(Untitled)
If you photograph someone else's paintings is it Art?
Could you say, put a tag on it acknowledging the first Artist and then sell it?
What then about painting from others Photographs?
Could you say, put a tag on it acknowledging the first Artist and then sell it?
What then about painting from others Photographs?
Comments 15
It doesn't qualify as derivative unless you were to significantly alter it.
Copy right doesn't exist on inspiration, but it does exist on duplication.
Reply
good as well. So my question is only partly answered with your response.
So with photographing a painting it seems relatively obvious that
the work would be derivatively inspired, but why then are clothing and jewelry
crafter not cited when models are photographed (or is that why there is such a prevalence of Fine Art nudes)?
A further complication could be : my model in front of a corporate complex
featuring a fountain sculpture by Michael Keropian. Then will the model mimicking the pose change the creative nature of the work, and then is it also changed on a legal level?
This whole knotty mess is a personal fuss baised off of thouse realy
irritating stenciled tribal design bowling shirts, that were unpleasantly common on weekend "COOLGUYS" (and my secret shame of owning one)
Reply
It's all about context and the photo's intended use.
Reply
The context is what I am asking about, what are the guide lines to establish creative focus, and separate that from incidentally capturing a moment of appeal?
I see a lot of photographers, primarily amateur because thats what we are and know, snapping pictures willy nilly and simply saying see look what I did.
This is not a backhanded comment about your photography,
just me trying to get a consensus on creative integrity for
umm I guess meta-analysis of hypothetical photo shoot involving
Five and Diamond clothing.
Reply
On Second Life, performance artists are re-enacting famous performances by artists from the 60's; it's in the March ArtNews, you should read about it. But, that's an alteration.
We're way too far past Dada for the photograph idea to work, unfortunately. But that doesn't ethically rule out digital manipulation and degeneration of a copy, of a copy. Xerox of a xerox? Etc.
Fashion designers have used prints of famous artists' works in their fabrics. Again, altered, but using other artists' works.
There is nothing ethically wrong with using a model in front of another artist's statue in your own work, so long as you credit the artist for the original works used. If you wanted to be legally safe, you could contact the artist and ask permission. It gets looser if you're photographing in a public space; innumerable photographers leave sculptors and architects uncited (unfortunately).
Reply
bring up Dada.
Reply
Also, I just think the digital appropriation of already performed arts would be interesting to you, given your question. If you can't find the magazine on the shelf anymore (it's getting late in the month), I will happily mail you a copy.
Reply
But simply that the lateral motion of the subject lends its self
referencing Dada, whom I realize you are a fan of.
Reply
An example would be a b/w photo of Notre Dame isn't very artistic until you take into account the angle, depth of field, iris, how they burned it, the specific use of paper, how they focused, etc, etc...
Another example:
Even if you were crazy single hair paintbrush man you would still infuse your "take" on any photograph you attempted to replicate in a painting. I also doubt any artist would choose to try to replicate something exactly unless that was, for whatever reason, their implied motivation. Any alterations automatically make it impressionistic.
Photographing a painting IMO, is usually done in the spirit of offering a duplicatable copy of the painting in another medium for printing or storing the "data" so it isn't really motivated by art. However, you get some hack like Warhol to fuck with the color saturation or hues say, on the Mona Lisa or something, stick 3 different versions of it right next to each other and, apparently *POOF*, you get "art"... :\
Reply
gestural work and impressionisms made beautiful by its imperfection.
as a contrast to the consistent perfection of most media.
The aforementioned derivate work and Warhol and both cheapened by the
power of cut and paste, as well as digital canvas prints.
and even more irritating is the seedy practice of painting a bit on
digital print on canvas and calling it "Mixed Media"
Reply
that I think peaked in the 70's-80's but were never very popular.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment