Note - The image below is NOT Russell’s version and his prints I refer to here are the first series (on paper). Russell has since produced a very limited edition of silver and gold glitter versions on canvas. Despite what I say further down, according to The Sunday Times (not always accurate), Russell has interpreted the image differently (still valid, though) from the way I first conceived it.
Updated information on this and a London Exhibition is here - link. or just use the search box on the right.
Some updates have been made to the post below :
Last year, the artist Russell Young emailed me and asked if he could work with an image I created some time ago.
He said he knew what the picture was about and after seeing some of his work online I was happy to let him do so.
The image in question was a comment on the tabloid’s (Mirror, DAILY MAIL* which has helped itself to the image below, Sun etc. etc. etc.) demonization of celebrities , specifically Pete Doherty and Kate Moss after recent press coverage of possible ‘cocaine’ consumption.
*Which means they’ve used the wrong image and not one of Russell’s prints from The London Art Fair.

Update - Let’s clarify this. I didn’t say to myself -”Oh, I must do an image about demonization.”
My thinking was “what the f*ck are the tabloids going to come up with next?”, similar to my train of thought when I later produced an image of Tony Blair putting his autograph on The Cenotaph after Cherie Blair and Alastair Campbell autographed a copy of The Hutton Report - An extrapolation of sorts.
Now, I’m the first to make a cheap gag out of a crisis and I have created some gags about both PD and KM.
But for once I was creating a bit of a different image.
Yes, I was using them and their situation, but the picture was not making a direct point or comparison about them.
From the minute I posted it on B3TA.com, I explained what it was about; there has been no attempt at revisionism.
Although it did not qualify for Channel 4’s first viral competition, their PR agency asked me if it could be used to promote the associated exhibition of viral images at The ICA.
And then the shit hit the fan.
Naturally the tabloids, despite knowing what it was about, put their own spin on it.
I had an (indirect) threat by one individual who decided it was a literal statement but, amidst all the furore, there was a contributor on The Libertines forum who got exactly what it meant. It was good to see some people look a bit further, even when there are others who could, but their adoration for someone/an icon/a brand/musician/poet, turns the traffic lights on the high street of inquisition red. (deliberate attempt to be quoted in Private Eye’s Pseud’s Corner*.)
*For those who don’t know Private Eye, Pseud’s Corner is where they print pretentious twaddle seen in the media.
update - I know some have used it out of context to make a totally invalid point and there are some who wish me dead because of this (or their ignorance), but there’s nothing much I can do about that - nor can I be bothered to do so.
In a presentation some time later, I made a comment about the image being overused in the promotion of the ICA exhibition. This is the only reason I can think of for the other ICA viral exhibition sponsor boreme.com to, let’s just say, take much less interest in what I did than they led me to believe over a year ago.
One of the owners of Bankrobber Gallery, a friend of Russell Young, saw the Moss/Doherty image and sent it to him which prompted the enquiry.
It did have similarities to prints from a series which Russell had produced, although his series was based on genuine police mugshots of celebrities.
A few months later, Russell had completed the first set of prints.
Russell, a Brit, but now living in The States, shipped over the prints (Five different, a limited edition of 20 of each.) to Bankrobber Gallery.
When I picked up my set, I was pretty gobsmacked that a relatively low res image could be transformed into the prints I saw before me, measuring approximately 4ft by 3ft.
Russell has used a different colour on each of the five prints - three of K&P together - I prefer the dark green version - and one each of K&P separately.
Two have a kind of a pop art feel, the other three are much more subtle.
I haven’t the first clue about screenprinting (apart from producing the odd obscenity laden t-shirt) but I reckon the quality of print is pretty incredible. Russell Young’s work is apparently produced at the studio where Warhol had some of his work printed and I am assured that this is a good thing.
You can see them here, but the web doesn’t do them justice and the colour of the dark green version just doesn’t produce correctly in a browser - it’s one you have to see on a wall.
I know that three were sold at auction the other week and I’m led to believe that the series will be shown in London in September.
I doubt the buyers were either Jennifer Aniston who once bought one of Russell Young’s prints for her (then) bloke Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie who, last Christmas, bought two of Russell Young’s prints for her bloke … Brad Pitt.
Link to story and video on CCTV International - a bit slow to load and, if you use firefox, don’t click on the video button - it locked up my browser.
I think the prints were to be shown earlier than September, but there was a delay as the London gallery slotted in an exhibition of paintings by…………. Pete Doherty.
I’ve been told that he has seen the image and is none too happy about it. I’m sure he is aware what it really is about but (I suppose understandably) doesn’t like any sort of association with the base picture and, I’m sure, especially an association with an image that can be deliberately misconstrued by those with an agenda.
Just a few notes on Russell Young :
Russell Young bio on Bird Fine Art, including a reference to the front cover of George Michael’s Faith album which he did the photography for (albeit in a different pre-enlightened life - read his website).
Some more prints on the Sims Reed Gallery website.
Russell and his wife, Finola Hughes seem to be heavily involved with charity work over in the States, not the sort to embellish their reputations, but a scheme which calls for a lot of input and directly helps many who have to endure a prolonged stay in hospital.
I hope that more of his work will be shown over here. His Liz Taylor and Marilyn Monroe images look a bit special - It would be good to see them on a gallery wall but right now I can only go by what I see on the web.
Update : You’ll see from his bio, that Russell has recently been collaborating with photographer Henry Diltz. The bio mentions images of Hendrix and The Stones but I see from searching the web that he has also printed a classic image of Crosby Stills and Nash, taken in Hollywood, 1969.
Have a look around the Henry Diltz gallery on Rhino Records. You may be surprised at the number of classic rock photographs that he has been responsible for.
Each image has a paragraph or two about the circumstances of the shoot.
Russell is now working with another renowned photographer, Mick Rock.
Anyway, back to The Pete Doherty, Kate Moss picture.
Yes, I created the lo-res original, Russell Young has done amazing things with it and I’m sure it will be a love it/hate it Marmite image.
There may be some derision directed my way but hopefully a little praise for what Russell has produced.
Some who initially praised it may now damn the image after discovering an oik like me came up with the idea. Names/brands seem to be an overriding factor in the gallery world.
In fact this has already started - A critic who can read meaning into a burnt match-head in an ashtray has decided it is a literal statement. Had one of her circle produced it (and for the wrong reason), I’m sure she’d be spewing out various theories about its meaning.
Although I do come up with the odd serious image, because I usually produce more light-hearted stuff and, by necessity, the work has to be quick and dirty, the Doherty Moss picture may well be derided somewhat by its association with what appears on this blog - So what? It’s not the end of the world…












I saw you’re original image about the place last year. I didn’t understand it then, I knew it wasn’t a direct comparison with Hindley and Bradey, but never got the ‘demonisation by the press’ message.
Now I do know, it is even better.
Subtlety never was a strong point of mine.
Yes, excellent stuff..altough I’ve found The response of some Libertines fans can be quite extreme but if they’d calm down maybe they’d get it. (i’ve had a few having a pop at me for daring to make jokes about Pete- I’ve nowt against the fella, but he also plays the media game too.)
A good example of this is The Indelicates song ” Waiting For Pete Doherty To Die” (http://indelicates.com/media) . Which provokes apoplexy in some Pete fans quarters , but again is about press demonisation etc .
You’ve executed the most concise essay about Russell that I have read to date..Russell is on the fast track to become one of the most collected and important artists of our time I applaud your foresight.well done . Stuart.
Interesting comparison.
Thanks for the comment on the blog. To be honest, after reading your article, I admit that I jumped the gun somewhat. On first impression the picture was shocking but after reading it was to symbolise ‘demonization of celebrities’ I admit that it is infact a well thought about piece.
Cheers for the heads up.
I knew the ST was going to write something.
Unfortunately, they decided not to publish the originator’s reason for creating the image despite it being made very clear to them.
The Times was also aware of this article on my blog but decided to focus elsewhere.