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