#mark gatiss painting

[tomabalan]

[ivycopper]

Out of all of Mark's paintings, I love this one best.

[iconuk01]

Now this I didn't know about Bram Stoker's "Dracula"

Mark Gatiss is currently on a TV documentary talking about Bram Stoker's original notes for writing Dracula (Which he was given access to), which include a reference to an idea which never made it to the final version, and that seems a shame.

It wasn't just that vampires didn't appear in mirrors, and wouldn't show up in photographs (Which is mentioned as being "kodaked") but that they couldn't even be PAINTED!

So any artist trying to paint Dracula would end up with a painting which didn't look like him. It would look like someone else. but never him. As if, at some level, he HAD no real appearance.

What a fascinating idea!

[silverview]

maybe the details of art are common knowledge, but i only read up about it yesterday. it's interesting! it opened in the west end in 96 & was something of a popular hit

it's about three old friends who fall out when one of them buys an expensive painting that's an almost-blank white canvas (a quiet night in); one of them aggressively disapproves, calling it pretentious; and the third is caught in the middle trying to keep the peace

had a ton of casts – a new one every three months. (the effect of this is interesting – more on that below.) tlog were selected to be the last lot before it closed in 02. if you don't already know, who do you suppose played each role? it has nothing to do with the weirdly deceptive promo pics. answers & more below the cut

mark played the friend who buys the painting, steve played the one who disapproves, and reece played the guy caught in the middle. i wonder how that decision was made. i wonder if they considered any alternative configurations (bf had steve & reece switched, which i think makes a lot of sense). as always i'm like. but what does the character say about YOU

they got mixed reviews. nearly every review singles out reece's delivery of this monologue, though they disagree on whether it was good or not. perhaps surprisingly, they don't uniformly characterise it (or his performance in general) as particularly angry. not to be dramatic but i would kill and die to have seen it, just that monologue alone

so below i've collected the most interesting parts of surviving reviews. the last one is my fav. some of them have interesting things to say on the effect of the rotating cast, sort of the opposite of the in9 meta-character effect, which i think is pretty funny & fitting

BBC

Reece Shearsmith is a little too giddy with Yvan's furious diatribe about his impending wedding - the laughs are landing so hard that some others are being lost in the process. But he is a particularly touching and vulnerable go-between, desperately sitting on the fence in the conflict that erupts between his friends Serge (Mark Gatiss) and Marc (Steve Pemberton), and finding - as you do - that those who sit on fences are liable to get splinters.

GUARDIAN

[A] play as bland and flimsy as this requires actors who are not only heroically talented but who also have formidable technical skills. Pemberton, Gatiss and Shearsmith don't. They are likeable, even mildly engaging but you are always aware that they are putting on a performance. What's more, they are far less funny than the two other casts I've seen. Shearsmith, for example, flunks the timing of his long monologue so instead of making an audience rock with waves of laughter, he gets only one big laugh right at the end. The silences in the evening, in particular the famous olive scene, are not eloquent, just empty.

THEATREGUIDE

I've heard, though, that other casts have had other dynamics. With some, it plays as light comedy, satirising everyone's pretensions to high passions. Others make it a touching study in the fragility of friendship and all three men's hitherto-unrealised need for it. The cast changes every three months or so [...] Just be prepared for the fact that the show you see will be different in tone and effect from the one your friends saw last year, and will probably be a glib skating over the emotional issues and implications it raises. [...] And while the laidback, indeed colloquial, approach of Mark Gatiss (perky Serge), Steve Pemberton (laconic Marc) and Reece Shearsmith (wickedly neurotic Yvan) may not be to everyone's taste, it's undeniably perfect casting to complete the spectrum of wall-to-wall talent that's made the show such a feature of London's theatrical landscape. [...] Playing cheekily with rhythms of speech and timing, they create a very English rendition of what is essentially a French play, substituting the de rigueur dramatic devices and flourishes with frighteningly real personalities that transcend the dramatic crutch of Yasmina Reza's Continental-style philosophizing text and sub-text. Admittedly the first ever cast of Courtenay, Finney and Stott all those years ago set the benchmark for the production (though I found them yawnsome and wooden) - and the League have the advantage of tapping into the accumulated performances that followed.

i think "laidback," "colloquial," "cheeky," "English" and "real" might be euphemisms for northern – more on that below

CIX

Having now seen Art three or four times (to be honest, I forget which), I've begun to muse that in some strange way it's a metaphor for itself. It's not just the performance dynamics, our impression of the trio's relationship, that varies from cast to cast... it's the very sense of how much real content there is in Reza's play, of whether it takes its thematic concerns about inherent versus attributed qualities (whether of a painting or a person) very far or not. In a sense, the performers are the series of diagonal white lines painted on to the white canvas of the play. And like the lines in the painting on stage (or so we're told), they're not pure white: some are vaguely yellow, some are sort of ochre-ish... In the case of the League, the bizarrely unrelated publicity images make clear that what's hoped for is a kind of fake-blood crimson tinge. So although there's no real indulgence, director Jennie Darnell allows the three to turn in a slight caricature of the naturalism with which the piece has usually been played, that little unreality often seen in the kind of sketch comedy where the group cut their teeth. The elegant apartment set is a world away from the League's fictional town of Royston Vasey, but the casting of the individual members plays to respective strengths familiar from their various screen guises. As Serge, who has paid 200,000 francs for the picture, Mark Gatiss exudes an appropriately smug and supercilious cleverness. As Marc, who faces off against Serge by declaring the canvas "shit", Steve Pemberton is more mercurial, with an air of suppressed violence. Reece Shearsmith, the relatively cuddly one [sic], succeeds in focusing audience identification on Yvan, the less smart piggy-in-the-middle. All three are of course skilled performers, and you can see the rapport gained from up to fifteen years' collaboration in, for instance, the way Gatiss and Pemberton trade facial "mugs" as they first consider the painting. However, this very affinity with each other enables them to skim over deeper elements in the play. When Shearsmith gabbles out Yvan's great bewildered set-piece about the complications of his wedding arrangements, we applaud the high-speed delivery but don't pick up enough of what he says to engage with Yvan's travails.

kissing this reviewer on the mouth for specifically describing what he thinks their respective strengths are & especially for describing reece as THE CUDDLY ONE like... idk if it shows but i'm obsessed with how people see them, and how they see themselves & each other

EVENING STANDARD

Not so much a piece of headline-grabbing stunt casting as three trained actors flexing their thespian muscles [...] bona fide drama graduates, not comedy chancers. This immediately shows, from their poise, projection and presence. Only the dimple-chinned Pemberton as intolerant Marc comes close to his rogues' gallery of BBC2 personae during moments of rage when he cannot come to terms with Serge's purchase of an overpriced minimalist painting. By contrast, Mark Gatiss as the punctilious, pretentious Serge is the epitome of restraint, as cool as his sharp, charcoal suit. The comic moments are all in context. Shearsmith, as the boyish Yvan, is increasingly troubled by his imminent nuptials. This eventually spills out in a breathless pseudo-Pythonesque rant against marriage that is as funny to witness as it is difficult to say. But throughout, the trio respect Reza's text, sidelining their insatiable appetite for the grotesque that has made their their brand of humour so distinctive. This may, however, be problematic. Having sold out in the West End with their sketch show a couple of years ago, some of the threesome's intensely passionate fans may see Art as a follow-up and feel shortchanged. The eye-catching poster may compound the deception, the chopper, axe and chainsaw being wielded suggesting some Grand Guignol flourishes which never materialise.

BBC AGAIN

The northern accents do not quite ring true in the sophisticated setting of a Paris apartment and often lead to flat performances, where one gets the feeling their brand of wit is not quite enough to portray Parisian conceit. The strongest display by far comes from Mark Gatiss (Serge) - the eerie butcher in League of Gentlemen - as the tall, slightly effeminate doctor who acquires the painting, striking just the right balance of preciousness and acerbic wit. The diminutive Reece Shearsmith is adequate in his portrayal of Yvan, the put-down-upon soon-to-be-married stationer caught in the middle of the feud between his two friends. But the biggest disappointment comes from Steve Pemberton, who plays Marc, the critical compadre who takes Serge's indulgence for contemporary art as a personal slight. Pemberton, normally the trio's strongest performer, well-known for his brilliant turn as Pauline in the League of Gentlemen, seems ill at ease in the role. His northern persona cannot quite stretch far enough to inhabit the part of Marc, an angry homeopathic freak whose insecurity finds it hard to cope with his friend's show of independence over the painting. Like the painting, the play does not remain colourless throughout however. One of the highlights is Shearsmith's 10-minute tirade about the difficulties of coping with the women in his life ahead of his impending wedding.

yeah this one is definitely my favourite. casually calls them ALL scallies, then calls each of them out INDIVIDUALLY for being a) gay b) short c) shit. absolute legend. did they ever find this reviewer's body

related, from this article in the guardian:

"When we first did Art, a review said 'Yes, but can they act?' and that made me angry," said Shearsmith. "I remember thinking 'What have we been doing in The League of Gentlemen? It's not standup."

in 2013, reece said art was his favourite ever play to do. highlights from the replies

[markgatissbirthdayproject]

Hello!!!!!

Just a reminder that if you are planning to donate a fan work (fic/artwork) or a physical item, you have until 30 September to contact me with the details.

For fanart- please let me know what you are willing to draw/paint or if you have a specific piece of work to donate

For fanfiction- please let me know what you are willing to write (what fandoms, length, pairings, and/or things you are not willing to write

For anything else- please let me know what it is you are willing to donate (i.e physical media) along with a photo of the item (please note you will need to pay for postage)

Questions? Let me know!!!!

----------------

It is time to think about the Mark Gatiss birthday drive for 2024! Mark’s birthday is 17 October and I’m excited to see how much money we can raise this year! Last year we raised £500 for Switchboard.

To start, we will once again be having an auction for fan works and goods. If you’d like to donate a fic or an item please email mgbdaydrive at gmail dot com.

Requests for donations will end at the end of the month and the auction will go live on the first of October.

If you have questions or anything at all, please let me know.

[loremori]

Martin Freeman (147/366)

Sherlock 2010–2017

Writer & Creator Mark Gatiss Steven Moffat

*Modernized version of the Conan Doyle characters.

**I really like that painting in the background. 💀

[johannadc]

Mystrade Fic Rec - Mycroft Paints!

@britsgovernmentmh asked about finding a fic where Mycroft is painting Greg in secret, Sherlock goes snooping and finds the unfinished painting, takes a picture and doesn't understand why Greg is in it, and then Greg finds out about the painting.

I couldn't find it. (Does anyone else have an idea?) Looking for it sent me through all the Mystrade Is Art stories from a couple of years ago, though, and some others. I thought I'd share my favorites where Mycroft Holmes is a painter.

Artist of the Year by ml101 (9300 words, T) https://archiveofourown.org/works/31350860

Mycroft winds up competing for Landscape Artist of the Year, while Greg is working security for the event. Sherlock is a good brother, and Anthea and Donovan help. I love that Mycroft is such an overachiever that he, during the competition, creates two paintings.

Did You Listen? by InnerSpectrum (2300, G) https://archiveofourown.org/works/15916044

Mycroft disappears twice a year. Greg is invited to join him.

To Capture Light by Vulpesmellifera (4900, T) https://archiveofourown.org/works/16989870

Mycroft runs to Canada after Sherrinford, where he paints. Greg comes after him, and it's Christmas. You'll learn a lot about color theory in this fic!

And now the naughty ones… where Greg models nude.

Worth a Thousand Words by janto321 (FaceofMer) (2300, E) https://archiveofourown.org/works/7242751

A substantial PWP.

From Life by green_violin_bow (47K, E) https://archiveofourown.org/works/15691263

Unfinished so far, but what's there is just lovely. Inspired by the same photo from Mark Gatiss' John Minton as the InnerSpectrum one above, seen here.

And my favorite, for its cheeky humor,

Tit For Tat by BeMyGoldfish (3K, T) https://archiveofourown.org/works/34797013

Sherlock blackmails Greg into modeling for Mycroft. Greg doesn't realize Mycroft is expecting a nude model. Shenanigans occur, but only after an overdue conversation. And lots of synonyms for "naked".

(You know the Lewis Grizzard joke, right? "'Naked' means you don't have any clothes on. 'Nekkid' means you don't have any clothes on and you're up to something.")

[doctorkatmd]

It’s almost as if the mere suggestion that women could hold power—even in a fictional context—is too much for them to process. And it’s not just physical violence. The idea of a woman subverting power, of using intellect or cunning to turn the tables, makes them just as uncomfortable.

We’re flooded with the Sherlock archetype—brilliant, rational men who rely on intellect and logic to save the day. But where are the female versions of this character? When we do get them, they’re often sidelined, written off as outliers, or, worse, constantly portrayed as being wrong despite their intelligence.

Take Scully from The X-Files. She’s easily one of the smartest characters in the entire show—a doctor, a scientist, and a skeptic who relies on facts and evidence. She’s supposed to be the counterbalance to Mulder’s wild theories. And yet, in a universe where aliens and the supernatural are real, Scully’s skepticism is constantly undermined. No matter how brilliant and rational her explanations are, she’s almost always proven wrong. Despite being the most grounded and logical character, her intelligence is continually sidelined in favor of Mulder’s intuition.

Irene Adler in Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss’s adaptation of Sherlock serves as a sharp illustration of this issue. Initially, Adler is portrayed as a brilliant and formidable adversary to Sherlock Holmes, her intelligence setting her up as a genuine rival. However, as the story unfolds, her role is systematically diminished. Despite her impressive intellect, she is ultimately reduced to a plot device that serves to highlight Holmes’s supremacy rather than challenge it.

Adler’s character is sidelined as the narrative reverts to reinforcing Holmes’s dominance. Her intelligence, while acknowledged, is overshadowed by his perceived genius. This undermines her earlier role as an intellectual equal and reflects how female genius is often constrained by male-centric storytelling. Even when women display exceptional intelligence, their power is frequently contained to ensure it remains secondary to male protagonists. (I could write an entire essay on the mishandling of her character, but honestly, just watch the HBomberguy video on the whole series because it’s fantastic.)

It’s the same frustrating dynamic with female characters who dare to embody that Sherlock-like intelligence. They either exist outside the social norm, painted as “too cold” or “unrelatable,” or their intellect is framed as a flaw. When a male character is the brilliant, socially awkward genius, it’s a quirk to admire. When a woman embodies those traits, she’s portrayed as unfeeling, difficult, or lacking in femininity.

Even when we get strong, intelligent female characters, they’re rarely given the same narrative authority as male counterparts like Sherlock, House, or Mulder. The female genius is more often positioned as a foil, doubted by the people around her, even if she’s proven right. In contrast, the male genius archetype is allowed to be eccentric, arrogant, funny, even rude, but his brilliance is never questioned.

Men like Sherlock can be wrong about something but still be heralded as geniuses. A woman, though? If she’s wrong once, the entire narrative seems justified in doubting her from then on. Even when she’s right, her intellect is framed as something that needs to be softened or balanced by emotions. And if her intelligence threatens male dominance, it’s immediately questioned or undermined. It’s a subtle way of reinforcing that female intellect, while present, is still seen as secondary to male intuition or insight.

The narrative perpetuates the idea that women, no matter how sharp or capable, must always defer to male counterparts, whose instincts and intuition are somehow deemed superior. Female characters who embody the traits of genius are rarely afforded the same respect or narrative power, instead being portrayed as anomalies or cold figures, their intellect viewed as something to be tempered rather than celebrated.

In a landscape that glorifies male genius, female intelligence is systematically dismissed, undermined, or erased. The narrative is clear: no matter how brilliant a woman is, she must always bow to male intuition, which is somehow seen as inherently superior. When women dare to embody the traits of genius, they’re sidelined, their intellect framed as a flaw, something that must be tempered or softened to fit within the constraints of male-dominated storytelling.

The reality is brutal: women can be as sharp, capable, and brilliant as any man, but that brilliance is still seen as a threat, something to be questioned, doubted, and ultimately diminished. It's a suffocating reminder that even in fiction, female intellect is shackled by the same sexist chains that bind women in real life. Until we dismantle these narratives, the female genius will remain a ghost, overshadowed by a society that refuses to let her rise to her full potential.

The underlying message is clear: in the male-dominated realms of fiction and reality alike, a woman’s intelligence is still not enough. (This isn’t a comprehensive critique of The X-Files, and I acknowledge that Scully’s role is to challenge Mulder’s theories with evidence rather than accept them blindly. Her skepticism serves to balance Mulder’s speculative approach. However, despite her significant intelligence and rationality, her logical explanations are often overshadowed by Mulder’s intuitive theories, highlighting the broader issue of how female intelligence is frequently undervalued.) (also if you're gonna say Bones, I haven't seen enough of it, it seems to be a good counter to my point in this, but it's one of the few counters I've seen which says something about the variety)

so women are supposed to grin and bear the books, the comics, the movies, the plays, the tv shows, the stories, the sci-fi, the translated ancient poems, the fucking millennia of men writing about their self inserts torturing women and it being declared as High Art by other men, we’re supposed to read it in our free time, study it in classrooms, include their styles in our own writing, accept their cultural influence as natural, watch it in the cinema, write about it, talk about it, accept it, aspire it, but men can’t tolerate three seconds of female wish fulfilment of a woman snapping the wrist of a creep without feeling personally kicked in the balls.

[alexzpaintings]

I felt like painting something happy and autumny  🥺

new instagram | commissions open

[yrkanho9]

I found my old art with Mycroft!

I did it for a very long time, but not sure what worked out well.

UK Government

[klarawhy]

Finally finished my first proper Mystrade fanart! Don't know what's going on there, but I LUV their expressions.

[fancy-pansy]

Happy Birthday, dear Mr Sex

[lessdepressy]

Mark Gatiss and his oil paints, which inspire me to draw more.

That is all.

Like, just look!!! They’re all so pretty :’)

(All from Mark’s Twitter account)

[barkilphedros-hat]

🐸 TOAD MUM. 🐸

I had fun doing this one, Val deserves more love 😅

Something something Redbubble prints here...