylan fan. I invited Jim to comment and here's his reply:
"Mike, I really appreciate your thoughtful post and the analogy of fashion photographers. Though I don’t agree. He didn’t win the Nobel as a page-poet, specifically—he won as a maker of some of the most complex songs of our time. And I feel like his albums of the '00s are fantastically good.
"The most ardent academic scholar of Dylan’s work is Christopher Ricks, and I also appreciate his response to the news.
"I also like this piece from a younger poet, and a formalist.
"I wish I had time to write you a more ample response to your good words, but I don’t have time to pounce. I’ll just say that last year’s choice was almost equally unorthodox, and also very welcome: Svetlana Alexeivich is another sui generis genius."
(Thanks to Jim.)
Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mike's hit song: "Like a Moss-Covered Rock"
Join our support campaign or buy something
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Nigel: "Leibovitz's brief dabble in landscape photography is analogous to Dylan's 50-year engagement with the lyric form? Whatever you might think of him, or it, that is not much of an argument. A decent case in favour. The most deserving name on Alex Shephard's list is probably Ursula Le Guin—who'd probably get dismissed for similar 'genre' reasons."
Mike replies: "Dylan's 50-year engagement with the lyric form" is not analogous to Leibovitz's 46-year engagement with editorial celebrity portraiture, which she all but established as an accepted art form? A form in which she created several acknowledged masterpieces and of which she is one of the most well-known practitioners? Why ever not? Has Dylan ever published a standalone book of poems that are not also song lyrics? (I can't find one.) If he has, how would that not be analogous to Annie "brief dabble" in a genre she's not known for?
Yvonne: "I'm a Dylan fan, drawn in actually by his later stuff ('Time Out of Mind,' etc.) in which there are many songs about aging: 'Don't even hear the murmur of a prayer/It's not dark yet, but it's getting there.' I was shocked when Dylan won the Nobel for literature, and I'll bet Dylan was as shocked as anyone."
Stephen Scharf: "Sorry, tl;dr."
Mike replies: You're just mad at me for ditching Fuji and buying an A6500. :-)
Jim Meeks: "NPR last week replayed an interview with Dylan from the early 2000s in which he stated he think awards and accolades for him just get in the way of his music. I've heard the same thing from successful, established artists who stated being given awards was great, but it was the up and coming crowd that needed the money and acclaim."
Geoff Wittig: "I could not agree more, Mike. I can remember feeling more than a little annoyed by all the media attention accorded celebrity/photographers (including in glossy photography magazines) like Bryan Adams and Kenny Rogers, when their main gifts appeared to be access to other celebrities and armies of sycophants. As you note, it crowds out genuinely good work by folks actually devoted to the field. I see it as a corollary to the pernicious trend in literature, whereby very attractive writers are given a huge leg up by the machinations of publishing firms' publicity campaigns. Just look at the author's photo on the jacket of most novels these days. Brilliant authors who happen not to be physically beautiful don't stand much of a chance."
Peter Wright: "When someone already famous in another field is awarded a Nobel prize, (like Obama getting the Peace prize some time back—and I like him a lot, by the way) perhaps the committee is really just 'recognizing' themselves? Simply trying to boost their own image by their somewhat controversial, selection of a person everyone knows, and most respect, so they can bask in the reflected limelight? Seems to have worked in this case."
Gordon Lewis: "A contrarian point of view, which I mention only to acknowledge and not necessarily to endorse, is that awards and exhibitions that are consistently given to obscure artists run the risk that the awards themselves will become obscure. Famous people often decline awards for this very reason: They have little interest in awards from obscure organizations and institutions. Obscure artists are happy to take what they can get—but if they share billing with people who are more famous and glamorous at least some of the light of that fame gets reflected onto them. Again, I'm not saying your position is wrong, I'm just saying there's more than one way to look at it."
kirk tuck: "I'll disagree on Dylan but not on your general premise. In my estimation Dylan was the lyricist equivalent of Robert Frank (in the context of Frank's work in The Americans) and deserves the recognition for making poetry the way Frank made photographs. It's rough and edgy but honest and ultimately accessible. He encapsulated the era with his genre in a unique way and connected with a disaffected generation. But then I also like Billy Collins so...."
Mike replies: Speaking of whom—Robert Frank, I mean, not Billy Collins—have you seen his Steidl book Paris? I missed it when it came out (in '08) but man, I really love it.
I agree that lyrics aren't poetry, but there's popular music before Bob Dylan, and popular music after Bob Dylan. It was not the Beatles, not the Stones, not Leonard Cohen, but Bob who changed the dialogue of popular music in the English language. It's also worthwhile to remember that Bob was heavily influenced by the Symbolist poets, Rimbaud and Verlaine in particular. FWIW, I would wager that Dylan lyrics have been more influential than any published poet of the same period ... to the general public.
Is Bob worthy of a Nobel? I'm not going to say that out loud, but if influence (for the better I would argue) matters, out in the streets rather than in the classroom, I'm OK with it.
PS This comes from a fan of T.S.Eliot and Philip Larkin.
Posted by: Jon Leatherwood | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 11:15 AM
I totally agree with your annoyance over fame trumping hard-earned excellence. And photography is a field that is particularly vulnerable to that, especially since the advent of digital. With everyone snapping madly away (over 2 billion/day by some estimates) anyone is bound to get a few decent images. Those who organize exhibits want/need an audience and in a sea of photographs it is whatever is on the crests of the waves that gets attention, i.e. those who are already known, even if their fame is for something else, so it is understandable (but regrettable IMO) that the already famous dominate. It irritates the hell out of me too.
OTOH I don't entirely agree that Dylan wasn't a deserving recipient. I suspect that the breadth of his impact was as much a consideration as his actual words. I'm sure that there are authors whose writing may be more polished but, for whatever reason, didn't have the reach of Dylan's songs (which are poems set to music, the quality of his singing not withstanding). And I don't think it is an apt comparison to all the musicians, actors, etc. who are famous in their primary field tapping into that fame to get exhibits of their photography, painting or whatever. Dylan is essentially a writer. Writing is his field.
We live in a "star" society. Once upon a time, a long time ago, there were few photographers, few painters, sculptors, writers, etc. because life was demanding and few had the time and resources to pursue creativity. Perhaps the downside to the post-industrial revolution technology and relative prosperity is that while it democratizes creativity, the resulting flood of "Art" necessitates a system for determining what gets attention. I don't like the "fame" system but I'm not sure what the alternative would be. How would one otherwise sort through over 2 billion images a day?
Posted by: Jim Bullard | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 11:23 AM
Hmmm, not awarding the Nobel prize to someone just because the person is already famous? Don't agree with that. And yes, song writing can be poetry, and poetry is literature.
In the recent past, many writers were awarded the Nobel prize and they were already famous: Coetze, Pinter, Pamuk, Saramago, Lessing, Vargas Llosa, Grass, Modiano, Munro...
[Dylan isn't famous as a writer, that's my point. He's a bigger celebrity than any writer--arguably than any writer could be--because he's a singing star, and people are very serious about their passion for their favorite singers. So his celebrity trumps that of any "mere" writer. --Mike]
Posted by: Paulo Bizarro | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 11:35 AM
"As he prepares for his keynote talk at this week's Photo Plus Expo in New York, we spoke to Graham Nash about his career as a photographer, and his role in developing modern digital photographic printing." https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/1013098843/i-dont-use-my-camera-as-my-memory-we-interview-graham-nash
Very prescient Mike. Next thing you know someone will want to give the Nobel Peace Prize to a warmonger (actually they have done this several times).
Speaking of Annie https://youtu.be/oEhUo_hrAzs
BTW, fame is the name of the game. If the gallery owner has never heard of you, You won't get picked. It's not the gallerists fault that he never heard of you (generic meaning), it's yours. The best self promotors always win, in business and life.
Posted by: c.d.embrey | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 11:43 AM
Hi, Mike, I'm glad you said it because you said it better than I can. When the Nobel committee strays away from the hard sciences, things go easily pear-shaped. What was once an anticipated event, the announcement of Nobel prize winners, has become, for me, a curiosity that I no longer seek out. I seem unable to understand the reasoning that waters-down the awarding of honors to people for seemingly random reasons. Dylan is a sterling pop/rock (pick the genre that please you) musician and song writer. He has never produced literature. I've been listening, less and a lot less, to the musicians of the 1960's. I was a teenager in the 60's. Enough, already. Yes, it was a very interesting time. Yes, great soul/beat/rock/blues music came out of the Vietnam years, the racial segregation years–which a certain politician is, lamentably, revivifying. The "hippy" years, (I'm with Cartman, "God-damned hippies"). I like much of the music Bob Dylan brought out, but I don't listen to him anymore. After more than half a century, the music does not stand at the same level for me that it once did. None of them from that era are so good that I still want to hear them for more than the occasional nostalgic reason. The Nobel Prize is now, for me, a curiosity rather than a celebration of greatness of thought or accomplishment. Dylan is not Shakespeare. The attempt by the committee awarding the prizes to appear "edgy" is disheartening, geezers trying to be cool. We have enough wtf moments in life.
Posted by: John H. Seidel | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 12:10 PM
I know that some people think it's cool to h8t Ming Thein, but please read on.
I’ve also gone on record saying that diminishing returns diminishes vanishingly quickly at the high end: yes, the H6 is better than the H5, but we’re now talking about the 1% of the 1% – if I were to buy something with my own money, I pick the H5 – it’s a simple question of business economics and ROI. But if you’re I’ve also gone on record saying that diminishing returns diminishes vanishingly quickly at the high end: yes, the H6 is better than the H5, but we’re now talking about the 1% of the 1% – if I were to buy something with my own money, I pick the H5 – it’s a simple question of business economics and ROI. But if you’re Annie Leibowitz or Platon, and in the 1% of the 1%, then you already know what kind of tool you need. or Platon, and in the 1% of the 1%, then you already know what kind of tool you need. https://blog.mingthein.com/2016/10/17/off-topic-credibility/#more-13338
Why did Ming Thein pick Annie Leibowitz? I'm sue that there are other more deserving big-name commercial photographers he could have chosen ...
Posted by: c.d.embrey | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 12:11 PM
There is an argument for dropping someone famous into a group show: it gets punters in the door, and they hopefully get to see the work of the less famous.
But only one. And the Nobel is not a group show.
Posted by: Graham Byrnes | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 12:17 PM
I agree with you in the case of the landscape photography show and others like it. But I have the impression that almost always Nobel Prizes go by definition to lads and lassies already very succesful and famous anyway. It is a prize for winners, a topping of cream on an already luxuriuos cake, not a long deserved recognition of a humble genius working in anonimity. Only very seldomly someone hitherto unknown outside informed circles is laureated - the lovely Polish poet Wislawa Szymborska comes to mind.
Posted by: Hans Muus | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 12:29 PM
-Shrug- I understand how you feel, Mike although I don't care nearly as much as you seem to. But it's a private foundation accountable only to itself.
A few years ago another prestigious private foundation made a rare award to a photographer. I had become familiar with this photographer's work not many years before this award and, coincidentally, had personally met and talked with the photographer just a few months prior. I was flabbergasted by news of the award, as I didn't feel that either the photographer or the pretentious work were worth more than $20. I still don't. Surely, I thought, there are so many more deserving potential recipients out there.
Private foundation with private money following private guidelines and accountable to nobody but itself. Move along. Nothin' to see here.
Posted by: Kenneth Tanaka | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 12:33 PM
Food for thought: http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-ca-jc-bookless-nobel-20161014-snap-story.html
Posted by: SteveW | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 01:19 PM
Bull poo Poo, some photographers call themselves artists. Dylan, Springsteen, Morrison deserve this award too. gb.
Posted by: glenn brown | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 01:25 PM
I agree 100% with you about celebrities from one field entering another from the top of the pyramid, bit I think you're missing the point that the Nobel prize is not about talent, but rather about political and social influence.
If Dylan's influence is worthy of a Nobel is a matter of further discussion (I don't think he is).
Posted by: Gaspar Heurtley | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 01:37 PM
Next year - Patti Smith.
Posted by: Chuck Albertson | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 01:56 PM
I agree 100%. Celebrity trumps everything these days (I use the term advisedly).
And for the record, talking about exceptional landscape photography, check out Edward Burtynsky's aerial salt pan images.
These are very large scale images taken from a helicopter, but they look totally abstract from a distance. Only when you peer closely at the tiny details do you realise they are real photographs.
I still want to know how he achieved that much resolution from a helicopter, but the work is technically and artistically exquisite.
Posted by: Steve Jacob | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 01:58 PM
I couldn't agree with you more especially as one of the great 20century writers, alas now dead, Grahame Greene, was ignored. There does need to be a balance I feel.
Posted by: Marten Collins | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 02:00 PM
I'm sorry, but the plagiarism issue really does preclude him from being a candidate for this prize. Re-purposing another's words for the purpose of making a catchy tune (and a boatload of money) I'm ok with. Getting the nobel prize for literature for doing so.....c'mon; that really cheapens the prize. If this continues, it may become irrelevant.
Posted by: schralp | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 02:45 PM
Just a few thoughts after reading the post and many of the comments:
Marten Collins - on the need for balance: 1 songwriter/poet; 112 others.
Geoff Wittig - on crowding out: I cannot believe that any novelist, non-fiction writer, or poet with sufficient talent to realistically dream of winning the Prize, would forego their passions because of one rare award to a songwriter/poet. Also, I believe that any any contemporaneous attention, by readers, critics, or the market is unlikely affected by the prospect that a writer might or might not win the Prize decades in the future.
While these points may have been more eloquently addressed in the other comments, as Stephen Sharf put it, “tl;dr.”
Posted by: John Haugaard | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 02:54 PM
I am afraid awarding Bob Dylan may degrade Nobel Prize even further and rob it of any prestige that there's left.
Let's face it: the man can't sing. Put a goat in front of a microphone and the results will be very similar. Fifty years putting up with a guy who has no voice, no sense of timing and sings out of tune and, after all this time, award him a Nobel Prize? It's absurd. I believe even hardcore Dylan's fans will concur with me.
They say Bob Dylan created "new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition", but his lyrics are largely irrelevant, as they have no real depth. They're pop lyrics, that's all. Besides, the same could have been said of e. g. The Walkabouts (except that Carla Torgerson and Chris Eckman can sing). And Sufjan Stevens. And R. E. M. And lots of others. That doesn't justify the Nobel Prize. They awarded Bob Dylan because of his notoriety, and not because there are any special merits to his songs.
Was 2016 such bad year for the world literature that they felt they had to award Bob Dylan? Sorry, but that's akin to a selfie of a 16 teenage girl winning World Press Photo. Pop music can be enjoyable, but it stops right there. It's just entertainment.
Posted by: Manuel | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 03:00 PM
"Dylan's 50-year engagement with the lyric form" is not analogous to Leibovitz's 46-year engagement with editorial celebrity portraiture, which she all but established as an accepted art form? ..
Indeed, but that's not what you critiqued her for; rather for playing at being a landscape photographer.
Were there a photography Nobel, then she would merit consideration alongside any other 'art' photographer - that is exactly my point.
Fair game to say that Dylan's lyrics are of insufficient merit to justify the prize, but to regard them as not literature - or to think fame disqualificatory - seems to me plain wrong.
Posted by: Nigel | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 03:03 PM
Apparently Dylan hasn't responded to the Nobel committee's calls.
Posted by: Tom | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 03:48 PM
I believe that Bob Dylan deserves a Nobel Prize, or the equivalent, but I am stumped for the name of the category.
Posted by: James Weekes | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 04:03 PM
Sad article with a bitter taste
[Nope, wrong, neither sad nor bitter. --Mike]
Posted by: Rob | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 04:31 PM
This may be the first time I've disagreed with you so strongly, Mike. Dylan's sprawling,prolific body of work transcends songwriting. His words (if not his voice) have remained perfectly chosen and imaginatively potent. Working within the strictures of American folk blues and popular song isn't so different from working within the traditions of blank verse, short story or memoir.
Is Dylan's work literature? Take away all the words, and what have you got- a very tight and well-schooled bar band. It's words that set Dylan above his peers, and words are the currency of literature.
Posted by: John McMillin | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 04:33 PM
Agreed on Dylan: Agreed on Annie etc.: major problem: the folks who show up for these exhibits are being conned, no question; do they keep showing up or does somebody other than our beloved reviewer make the point he is making?, Add to the power of the review?
I quit exhibiting in shows that have multiple genres, ie. oil, sculpture, etc.
I do hope that is making a similar point.
Posted by: Herb Cunningham | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 04:39 PM
I missed Dylan, or rather he missed me. I was probably born 15 years too late to think he was speaking to me, and then when I started looking backwards for "quality" I found other musical artists: Miles Davis, Sonny Rollins, even performers like Mel Tome (don't laugh...) or Sarah Vaughn who really sent me, and to whom I still listen. Bob Dylan? He just never did it for me, which is really not much of an argument when you get right down to it. What I love is when the prize, or any prize, goes to someone I have never heard of because I don't read as many books as I would like. And then there is that moment of immersion and discovery, which is, in the final analysis, what I require from all art. With Bob Dylan it is more like a test of endurance. And I agree that musical lyrics are not literature. But hey, when the Swedish Royal Academy call and asks for my opinion, I will be sure to weigh in. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Nice to have you back in the saddle, Mike.
Posted by: Benjamin Marks | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 04:45 PM
You're just mad at me for ditching Fuji and buying an A6500. :-)
You're right! Grrr!
LOL!
Nah, I'm not, Mike. I'm a big believer in folks using whatever works for them; what's most important is a camera that makes you want to pick it up and get out and produce "work". And there's SO MUCH great gear out there these days it should be impossible to find something that doesn't inspire us to get out and shoot.
The principle reason for the tl;dr is Bob Dylan himself; personally never found anything he's done to be particular inspiring, so I'm with ya on your points about the Nobel. Why not Maya Angelou instead of Bob Dylan for example?
Best as always,
Stephen
Posted by: Stephen Scharf | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 05:10 PM
Annie did some things from a chopper in Monument Valley, for Conde Nast Traveler, but these are probably not the ones you have in mind?
Anyways, I love them. They're *all blurry*! Wonderful. I forget the story in detail, but it was something like she wanted a specific perspective, and then, well, helicopters vibrate. So there you go. The pictures sure don't look like anyone else's, and they capture a certain something.
And I'm no fan of Annie, although I find myself ever so gradually warming up.
Posted by: Andrew Molitor | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 05:14 PM
I'll just second Kirk Tuck's comment about Dylan.
The Annie Leibovitz story made me laugh. Leibovitz has a terrific eye, but the problem is, the core of her photography involves pop celebrities (like John Beluchi -- she once took a photo of him standing on the side of a road, that I really loved.) So the core isn't a photograph, but an ephemeral personality, and when the personality fades away, the meaning bleeds from the photo. Meaning really shouldn't bleed out of a masterpiece in any genre.
As for the famous people thing, a well known television news personality did watercolors and drawings of hotel rooms he stayed in, and they were given a several-page spread in an art magazine. They were hilariously bad, and the letters to the editor a couple of months later really pounded that point home. I don't think that magazine has ventured anything similar since...
Posted by: John Camp | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 06:19 PM
I don't consider Dylan a celebrity. Famous, yes. Celebrity, no. He was the equivalent of a "celebrity" around 1964/65 but not in 2016.
Honestly, to equate Dylan's contributions in his field with Annie Leibovitz's work is sorta insulting to Dylan.
Posted by: Dogman | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 06:20 PM
Someone mentioned that the next Nobel prize for chemistry should go to Keith Richards.
I got several good minutes of belly-laugh out of that one.
Oh, and ... please don't use the word "trumped." At least until the elections are over. It is giving me a nasty allergic reaction these days, and I'm not even an American citizen.
Posted by: Kent | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 06:31 PM
1. if playwrights can win, so can song writers.
2. whoever is famous wins ? Really? Had you even heard of, let alone read: Svetlana Alexievich (2015), Patrick Modiano (2014), Alice Munro (2013), Mo Yan (2012), etc, etc, etc. Influential, yes. Important, yes. Famous, not really.
3. plagiarism? Mike, you gunna get sued - big time - I'd pull those posts asap.
Posted by: Bear. | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 07:03 PM
Just heard over NPR that the Nobel Committee was having a hard time finding him.
Posted by: Greg | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 07:13 PM
LOL, because ... I always think of Dylan more as a writer and not much of a singer. Really. His singing voice never appealed to me, but his writing is a different story. BTW, I had one of his books titled, "Tarantula" many years ago, and remember it to be full of poetry.
Posted by: Darlene | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 07:14 PM
Kent,
I don't think Keif deserves the Nobel Prize for Chemistry (he outsourced all the lab work, sort of like Jeff Koons does with his art work) - but he's certainly in the running for the prize in Medicine.
Posted by: Chuck Albertson | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 09:46 PM
Annie Leibovitz did not "establish celebrity portraiture as an established art form". That distinction, if it is one, probably goes to Edward Steichen.
Bob Dylan has done enough good work over a lifetime, influenced countless numbers of other artists, and bent enough genres to deserve the award.
Posted by: Mark sampson | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 10:35 PM
>> Mike replies: Speaking of whom—Robert Frank, I mean, not Billy Collins—have you seen his Steidl book Paris? I missed it when it came out (in '08) but man, I really love it.
Mike, have you seen the "About the Author" description on your amazon link for that book? Do.
[He had accomplishments of which I was not aware!![g] --Mike]
Posted by: DB | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 11:08 PM
I can't go as far as saying I "don't like" Dylan getting the Nobel, but it did take me a while to get my head around it.
I think my first articulate thought about it, as sheer bemusement began to fade, was: "aren't there deserving writers who could desperately use the money and the publicity, or the recognition?" My second, corollary thought was purely selfish: as a literature-loving former English major who no longer spends much time reading, I rely on the Nobel and other honors to highlight things that might be worth my time. I didn't need to be pointed to Dylan. I felt kinda gypped.
Does he deserve it? It never occurred to me that Dylan didn't deserve a Nobel prize, mostly because the idea was simply outlandish, like salt-flavored gelato, or formal sneakers. But I tried on the thought that he didn't deserve it, anyway, and it just didn't stick. The argument seemed to come down to categories, not merit. And sea salt is now my favorite gelato flavor.
Another misgiving was Dylan's infamously curmudgeon-like deflections and obfuscations when it came to helping anyone understand his art. But that's irrelevant, too, really, as he kept insisting.
And yet, I felt tickled, and a smidge pleased, and maybe I should take a look at why. Maybe I should try to look at Dylan as a writer, what his art means to me and others, and what exactly is that art, anyway? Why does some his work touch me so deeply? Maybe I should reconsider what the Nobel Prize is and does, while I'm at it. I needn't bore anyone with how that's going at this early stage, but I don't mind going there.
The notion that there's some cynical trade in celebrity and cred' going on is all wet, by the way. The Nobel is as shiny as it gets--it's a celebrity in its own right; it doesn't need to borrow anyone's prestige, and that's because it never needed to and never has played that game. Or am I just old and naive? Anyway, it is indeed a cynical take, and I think meritless in this case.
I haven't worked it out yet. But part of my emerging acceptance is that, while Dylan certainly didn't need this to happen, perhaps I did. It's a pretty dark time right now, and the award was oddly cheering. It reminds me that there were other dark times, and we got through them, and a lot of good came out of the horror and misery, and it reminds me that the fight never ends.
And what a soundtrack for those times, that surely and by many accounts helped people understand and get perspective on events, that lit the path. Even when those songs simply articulated doubt and fear and anger, they linked those feelings to a long and feisty and soulful--and collective--tradition. It speaks to me, apparently, here and now, and I'll take it. I need it.
And possibly, too, the prize committee is recognizing that literature needn't be defined as it was in the 19th century and is elbowing itself some room. Why not?
Still mulling it over...
Posted by: robert e | Monday, 17 October 2016 at 11:33 PM
Not sure I get all the slings and arrows being tossed directly at Dylan. It's not like the man nominated himself for the award, nor did he campaign for himself over other candidates. He didn't put out splashy ads, nor ask for his fans to vote for him via Twitter. He didn't demean nor insult other literature candidates (can't say the same thing about many who are deriding the award). Indeed, the whole process, from consideration to nomination to voting, is the doing of the Nobel committee and theirs alone. Sounds like a lot of TOP readers would benefit from doing some MORE reading: https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/. Or maybe just doing more complete reading.
Dylan's thing is his music. That's it. How any creative person can argue against that is beyond me. One might not like the result, but creative people ought to support each other. There are plenty others out there trying to tear creative folks down.
Yes, I'm a Dylan fan. Where I think he excels, fwiw, are his songs dealing with love and all the many complex facets of relationships. Love requited and unrequited, love longed for and love spurned. I can't think of an artist who so eloquently captures (or captured) the angst and pain, the joy and pleasure, and the ephemeral quality of love better than Dylan.
But, that is just, like, my opinion, man. Like all the others expressed here.
Posted by: Ernest Zarate | Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 02:53 AM
It's not the Nobel peace prize and not the Nobel prize for being famous. It's the Nobel prize for literature and he deserves it.
Posted by: Michael | Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 03:15 AM
I would argue that the Nobel Prize is more about the effect someones work has had on others rather than being awarded a trophy for their own self interest.
Paul Simon, one of my personal favorites, said in the American Masters documentary on PBS that without Bob Dylan paving new ground in the early sixties that none of the other activist singer / songwriters would have had access to commercial radio.That genre of music affected the entire decade both here and abroad and Dylan's lyrics continue to inspire new generations of activists.Their relevancy today 50+ years later cannot be denied.
It is also important to remember what the state of popular culture was in the early 60's. It may come as a surprise to those of you old enough to remember that the gatekeeper of popular music, what got played on the radio and disseminated to a wide audience, was Mitch "follow the bouncing ball" Miller. Yes the bandleader at CBS Records and adored by your grandparents had final say in many cases on who got recorded. For Dylan to make it past that obstacle probably deserves its own reward.
Posted by: Jim Metzger | Tuesday, 18 October 2016 at 10:53 AM
I dare to slightly disagree here. The Nobel Price was IMHO never intended to raise awareness, it was always considered as a Price given to already established artists. Herta Mueller, Orhan Pamuk, Le Clezio or Elfriede Jelinek were established writers in their respective regional and cultural locations, amd the price did raise their presence internationally.
Posted by: Manfred Winter | Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 12:04 AM
You don't particularly like Dylan, but I submit his body of work is unquestionably worthy of the recognition. Some people did (do)not like Steinbeck, some people did (do) not like Dario Fo. That's o.k. Next time I'm sure the literature prize will be awarded to a novelist, whose work I may not like, and/or may never read.
Posted by: Gary | Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 03:26 AM
Why I think Dylan Should Get the Nobel Prize:
There's a significant opinion out there that suggests that Bob Dylan should not have won the Nobel prize for literature. The reason for awarding it to Dylan, given by the Nobel committee, was "for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition."
Exactly. This man, so well (self)schooled in traditional American folk music, took the form, blew it apart and reassembled it into imagery and poetry so far beyond the scope of the original that we can, in 2016, scarcely remember what it was like before.
Um, yeah, he deserves it.
Posted by: Paul B | Wednesday, 19 October 2016 at 04:01 PM
Wow - I'm actually going to comment TWICE on my week's visit to TOP. And I couldn't agree more with Mike's POV, although I disagree a bit about fame. Yes, idiot sons, wives, and actors sometimes get elected, but in some cases it's in spite of their fame, not because of it. Perhaps Dylan is that special case much like Reagan and Hillary.
Then again, he could be a George W. Bush too. I'm not familiar enough with his work, but I do know my wife and she adores Dylan and thinks its well deserved.
Posted by: Wolfeye | Friday, 21 October 2016 at 02:17 PM