News: Deutsche Börse photography prize 2012

[Mark Hampton]

Some intreasting work on show

heres a linky <<<<<<<<

any thoughts?

 

[George Holroyd]

I like Rinko Kawauchi after seeing Illuminance.

 

[Mark Hampton]

I like Rinko Kawauchi after seeing Illuminance.

Never seen it in real life - some of the work I have seen on LCD has been beautiful - illumance seems to be a long project.

I liked John Stezaker work that i found on the net.

 

[George Holroyd]

John Stezaker’s work re-examines the various relationships to the photographic image: as documentation of truth, purveyor of memory, and symbol of modern culture. In his collages, Stezaker appropriates images found in books, magazines, and postcards and uses them as ‘readymades’. Through his elegant juxtapositions, Stezaker adopts the content and contexts of the original images to convey his own witty and poignant meanings.

When he starts actually making art instead of "appropriating" it, I'll check him out.

 

[Mark Hampton]

When he starts actually making art instead of "appropriating" it, I'll check him out.

He is making art George, he appropates images. As all photography is appropated I don't see the issue, it seems pedantic.

Even if you make everything in an image then photograph it is still appropereation of the data.

 

[George Holroyd]

It's pedantic for many until someone appropriates one of their images then, it becomes theft.

 

[Asher Kelman]

When he starts actually making art instead of "appropriating" it, I'll check him out.

Well George,

Arguably he has made Art even though the work was done with "appropriated" (ie, presumably stolen) materials.

If a house is made from bricks and lumber taken in the night from a building supply depot, then the house is still a house, but the provenance is such that you couldn't legally sell it. ere, the artist captures the image of existing art and so it's declared to be "found". The process is suspicious for lack of ethics, at least in not attributing the original artists.

John Stezaker : Mask CII

2011
Collage
22.8 x 19 cm

© All rights reserved
The Saatchi Gallery
Text by William A Ewing *
London Contemporary Art Gallery
​

* "John Stezaker’s work re-examines the various relationships to the photographic image: as documentation of truth, purveyor of memory, and symbol of modern culture. In his collages, Stezaker appropriates images found in books, magazines, and postcards and uses them as ‘readymades’. Through his elegant juxtapositions, Stezaker adopts the content and contexts of the original images to convey his own witty and poignant meanings.

In his Marriage series, Stezaker focuses on the concept of portraiture, both as art historical genre and public identity. Using publicity shots of classic film stars, Stezaker splices and overlaps famous faces, creating hybrid ‘icons’ that dissociate the familiar to create sensations of the uncanny. Coupling male and female identity into unified characters, Stezaker points to a disjointed harmony, where the irreconciliation of difference both complements and detracts from the whole. In his correlated images, personalities (and our idealisations of them) become ancillary and empty, rendered abject through their magnified flaws and struggle for visual dominance.

In using stylistic images from Hollywood’s golden era, Stezaker both temporally and conceptually engages with his interest in Surrealism. Placed in contemporary context, his portraits retain their aura of glamour, whilst simultaneously operating as exotic ‘artefacts’ of an obsolete culture. Similar to the photos of ‘primitivism’ published in George Bataille’s Documents, Stezaker’s portraits celebrate the grotesque, rendering the romance with modernism equally compelling and perverse."​

So there you are! For all the explanation, the bottom line is that it moves us and so is art!


Now should he have to be accountable to the guys who's work he used, presumably without permission? That's the question!!!!

George, I would want to be compensated if my work was used and I'd take it to court if I couldn't get satisfaction otherwise.

Asher

 

[Mark Hampton]

It's pedantic for many until someone appropriates one of their images then, it becomes theft.

to some people that's correct - but it doesn't change what he is doing. he makes art. some of the works are terrifyingly beautiful. there is a lot of picasso in the way he works the face. and yet you may not think he is appropriating picasso....

Portrait of Dora Maar/a Picasso ‘muse’/1937
​

love these works - always wanted to post this image on this site.

cheers

 

[George Holroyd]

Well George,

Your salutation reads to me like you are exasperated. For that reason, I didn't get much out of the rest of your post. This Stezaker's work doesn't qualify as art to me and is not on the same conceptual level as Kawauchi. Therefore, I see no need to look for more examples of his work and I commented to that effect. Take that however you like.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Your salutation reads to me like you are exasperated. For that reason, I didn't get much out of the rest of your post. This Stezaker's work doesn't qualify as art to me and is not on the same conceptual level as Kawauchi. Therefore, I see no need to look for more examples of his work and I commented to that effect. Take that however you like.

George,

No way I'm exasperated with you or anyone else. (I'm not passive to things that are tragic. I'm furious that no one helps those in need in Darfur, Syria and other places, but no bad feelings in this tiny corner of the inverse).

I'm actually very happy to see you raise the dilemma as it is something that resonates strongly with my values. So no, I am totally behind you objecting to this artist. My only issue is that where he gets his materials from can be considered separately from the product of his efforts with the unlicensed appropriated work.


If it's the large courier type face? That's meant for Tom so he might get the essence without reading all the blah, blah, blah! text. Yes, I do strange things!


Asher

 

[Don Ferguson Jr.]

Now should he have to be accountable to the guys who's work he used, presumably without permission? That's the question!!!!

George, I would want to be compensated if my work was used and I'd take it to court if I couldn't get satisfaction otherwise.

Asher

So if that is the case he is an artist that is a thief that has to use stolen images of other artists to make his art No different then one using pirated copies of Photoshop to make art .
Don

 

[Asher Kelman]

So if that is the case he is an artist that is a thief that has to use stolen images of other artists to make his art No different then one using pirated copies of Photoshop to make art .
Don

Well, Don it might be! I'd bet that Adobe would never claim any rights to the intellectual or creative value of the artwork, just to the money owed for having bootlegged a copy of the software. The remedy for making whole, is, (or at least should ), be related always to the nature of trespass and losses incurred.

When someone steals gold to make a tooth, no court would make the dentist remove the tooth. He would be liable for the actual losses incurred by the victim and the patient would keep the repaired tooth, LOL!

However, the appropriated materials that are used for a new work of art, need to be licensed or else the artist really has no right to full ownership of what he creates. The design of the other artists are irrevocably embedded in the new work. Remedies include ordering destruction of the new work or damages paid to the original artist.

Case law varies around the world but these seem to be the ideas that are used.

Unfortunately, a lot of the appropriation artists have simply gone ahead and not been held accountable as the original artist or estates are not in a position finically to challenge them in court.

There's also a snobbery involved. It's as if because the result of a rape is a beautiful child, the rapist shouldn't be thrown in jail. Too often major curators and museums go to the defense of the guy who is making work that makes money for everyone at the top. The work is "so important" that the basic rights of lesser people can be overlooked.

Asher

 

[Don Ferguson Jr.]

All thefts IMO just like a person that steals copyrighted music without permission or that artist that stole the news photo from the AP on Obama .
Don

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...to-give-up-fair-use-rights-to-ap-photos.shtml

 

[Asher Kelman]

All thefts IMO just like a person that steals copyrighted music without permission or that artist that stole the news photo from the AP on Obama .
Don

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...to-give-up-fair-use-rights-to-ap-photos.shtml

Agreed, Don, it's all thievery. But then when it comes to remedy, each case will be handed according to precedent and power.

So the artwork ion a gallery could be ordered destroyed but a downloader of pirated music could end up with a $200,000 damages decision by the court or Adobe could claim just the price of the software.

But much work is not ever contested because most folks have no power in the matter!

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

to some people that's correct - but it doesn't change what he is doing. he makes art. some of the works are terrifyingly beautiful. there is a lot of picasso in the way he works the face. and yet you may not think he is appropriating picasso....

Portrait of Dora Maar/a Picasso ‘muse’/1937
​

love these works - always wanted to post this image on this site.

cheers

You make a good point! BTW, artists openly followed the path of others, mimicking their idioms. That is accepted when it's done with paint.

With photography, actually taking the other persons work is outrageous.

Asher

 

[Mark Hampton]

Asher - its accepted with photography as well - as is working with appropriate images. collage / montage has been going on for over a century, i really don't see the fuss here.

ABCD (Self-portrait) A photomontage - Raoul Hausmann 1923 /24​

"It was like a thunderbolt: one could – I saw it instantaneously – make pictures, assembled entirely from cut-up photographs. Back in Berlin that september, I began to realize this new vision, and I made use of photographs from the press and the cinema." Hausmann, 1958

from a wilki page <<<<linky

Stezaker’s work is not new in concept - some of it is striking and it does achieve a debate which is also part of the process.

it works for me !

 

[Asher Kelman]

Appropriate v appropriated

Asher - its accepted with photography as well - as is working with appropriate images. collage / montage has been going on for over a century, i really don't see the fuss here.

The word appropriate used by you is a an adjective signifying good choices for a purpose and hints at good social policy too. However, the very nature of grabbing other artists' already-made pictures from anywhere, signifies inappropriate behavior and hence the word is use more as a verb with equavelncy to meaning stealing.

Charlotte Thompson

Taken from her own images and pictures in the public domain or with consent.
​

Commendably, all the pictures used by Charlotte, I'm assured, are in the public domain or else are from her own original photographs. So in this case, there's the best of all worlds.

Work is recycled and then seen in with new associations, beauty, relevance and impact on us and hence consequences.

Asher

 

[Mark Hampton]

Asher - its accepted with photography as well - as is working with appropriate images. collage / montage has been going on for over a century, i really don't see the fuss here.

ABCD (Self-portrait) A photomontage - Raoul Hausmann 1923 /24​

"It was like a thunderbolt: one could – I saw it instantaneously – make pictures, assembled entirely from cut-up photographs. Back in Berlin that september, I began to realize this new vision, and I made use of photographs from the press and the cinema." Hausmann, 1958

from a wilki page <<<<linky

Stezaker’s work is not new in concept - some of it is striking and it does achieve a debate which is also part of the process.

it works for me !

its accepted with photography as well - as is working with appropriateD images. collage / montage

 

[Mark Hampton]

The word appropriate used by you is a an adjective signifying good choices for a purpose and hints at good social policy too. However, the very nature of grabbing other artists' already-made pictures from anywhere, signifies inappropriate behavior and hence the word is use more as a verb with equavelncy to meaning stealing.

Charlotte Thompson

Taken from her own images and pictures in the public domain or with consent.
​

Commendably, all the pictures used by Charlotte, I'm assured, are in the public domain or else are from her own original photographs. So in this case, there's the best of all worlds.

Work is recycled and then seen in with new associations, beauty, relevance and impact on us and hence consequences.

Asher

No Asher I missed the d off the end. It was a typo. You are aware of this because you re arranged the thread to suit your post. But lets not let that get in the way. There is no coherant argument against Stezaker’s work. Its using the medium in an intreasting manner. The theft argument is part of the work and it would seem to me to be part of the artists agenda.

Whether you think it is important is your issue. Me I like the way the work is made. Out of the four artists this work his holds me for longer.

This is why art is intreasting.

 

[Asher Kelman]

"its accepted with photography as well - as is working with appropriateD images. collage / montage"

No Asher I missed the d off the end. It was a typo. You are aware of this because you re arranged the thread to suit your post.

Mistaken, Mark!


I didn't do that. Rather I thought your were being humorous! By using the word, "appropriate", leaving off the "D", I thought your were making a dig at our objections. That seemed very clever, as you already know that some might think it was not. BTW, I did not rearrange the thread at all, LOL! I cannot do that even if I wished. Every post has it's order based on a time stamp issued when a post was initially created. I simply created the post here but then edited offline as I had guests and it was not ready for posting. By the time I posted, it simply appeared before yours. No machinations!

But lets not let that get in the way.

Agreed!

There is no coherant argument against Stezaker’s work. Its using the medium in an intreasting manner.

I have no argument here or against the chefs omelette, either, even if the eggs are unpaid for. I like the creativity and the result.

The theft argument is part of the work and it would seem to me to be part of the artists agenda.

Mark,

We differ on this. This to me is actually separate from the artistic value of the work itself. Why am I so resistant? Well, I'd need to lay aside firm, well -honed notions of proper, welcome and acceptable behavior and respect in order to examine this notion fairly. I'm hampered by my own sets of values. I can take your word that it appears to be part of the creative work, but, like my view of the Duchamp urinals, I am uncomfortable with appropriation and believe it's so simple to license work or get permission.

Asher

 

[Mark Hampton]

"its accepted with photography as well - as is working with appropriateD images. collage / montage"





Mistaken, Mark!


I didn't do that. Rather I thought your were being humorous! By using the word, "appropriate", leaving off the "D", I thought your were making a dig at our objections. That seemed very clever, as you already know that some might think it was not. BTW, I did not rearrange the thread at all, LOL! I cannot do that even if I wished. Every post has it's order based on a time stamp issued when a post was initially created. I simply created the post here but then edited offline as I had guests and it was not ready for posting. By the time I posted, it simply appeared before yours. No machinations!



Agreed!




I have no argument here or against the chefs omelette, either, even if the eggs are unpaid for. I like the creativity and the result.



Mark,

We differ on this. This to me is actually separate from the artistic value of the work itself. Why am I so resistant? Well, I'd need to lay aside firm, well -honed notions of proper, welcome and acceptable behavior and respect in order to examine this notion fairly. I'm hampered by my own sets of values. I can take your word that it appears to be part of the creative work, but, like my view of the Duchamp urinals, I am uncomfortable with appropriation and believe it's so simple to license work or get permission.

Asher

Asher,

when I posted your post wasn't there - it was there - and then wasn't ! - so that's where my impression came from ! of course your explanation makes sense... i cant believe you had people over - that's so rude

..so it goes ...

ok we cant de-construct your values - but the notion of theft is one we can look at.

its based on ownership - and the only thing you truly can own is in your head - even then its based on memory which is not to be trusted. i don't own my work - only the memory of it. i can call it mine but it is not me and cant be mine - it is outside of me.

so sorry there is no theft because there is no ownership.

here is a link that contains the blind man - a beautiful dada publication <<<<<

there is a bit about R.Mutts plumbing !

 

[Mark Hampton]

Asher,

when I posted your post wasn't there - it was there - and then wasn't ! - so that's where my impression came from ! of course your explanation makes sense... i cant believe you had people over - that's so rude

..so it goes ...

ok we cant de-construct your values - but the notion of theft is one we can look at.

its based on ownership - and the only thing you truly can own is in your head - even then its based on memory which is not to be trusted. i don't own my work - only the memory of it. i can call it mine but it is not me and cant be mine - it is outside of me.

so sorry there is no theft because there is no ownership.

here is a link that contains the blind man - a beautiful dada publication <<<<<

there is a bit about R.Mutts plumbing !

and John Stezaker wins !

well done ! it may be worth going to London to check out !

 

[Asher Kelman]

ok we cant de-construct your values - but the notion of theft is one we can look at.

its based on ownership - and the only thing you truly can own is in your head - even then its based on memory which is not to be trusted. i don't own my work - only the memory of it. i can call it mine but it is not me and cant be mine - it is outside of me.

so sorry there is no theft because there is no ownership.

here is a link that contains the blind man - a beautiful dada publication <<<<<

there is a bit about R.Mutts plumbing !

Mark,

So you don't accept the notion of ownership and as a consequence theft too! That's very novel outside of Robin Hood and the tales of pirates. However, even the latter fellows do feel they one their rum and buried treasures! So do you just take food from a fruit stall as you wish as no one owns it? Tell me how this works in practice, having no notion of ownership?

Asher

 

[Mark Hampton]

Mark,

So you don't accept the notion of ownership and as a consequence theft too! That's very novel outside of Robin Hood and the tales of pirates. However, even the latter fellows do feel they one their rum and buried treasures! So do you just take food from a fruit stall as you wish as no one owns it? Tell me how this works in practice, having no notion of ownership?

Asher

Asher,

it may seem novel - but it isn't - alot of thinking and work has gone into ideas based around this -

i just don't believe you can own things - you can say you do but you don't own it.

Its impossible to work in practice as those who believe they own things will kill those who rise against them - as has been done down through the ages.

cheers

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher,

it may seem novel - but it isn't - alot of thinking and work has gone into ideas based around this -

i just don't believe you can own things - you can say you do but you don't own it.

Its impossible to work in practice as those who believe they own things will kill those who rise against them - as has been done down through the ages.

cheers

Mark,

I think it would be more true to say that if we had an insurrection and an anarchist communist society of some form, we'd have a location somewhere on the planet where one could not personally own property outside of the space and tools needed for basic life. However, we have no such enclave where such extraordinary new rules apply.

In the meanwhile, in perhaps all our societies, ownership of property is recognized and is the paradigm everyone works with on a day to day basis. One couldn't manage a factory if one did not have a reliable inflow of raw materials and a transportation system to export goods to match the raw materials imported to make the essentials folk in your settlement needed, unless one downgrades the society to not be dependent on complex processes of production or equipment. So, while it might seem poetic to denounce ownership, at this time, like birth and death this phenomenon is a certainly in all modern civilizations. So back to art: we should respect property rights when a artistic work is made as the means of earning a living.

Asher

 

[Mark Hampton]

Mark,

I think it would be more true to say that if we had an insurrection and an anarchist communist society of some form, we'd have a location somewhere on the planet where one could not personally own property outside of the space and tools needed for basic life. However, we have no such enclave where such extraordinary new rules apply.

In the meanwhile, in perhaps all our societies, ownership of property is recognized and is the paradigm everyone works with on a day to day basis. One couldn't manage a factory if one did not have a reliable inflow of raw materials and a transportation system to export goods to match the raw materials imported to make the essentials folk in your settlement needed, unless one downgrades the society to not be dependent on complex processes of production or equipment. So, while it might seem poetic to denounce ownership, at this time, like birth and death this phenomenon is a certainly in all modern civilizations. So back to art: we should respect property rights when a artistic work is made as the means of earning a living.

Asher

Asher,

back to art - everything that is published or produced is fair game to be used - really its up to each individual how they choose to apply this.

Work is not made in a vacuum and everything has a prior / be that a reference or direct copy (which will not be the same / but similar) - everything that is similar is also different.

Since i think art is made by the reader not the maker this for me makes sense.

As ever question what I say - I don't have answers that are more valid than yours - they are just what I think and the way I find to make work.

one question for you -

is art viral?

 

[Asher Kelman]

Mark,

Come off it, now!!! How can you deny the artist authorship of his/her work? For sure we have to read art, but that does not mean that we are then the artist, rather by musing, we are amused!

Asher

 

[Mark Hampton]

Mark,

Come off it, now!!! How can you deny the artist authorship of his/her work? For sure we have to read art, but that does not mean that we are then the artist, rather by musing, we are amused!

Asher

Asher,

artist make work - readers make art - its simple. some people believe you don't even need the former - some conceptual art exists only as a plan for work.

cheers

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher,

artist make work - readers make art - its simple. some people believe you don't even need the former - some conceptual art exists only as a plan for work.

cheers

Mark,

While it's a thing of beauty to have one's own valuations of matters, the word "Art" has defined meanings in the public domain. As such, it's generally accepted by the public, artists, collectors and museums that an artist makes art and appreciates his or her own work and then the rest of us buy into that art value and experience.


Your definitions of the dynamics of art are not being used anywhere else of importance that I can discover. Nowhere do I see any suggestion that it's the "readers who make art" and the artist just makes [the] "work"!


I cannot find any reference to this idea of yours in the American Journal of aesthetics or anywhere else.... so far! However, all would agree that the reader does bring to the work of art his or own culture, personal history and values in generating a fuller sensory experience and appreciation before, during and after "musing" on the artwork. These personal dynamics help us get the most out of art, but we have not created the work itself.


We have merely translated it for ourselves this instance and next time it will be processed somewhat differently as we ourselves grow and change in time.


So what you say, that "artist make work - readers make art" is not an accepted definition, rather an assertion by a few people. I must admit I like the thrust of your claim, although it's generally not applicable to most art. I can, however, some trace of the "sense" of what you are claiming just in "found" art, but that's the extent of it.


Asher

 

[Mark Hampton]

Mark,

While it's a thing of beauty to have one's own valuations of matters, the word "Art" has defined meanings in the public domain. As such, it's generally accepted by the public, artists, collectors and museums that an artist makes art and appreciates his or her own work and then the rest of us buy into that art value and experience.


Your definitions of the dynamics of art are not being used anywhere else of importance that I can discover. Nowhere do I see any suggestion that it's the "readers who make art" and the artist just makes [the] "work"!


I cannot find any reference to this idea of yours in the American Journal of aesthetics or anywhere else.... so far! However, all would agree that the reader does bring to the work of art his or own culture, personal history and values in generating a fuller sensory experience and appreciation before, during and after "musing" on the artwork. These personal dynamics help us get the most out of art, but we have not created the work itself.


We have merely translated it for ourselves this instance and next time it will be processed somewhat differently as we ourselves grow and change in time.


So what you say, that "artist make work - readers make art" is not an accepted definition, rather an assertion by a few people. I must admit I like the thrust of your claim, although it's generally not applicable to most art. I can, however, some trace of the "sense" of what you are claiming just in "found" art, but that's the extent of it.


Asher

here is something that may be of interest