Plagiarism and art

Reading photography articles and blogs as I do can cause me to question them. One such article about Richard Prince is the latest. His pictures, copies of advertising material have sold for millions of dollars. They are even called iconic.

He takes pictures of the artwork, he calls it rephotographing, removes the brand name and it is now his art. 

Musicians go to court to defend themselves. Writers have to be sure their work is original. Technology is patented. Richard has even tweeted that “artists don’t sue other artists,”

In Richard's case he just needs to add a description to the work, telling the viewer what it now means. The longer and more convoluted the better.

The original creator isn't mentioned, 

The Telepgraph can't praise him enough, take a look. They called him the coolest artist alive. They also mention Andy Warhol, he was another one who copied advertising artwork and made it his own.

Here is more info.

I'm left wondering about art. It seems anything is allowed in it's name. If you have the right supporters and you can attach a narative to your work it's art.

Defenders of these artist often say the detractors are jealous of the success, or wish they had thought of the idea first. Neither reason is why I question what I see and read.

It always stikes me as the emperor's new clothes syndrome or, as I always ask; am I missing something?

A final thought; this could mean there is no copywrite for photography. If someone sees a picture they want to use, it appears to be okay to copy it and make only a small change. Just a new crop is enough, for it to be classed as a new picture, and not yours. Thank about that for a minute in relation to all those pictures you have posted online.

Please add your address to my mailing list, or click the follow button to be kept informed about future posts.
Follow me on twitter. 

Leave a comment about this post. I would really appreciate your thoughts on this or any blog post.

For more of my work, go to my Facebook page.

and 

website

What is art?

A story sponsored by Hasselblad popped up in my LinkedIn feed about Brook Elbank. In case you don't know here is a link to the Guardian article. They are extremely excited about the pictures and exhibition. I have form for expressing my views on art. This again taps in to my misgivings. The pictures are close ups of people from around the world, who have freckles. The only remarkable thing about them is the intensity of the subject's stare and the obvious processing. Another article I read about this project says Brook spends six hours working on each picture. It would be great to see the original images. Are the freckles that pronounced? They look almost like those pictures used to emphasis damage done to skin by too much exposure the the sun. What has he been doing for six hours? Thousands of people applied to be photographed, others were nominated. They and he travelled all over the world to shoot them.

The reason for the project was to highlight the bullying people with freckles suffer. A worthy cause, and these pictures may get people talking. But to call them incredible pictures is going way too far. Especially taking into account the apparent manipulation involved.

He had a beards exhibition which got rave reviews from the Guardian back in 2015. Again it's the same format, many are at extreme close up with obvious over processing. With poor white balance consistency between pictures this time. They were shot in a studio so why? Or was it intentional? You take a look and let me know what you think.

Brook Elbank has managed to become a celebrity photographer. Famed for his discussion pieces as much as his skill. Does that sound too harsh? I'm not saying he isn't talented, and it does ensure he is in magazine editors minds by producing this kind of work. So I guess he is no fool.

I just don't get what he is trying to say, looking at the pictures just doesn't give much of a clue about his message.

An example of a series of pictures that show imagination is a set celebrating redheads by Keith Barraclough. I know it was a marketing project for him, but it does show what could have been done. 

I googled "what is art".

And I found what I expected to find. Modern art is for clever people, if you don't like or understand it. Then you just aren't intelligent enough. It all strikes me as elitist, a club were you believe what you are told you are seeing, emperors' new clothes syndrome you might say. Do that and you are in. Even better if you have vast sums of money to lavish on the artists, the studios and auction houses to keep the circus going.

Or am I just not clever enough?

This article is one I found. The early art, I get. It is a picture or sculpture of a subject, even the early impressionists trying to portray emotion and thought I can understand. It says the invention of the camera caused people to not want traditional art. Taking a picture of someone is quicker than painting or sculpting them. But there is still a place for this style of art. The artist spends time with the subject, connects with them. Hopefully that connection is evident in the finished work of art. It's what I try to achieve with my portraits.

But piles of bricks, a canvases painted in one colour, an unmade bed, I could go on; check out the Tate Modern for more examples. The article says you need to know how the art was made, what was happening at the time, what the artist was trying to say. To me, if I can't understand the meaning by looking at the piece, then whatever the artist was trying to say, isn't clear enough.

I don't want to come across as bitter, if you are successful, good luck to you. I don't mean to pick on just one person either. It just happens this article appeared in the feed and it got me thinking.

Please add your address to my mailing list, or click the follow button to be kept informed about future posts. Follow me on twitter. 

Please checkout my website and facebook page. And leave a comment about this post. I would really appreciate your thoughts on this or any blog post.

For more of my work, go to my Facebook page.

and 

website

Confused about art

I was talking to my cycling buddy as we took a break from the ride. I had read an interview with some photographers, one of which was Kevin Abosch. He of the expensive potato picture. We wondered how that massive price had come about. What made it worth so much? We talked about art in general. I guess I just don't get it. Art, when it's painted, or sculptured tends to mean a one off. So I can see how the value, especially over time can grow. 

I am at a lose though to see how some modern art is so highly valued. 

Again it is a one off, even if the piece is produced again. It's not going to be exactly the same. But I don't understand what it is most of the time. Or what it's trying to say. 

It appears to me at least part of it's value is who the artist is, not the piece itself. 

Once a group of people collect the artists work, they buy everything. Why? Bragging rights, a show of wealth, or a way of demonstrating they are part of the group who understand in a way others are just not capable of?

Then I come to art photography. Again this is just my opinion. 

When you buy a piece of photographic art. It can easily be reproduced. Just printed again. I'm not saying because it is a photograph, it can't be art and highly prized though. It's just not unique in the same way.

I tend to shoot pictures that are either personal to me or the subject. Or that satisfy a requirement. So not really art in itself. Although I hope some of them would be seen as artistic. 

Maybe I'm just too literal a thinker. It has to be obvious. And that's my failing, not the artist's problem.

Here is the potato in question.

Pic: Kevin Abosch

Quote from Peta Pixel, I think, illustrates why I am confused about art. “Kevin likes potatoes because they, like people are all different yet immediately identifiable as being essentially of the same species,” “He has photographed many potatoes. This one is one of his favorites.”

What do you think? What am I missing?

For more of my work, go to my Facebook page.

and 

website