respond to Molotov

This article is much better than the last one. It is more interesting and understandable and I like the article because it explains both arguments in detail. I personally agree with Joy Garnett. I sometimes use images on the internet for my drawing which is really helpful to find my own style to draw in term of colors and composition. However, I think Susan’s idea is also reasonable after reading her argument, concerning about the photograph becoming into something totally different from the original meanings and concepts. Well then, there should be a board-line satisfying both sides.

Blurry Topic, or is it the font?

First of all, this article is blurry. As I'm reading it I feel like I'm slowly loosing my vision. Thats a lie, I actually haven't started reading. Ima go do that, let the fun begin. l8ter.

K, I'm back. woah. no, i still haven't read it yet. brb.

Quick tidbit, the paintings are kinda fugs, littlebit a lot.

Woah, so this article was a lot more interesting than I thought it would be. It's a difficult topic to take a side on because if it was your photo or artwork that was used you would probably feel the same as susan. So I'm not sure. But, not only is it about copyright infringement but also, and more importantly about the birth of a symbol. It makes me wonder how other emblems came to be.

Now that I finished reading, ima go sleep. Night y'all.

Photoshop

I am about to start this photoshop project and I am a little worried. I don't really understand how to use the program.. uh oh. Can't wait to see everyone's though!

Molotov Man

I liked that the article included both sides of the argument from the actual artists. It is an interesting argument and I don't think that I can definitely tell you who I would side with. Whether a piece of art should or shouldn't be appropriated depends on what it is. This article just kind of annoyed me. I think that Susan Meiselas is being selfish, as many artists are when they are so concerned with how their viewers see their work. Sure, art is a personal thing to many people who make it, but the experience of it is also personal; nothing has a set meaning or significance.

Response to Molotov Man

I actually really agree with Joy Garnett.  I think she had every right to use the image and interpret it in her own way.  I can understand why Susan Meiselas would be upset at her image being decontextualized and dislocated from its original meaning.  However, I love the idea of an image taking on a whole new meaning and context, and if I were a photographer, I think I might be excited to see this whole other view on my picture.  Art is so subjective anyway, so why not embrace it?

grr computers

So Im not sure if I'm doing the homework right. This is just really hard for me because Im not use to a mac. Im having a hard time and Im soooo tired. I dont know this is starting to get confusing.ehhg.

Molotov reading

When I read this story I was like 'wow that really sucks' but then thinking about it he really should have tried to contact Susan if he planned to have his pieces in a gallery.I too side with the photographer, it was hers and shouldn't have been altered unless permission was given.I do however sympathize with Garnett because that would be horrable to see his work advertising a different meaning but if you think about it..that what he did to Susans photographs.hmmm intresting.I do think though that the molotov shirt looked pretty cool.

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.

On Marshall McLuhan

Marshall McLuhan speaks about inventions and innovations as extensions of something already existing, (ie: clothing as an extension of skin) is an idea i agree with. It makes sense when considering that man cannot create anything new, he can only manipulate what exists already, creating new combinations of pre-existing objects which may fail or succeed. It all fits into a matrix, which explains why creativity machines exist. Also note, creativity machines are an extension of our own creative process.

As for media being the message: I believe there are of coarse varying levels by which media speaks out above content and vice versa. I think it's as simple as that.

(ie: 1. A single line drawn in permanent marker, versus the same line drawn in pencil. The media governs the meaning. 2. A woman painted in oils naked and smiling versus, the same naked woman painted in oils crying. The content governs the meaning. If you continue to mix and match these things you will find the dominant characteristic varies.)

Conclusion: Media and content create their own context, neither could exist without the other, and I would say they work on a sliding scale when it comes to which is more important to the specific item at hand.