CR Blog

The Johnson family from "rags to riches comedy" The Jerk (1979)
Kirk Demarais makes portraits of famous families from cult films. Until 8 August, his latest coloured pencil tributes to movies like The Jerk and The Lost Boys can be seen at the Crazy 4 Cult show at Gallery 1988 in Los Angeles (via BoingBoing)...
Demarais' art stems primarily from his love of these particular films – where the family unit (functional or disfunctional) plays a large part in the story – and also his fascination with the photographic codes inherent in the construction of the 'family portrait'. As he explains on a post on his blog:
"The family portrait format felt perfect since this type of photography is basically a study in pure affectation. And what's great about them is that the veneer of smiles is always too transparent to disguise the strain, the physical discomfort, the uneasiness, and often the volatile emotions bubbling beneath. Amazing how we don our most painful clothes and stand under all-illuminating heat lamps in a vain attempt to appear natural, happy, and 'at our best.' Then we send this piece of fiction to everyone we know. I vividly recall the agony of being forced to rest my hand on my sister's shoulder for literally minutes at a time!
"So when you drop these familiar movie families into the equation you've got a double layer of irony. Anyone who's seen these films gets flashes of the horrors each tribe is destined for. I also liked the idea of creating would-be movie props that could be at home in the families' respective fictional dwellings."
Three classics from last year's Crazy 4 Cult show, featuring the families from Poltergeist, The Shining and the National Lampoon films:



One of his new additions is this portrait of the Emersons family from The Lost Boys:

"I wanted to see what it might look like if mom would have talked to the boys into a photo shoot in an effort to redefine their post-divorce family unit," writes Demarais on his Secret Fun Blog.
"I could see Sam (Corey Haim) getting into it (he may have had some say in the cheesy curtain backdrop) while Michael (Jason Patrick) would have had to struggle to tolerate such an outing. Keifer Sutherland's character David might have provided more visual interest, but the notion that he and his dad would ever get together for a photograph was too far fetched."
More of Demarais' portraits are here.
The full listing of work on show at Gallery 1988, including sale prices and availability, is here.
19 Comments
Brillliant!!!!
2009-07-28 12:25:50
I want them all.
2009-07-28 13:16:28
Doesn't anyone see how utterly awful they are? or is supposed to be ironic?
2009-07-28 14:04:21
priceless
mv
2009-07-28 14:29:19
I think they're supposed to be a bit and strange and a bit off. The shining, fuckin eerie!
2009-07-28 14:55:42
It also looks "strange and a bit off", because he just simply can't draw properly. He hardly can find the proportions of human face even it's made based on pictures.
2009-07-28 20:07:38
great idea badly executed
2009-07-29 09:00:43
How could you showcase such dreadful "Art" there's countless talented Illustrators out there that can draw. Foul talentless copies of photographs are not what I expect from Creative Review, perhaps years of computer generated crap has blunted peoples perception of aesthetics!
2009-07-29 09:06:15
Kirk i love your art style, it is beautiful, consistent good, pure art. it's desirable and sophisticated, and i love the likeness of the actors.
also i think its okay that some people don't understand what defines good art all the time.
2009-07-29 20:32:17
Yeah, and that Picasso, he couldn't get the proportions of the human face right either...LOL. That's why it's Art, people. WalMart is mass producing some lovely, correct art these days, can be yours very cheaply.
2009-07-29 20:53:04
Wow, there are this many ignorant people on this website? This stuff is total genius and no one here actually gets it. That's sad. Jools, Kath, Jan, and NL must not get out of the house much, because they're totally missing the point, and really they don't have a clue about art in the first place! Doesn't abstract and impressionistic art also suck because it doesn't look like what the camera captures???? Retards.
Demarais, you're genius!
2009-07-30 00:21:22
They give me the creeps... this is good JA?!
2009-07-30 09:47:16
Okay, so maybe it's art. But the people don't look like they are even in the same room together. Aren't they supposed to look like they are gathered for a family photo? Rather than copied from separate photographs. These look like GCSE pieces, and not fantastic either. I guess when my art teacher told me in school what was wrong with my drawings I could have just said "Cuh, you just don't get it, it's art and you don't get art, even though you're an art teacher. You're a retard!" But then I guess I'm just ignorant.
I'm not knocking the concept though. It's a nice idea.
2009-08-02 11:28:38
You people defending this as technically proficient are retarded. This is neither impressionistic nor abstract. It is possible the artist has great technique and decided to affect the abilities of a talentless hack. If so, I'm not sure how that fits in with this motif, but fine. The point is, any sophomore in high school with a semester in art class could have duplicated this work -- the technique is, as said by others, awful.
2009-08-05 02:06:19
The style used here is completely in keeping with what the artist is trying to do according to his own quote above. The awkward, somewhat unschooled look of these pieces is part of the whole point.
It's a terrific blend of concept and execution, making all sorts of intriguing statements about our culture's ideas of portraiture, manufactured images, as well as art and popular culture.
They're great.
2009-08-05 05:00:16
I think if I were more of a film buff I would get more out of this - but I love the concept. There's a quote I dimly remember from my Eng. Lit days about the function of art being to make the familiar seem strange, and I think the eerie quality that the more perceptive critics on this board have picked up on is quite deliberate. If you're going to paint the Shining family you're not going to make it naturalistic, for Christ's sake.
2009-08-05 11:23:18
Judging by the artist's limited other work on-line -- which is not awful, mostly commonplace 1950s retro, Mike Salisbury - like illustration -- the horrid technique shown here seems purposeful.
As purposefully bad, it's interesting, not brilliant. Demarais seems a bit into Spinal Tap -- you can easily read these painting as parallel. Pseudo primitive kitsch.
2009-08-05 13:14:13
I agree with Kevin, some people are just too lame to appreciate it for what it is.
Someone says "It also looks "strange and a bit off", because he just simply can't draw properly. He hardly can find the proportions of human face even it's made based on pictures."
Whatever. This stuff is unique, and the art snobs are just jealous because they did not think of it first. Probably just critics who can't create anything.
2009-08-05 17:08:06
Kind of hit and miss. The Dominique Dunne in "Poltergeist" family is plain awful, and the mom in the Nat'l Lampoon looks nothing like Beverly D'Angelo. The Dianne Wiest and Shelley Duvall are on target, and "The Jerk" has a comforting family feel about it that makes me smile like the characters depicted.
2009-08-05 19:51:03
| MTV logo changes, stays same (32) |
| Euro-leaf logo chosen for organic foods (1) |
| Hairy type (10) |
| The Animals are coming (7) |
| White Lakes (3) |
| MTV logo changes, stays same |
| Why the iPad matters |
| Matt Stuart's Happy Accidents |
| CR Survey |
| An Augmented (Hyper)Reality |
| Advertising | (631) | |
| Art | (177) | |
| Books | (132) | |
| Digital | (195) | |
| Graphic Design | (512) | |
| Illustration | (238) | |
| Magazine / Newspaper | (86) | |
| Music Video / Film | (480) | |
| Photography | (174) | |
| Type / Typography | (128) |
