By Steve Lickteig, executive producer
Most people think Billy Pappas is crazy. And why wouldn’t they? Who other than a crazy person would spend more than 8 years of his life drawing a single portrait? And of a celebrity, no less? But that’s what Pappas did. Every day, seven hours a day, Pappas stood in front of an easel, arms steadied by slings and drew, with a razor sharp pencil, what he believes to be the most detailed, precise and life-like drawing ever created. His 14” × 17” work is based on Richard Avedon’s 1957 photograph of Marilyn Monroe. It’s not an iconic photo, but it might show Marilyn Monroe at her most human and her most accessible. It was the perfect starting point for Billy Pappas who believed he could improve upon that photo and make Marilyn Monroe look more life-like than even a photograph, using only his pencil, his talent and his determination. To see the portrait Billy Pappas drew go here.
This weekend, Bob talks with Julie Checkoway who has made a documentary film about Pappas, his creation and his two year quest AFTER he finished drawing Marilyn Monroe to gain an audience with the world famous artist David Hockney. The film is appropriately called Waiting for Hockney and it shows how Pappas tracked down the one man he believed could pass proper judgement on his work. Also, Pappas hoped that David Hockney would give him access to the exclusive—some might say elitist—art world, something working class Billy Pappas knew nothing about. In the film, you also meet Pappas’s strange and lovable entourage and his protective, poppyseed cake-making mother, Cookie.
Waiting for Hockney premieres Monday night at 9 pm eastern on the Sundance Channel. And in the interest of full disclosure, I served as the assistant director on the film; I’m grateful to Bob for looking past the minor conflict of interest and interviewing Julie Checkoway and letting you know about the quest of Billy Pappas.
To learn more about the film, see Cookie’s poppyseed cake recipe and watch the trailer, you can go to the Waiting for Hockney web site.
Listen
All intellectualizing, critiquing, and analyzing aside this man/artist has been on an amazing journey of dedication and persistence and he has completed what he set out to do. Good for you, Billy. Whether I "like" or "approve" of a work of art has never seemed to matter to me as much as appreciating whatever the creator of the piece has undertaken and his experience of doing it. Whenever I overhear someone viewing a piece of art and saying "I could have done that," I want to say,"But you didn’t". How many could or would have done this portrait? You did it, Billy, and what you did is amazing.
Everyone’s a critic. The simple fact to this simple guy is this: the naked eye can only perceive 300 dpi… from business cards to stadium big-screens. So, yeah, you need to see it in person to really appreciate it, I’m sure; but what a bummer. Of course he’s struck oil with this one… it’s pop-art. How much did Warhol get for his crap? So, yeah, you’ve got a picture of a picture of a picture… what a bummer. Film will always be better than digital, but did he graphically-enlarge it, or free-hand it? As far as relaying what he saw in the picture, and what he saw in his head, the detail is relative… and it’s so much smaller than i thought it would be. Is it to real-life scale of Miss Monroe? Ranting. I just wonder how he could afford rent, while working on this drawing, while sharpening this magic pencil, (while affording magic-razor-graphite), while constructing absurd sling-mechanisms, (for such a small drawing), and spend a year or two on one part of the scalp… while working a day-job. He knew he’d cash in, i suppose. Meet his idol, that’s nice. Over-priced pop-art. Forty-seven years from now, arteests will be getting a billion dollars for spending a decade drawing [the most detailed picture. ever.] of the 12th movie in the ‘Twilight’ series on a grain of rice. What a waste of my time being so jealous. We just need to stop doing four projects at a time, and take a tip from Billy.
-joel
Real Painter:
I believe, perhaps, that you have missed one very salient point: in order to view this drawing objectively and perhaps subjectively…you must view this drawing IN PERSON. The drawing was made EXPRESSLY for that purpose, and the only audience that can TRULY derive its worthiness are those that DO see it in person. Perhaps you should limit such a scathing judgement of a work until YOU TOO see it in person. Until then, you are merely viewing a photograph of a drawing of a photograph of a person, and thus CANNOT gain the full and intended affect.
I am not sure if you have seen the drawing in person or not, I can only surmise the numerical probability that you HAVE NOT. If such is the case, and you continue to call yourself a "Real Artist", then perhaps you should take some needed reflection upon the possibilitry that the evocation of art comes not merely from the eyes, but equally from the heart and soul. Perhaps, in the future, you will endeavor to think BEFORE you put your figurative foot in your very large mouth.
@Real Painter. You’re missing the point behind the success of this drawing if you are measuring it for realism. Photorealism is a small (and only moderately successful) school of art that is very self-consciously aware of its use of photography, and finds much of its interest in the concept of the obsessive artist. The best work from this school succeeds by 1) being a depiction OF a photograph, 2) being of enough detail to call attention to the artist’s process and state of mind, and 3) depicting a subject that is curious enough to elicit questions as to the nature of that obsession. The fact that the end result is removed from the photograph’s original subject is part of the point (and part of why works of this kind have only limited emotional appeal).
This drawing succeeds pretty well at two of those: it’s from a famous photograph, and so is actually a drawing OF the photograph rather than of Marilyn, and the detail (and the artist’s drive) is a big part of the subject (his obsession and the length of time spent on the work is his main selling point — a little ad nauseam, if you ask me). It’s also (as you note) not a very good photograph, but that makes his choice actually more interesting to me, not less. As for the subject of the photo (Marilyn) — there’s limited interest there; Marilyn is a common obsession, and so a bit of a cliche. I am glad he didn’t pick a more romantic photo to draw. I think of real photorealism (not just detailed paintings) as being a branch of conceptualism. The self-conscious nature of the work is most of the point. I’m not sure, though, that this artist understands this, given the tenor of his website; comparing his work to Ingres is ridiculous — apples and oranges. I do think it’s a good drawing! [8-12 mil, though? are you serious?]
Detail does not equal realism. Firstly, his drawing is based on a photo, so you already have one level of separation there, the photo can only show so much. In life we look at things in piecemeal, not in all over, altogether focus. This 8 year undertaking has resulted in a boring, lifeless drawing from a somewhat mediocre photo. Pappas claims he’s creates something with 100000 dpi or something like that. That’s the kind of statement that would come from someone who had to live in their own mind for so long to get them through such a useless project. Every painting or drawing ever made by hand has the same ‘resolution.’ If you’re looking for realism or verisimilitude go to Sargent or Van Dyke, there’s more life in their studies than this 8 – 12 million dollar mess.