Tuesday, February 10, 2009
MolotovMan response
After reading, I found myself siding with the photographer and agreeing with what she had to say about the situation and the piece. I don't think that she necessarily as the right to "control" what happens to the image and how it is reproduced and altered, depending on copyright laws; however, I do think that she has every right to criticize work based on it. Because the photograph was of such cultural and historical significance, I can understand her concern about the image becoming "decontextualized" and morphing into something so far from its original meaning and purpose. Plus, I think it would be hard for any artist to disagree with the photographer because she had her piece used in a new context without her knowing, and that in itself could almost feel like a violation of some sort. I think it would be difficult for an artist to accept a work based on his or her own artistic creation that strayed from everything that the piece originally meant.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I don't know if I could side with either of the artists. The first one was wrong to take the image and put it out of context but it was on the internet. That is one thing that I have sort of worried about, putting my art on the internet, because once it is up there you can't really stop anyone from taking it. Even if you put up whatever block it is to stop someone from copying it or those "water mark" things, there is always photoshop, and the "print screen" button that is on the side of the key board. no one can stop another person from taking your art off the internet.
Also the photographer was saying how the photographs meaning had already been taken out of context so much in its own area, being used in so many different ways.
On the other hand I personally would never want anything that I've worked so hard on to have it's meaning changed so much by some random person, who didn't even have the knowledge of what it was in the first place.
So from the way I am looking at it I can't side with either of the artists.
i did not even think of "siding" with either artist. As kate and katie said-when art goes into cyberspace-theres no getting it back and no way on really keeping a claim on it. when i was reading i just got the feeling of major communication problems made by all the systems we as "logical and moral" human beings put in place with lawyers, rights and all that blah blah. Sure it was slightly a bad move to recreate another artist's work and then not give credit, but in the end i think it this article solved all those sticky little problems and i like happy, no-suing, endings : )
and i also wanted to say that that picture was pretty sick-the photo-not the painting...i didnt really like it...it looked like something that my roommate could have done - and she has never even picked up a paint brush in her life until now this semester.
OH and the picture of that spinal cord and thighs was just plain haunting.
I would also say i couldn't side with either of the artists, but since we were told to try i would have to be on joys side. when i read both halves of the story it kind of came down to just who i think is suffering a bigger wrath from it all. yeah, its the photographers work but it was on the internet, and compared to how much joy was going to get sued, i guess i just feel more bad for her? i'm not sure. its really hard to pick a side because, like everyone else i'd be pissed if nobody credited my work and it was used so many times. but then again, if i was putting my work in a exhibit that was somebody elses work too, its just obvious to give credit. so in the end i'm torn again.. but if i had to choose, i'd be on team joy.
Post a Comment