I really enjoyed these readings. My opinion on the issue of plagiarism/re-appropriation of art kept going back and forth as I read new ideas and arguments. As you can tell from the title of this blog entry I eventually settled with the artists or the "new" or "2nd generation" artists as opposed to the monopolized copyright machine.
To start with, while reading the Molotov Man I was totally on the side of the painter as opposed to the photographer... and her lawyer and formal letters and requests for money. The painter seemed to have pure intentions and his re-appropriation of the picture just further instilled the idea that the molotov man was behaving passionately because he believed in something. By painting this image, he was saying "this image is great and means something to me." flattery. So what if he didn't snap the picture himself? Its not like the photographer owns everything he/she takes a picture of anyway. This was pretty much my cliche, overused, tired train of thought until I actually got to the part of the article where the photographer put in her two cents. Turns out she didn't really care about the money but actually felt that the painting was a disservice to the man in the picture. The collection that the painting was used in was called "Riot" and in reality, the molotov man was not just involved in some angsty riot but was actually working in a highly organized takeover. She felt that the re-appropriation diminished the true power of the image and was trying to speak up for the subject not just herself.
So with one reading down the score is Copyright: 1 point. Re-Appropriators: 0 Points
The Ecstasy of Influence article sort of threw my original conclusions on their head. While I didn't find much substance in the gift economy and commons arguments the author chose to eventually settle on; the sheer amount of evidence and research pointing to re-appropriations from the likes of Bob Dylan, Muddy Waters, and William Burroughs just to name a few solidified my belief that copyrights hinder art and are a general disservice to the public. The obvious factor here is that these "original" and "unique" artists have been known to borrow from other artists, yet what they do is done in a new way and therefore does not count as plagiarism. So we say, "oh but its just so damn nice" who cares if they borrowed a few lines from a play? And I'm in that boat too. So we should allow for new artists to also use art in their works or we will rob society from all these potential "gifts." (ok maybe a little substance in it) And to go back to molotov man: so what if the painter didn't quite capture the mood that was in reality the way the photographer did? The photographer accomplished what she set out to do, and then her job was done. I don't care if the painter gave the guy a clown nose, a big red one. His art is his art. We should allow for this freedom to rethink art and culture and come up with new meaning and new ideas. To stop this would be counterproductive and a lot of fuss over nothing.
so... retracting earlier Copyright point. Final Score..Copyright: 0 point. Re-Appropriators: 1 Points.
© don't steal any of this.
No comments:
Post a Comment