The DU Lounge
Related: Culture Forums, Support ForumsSylvester Stallone: "I'm a much better painter than I am an actor"
Okay, not much of a stretch there...
http://omg.yahoo.com/blogs/celeb-news/just-call-him-rambobrandt-see-sylvester-stallone-art-154121893.html
The "Rocky" star unveiled a 30-piece collection of artwork that he's created over the past four decades in an exhibition called "Sylvester Stallone. Painting. From 1975 Until Today" at The Russian Museum in St. Petersburg on Monday. The venue, which draws more than 1 million visitors per year, is ranked the 51st most-visited museum in the world, making it quite the artistic coup for the Oscar-nominated actor, whose works have been previously displayed in Miami and Switzerland.
Stallone, 67, who is best known for his action-packed flicks like "Rambo," "Rocky," and, most recently, "The Expendables," studied art prior to launching his Hollywood career and claims that while he enjoys acting, he's much better suited for the artist's studio.
"I think I'm a much better painter than an actor," Stallone told journalists.
We report, you decide...
bluesbassman
(19,375 posts)Look, I like your movies Sly, they're fun and entertaining and make me forgot about the colonoscopy I have to get later this year, but the truth is you suck as an actor, and your painting is more suited for the alley behind the bowling alley than a gallery. But hey, if it makes you feel any better, yeah I guess you are a better painter than an actor. You should just confine yourself to painting houses.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Callmecrazy
(3,065 posts)If he wants to paint, let him paint. He doesn't have to be perfect to bring people pleasure. And some of his stuff isn't half bad IMHO.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Who's he gonna brag to about that?
Spirochete
(5,264 posts)in both.
His acting in Copland was pretty good IMO. A couple of his paintings aren't half bad, either. And as a writer, Rocky was a pretty good story.
He also lays more than his share of eggs, though.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)Kaleva
(36,312 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Except that he always was one.
doc03
(35,349 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Paladin
(28,265 posts)Graybeard
(6,996 posts).
You beat us all to it.
.
GReedDiamond
(5,313 posts)...in many a contemporary art gallery I've been in, here in L.A.
Obviously Stallone's work will be assigned a much higher dollar value than many other non-celebrity dedicated/working/struggling/surviving artists working in similar styles, or showing in the same or similar galleries.
The question, for the art buyer - besides "do I really like the piece?" - is: will the piece maintain its value over the course of time?
I suspect his work will not appreciate much, and may devalue over time, because, despite his self-deprecating comments on his acting abilities vs his painting, he will be forever recognized as an Actor, whose greatest work was his First Movie - not as a Painter, great or otherwise - which is simply how it is now and will probably remain, forever & ever - The End.
Tabasco_Dave
(1,259 posts)at least he takes a few risks.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)I thought he was excellent in "First Blood". Mind you, First Blood's an odd film... people think it's an action movie and it isn't, really...
The poor man ever gets any actual acting parts. None of the critics or his fans would ever forgive him if he did any proper acting.
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)but, he has not always been good at finding the right parts.
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)and, he sucked at painting, too.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Bush* wins on that alone!
tenderfoot
(8,437 posts)but art is subjective.
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)he does have a sense of humor
Kaleva
(36,312 posts)BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)A-Schwarzenegger
(15,596 posts)And Cop Land.