A rose by any other name still smells the same. We been talking recently and reading about many cases involving appropriation, adaptation, influence, sampling, remixing, reiterations, sequels, ganking, detournment , and reconfiguring. We simply call it as we see it- stealing.
But at what cost these days? There is a cost to those who are doing the stealing, not just to those being stolen. Not financial cost, but at what artistic and moral cost to a new generation that feels this is the new way of the world, the way things are done.
Art critic Jerry Saltz wrote a great article in New York Magazine a few weeks ago called “Generation Blank”. http://tinyurl.com/3ey2hpw
It’s a great read and Mr. Saltz gives a wonderful insight into how young artists seem to be a serpent eating it’s own tail. Or as he writes, a lot of the work by today’s young artists are “stuck in a cul-de-sac of aesthetic regress, where everyone is deconstructing the same elements”. He says the constant looking at the work of their elders and reworking it is producing an art generation that is turning into “The Lost Generation” of artists. He also states that this type of art “Instead of enlarging our view of being human, it contains a safe rehashing of received ideas about received ideas”. The hidden cost of stealing the work and ideas of others isn’t just in dollars and cents, it also lies in the moral cost to those who fall into the habit being creatively lazy. The rationalizations and reaching justifications that all appropriators try to use, fall short when you see work that is as creative as a “Rocky 23” movie sequel or as thoughtful as putting lipstick on the Mona Lisa. We get it, but it’s stale on delivery.
We will in this space in the near future (honest) be talking about two recent cases, and probably many more the way things are going, regarding Jay Maisel and Mel Sokolsky, who have had their work or vision “appropriated”. Is appropriation about expanding our knowledge, having see things in a new way, or is it just being creatively lazy?
#1 by Steve on November 20, 2011 - 1:13 pm
What about putting a moustache on the Mona Lisa? As lawyers I think you have a very old fashioned idea of what creativity is.
#2 by Jack and Ed on November 20, 2011 - 11:41 pm
Well Steve, I’m not a lawyer, Ed is. I made my living for over 30 years as a photographer.
The Mona Lisa is in public domain, so a mustache is no problem.
Over the years I’ve seen how “creative” people have been at stealing from creatives trying to put food on their table.
It’s rare to see photographers who can take advantage to protect themselves from out and out stealing of their work,
because over 90% of them don’t register their images.
Yet countless photographers get ripped off every day.
If people are truly creative, they don’t have to steal, they innovate and create.
Many critics have talked about how so many people today think that commenting on others work by reworking it is not being creative at all.
If you get a chance, read art critic Jerry Saltz, in his New York Magazine article, entitled “Generation Blank”. He exhibits keen insight in opining that the current trend of artists referencing and commenting on previous works, has become so widespread that there is a correlation to the lack of originality in the works themselves. “Their art turns in on itself, becoming nothing more than coded language. It empties their work of content”, says Saltz who goes on to say, “…. it stunts their work and by turn the broader culture.”
Yeah, if protecting my livelihood from thieves who don’t know how to create, so they steal under the guise of “appropriation”
is considered old fashion, the I’m way old fashion.
Jack
#3 by KK on December 8, 2011 - 7:28 pm
So, what about a painter who takes elements from photos in several published advertisements, then recombines them in a painting? Is the artist required to obtain copyright releases for each element in this reconfiguration? If so, how can the relevant copyright holders be contacted?
#4 by KK on December 8, 2011 - 8:14 pm
To clarify–let’s say the painting would combine previously-published elements like this: people (with changes to their appearance), placed next to palm trees from another photo, standing in front of the Eiffel Tower or Taj Mahal, for example. The collaged scene is on a small island surrounded by ocean, maybe with shark fins…
Question: Is the artist required to obtain copyright releases for each element in this reconfiguration? If so, how can the relevant copyright holders be contacted?