Mark,
What an interesting but unsettling subject! Sure this catches out attention as surrealistic art. However, it's based on theft of other folks work.
The appropriation artist's claim a surfeit of images makes ownership non-functional and the creating of new captures unnecessary. So they feel free to take copyrighted work and change it for themselves or just sign it as is with no other alterations and now copyright it as their own!
To me it's rude at a minimum. Here, the erasure of parts of someone else's art is audacious but but morally wrong when the new work doesn't have to pay any licensing fee for use of the original.
Working like that is really banditry!
Asher
Asher,
I find it interesting and kind of agree with this way of working. If i had an idea that I wanted to explore and though that utilising someone else work would help me achieve what I wanted then I would do it.
The issue that is @ the heart of the article for me is - images made in the main by the establishment artist / photographers - tend towards the conservative / modernist ideology and therefore are fair game - because that ideology is in its self immoral and using the images from it can critique the ideology.
just a thought
Mark,
That's a simple but enlightening line of thought!
Wow, appropriation art is now noble!!!
Your assertions do make some sense. What you're proposing are the kind of almost unlimited rights to photograph public figures in the USA, even when they so, "Stop!". After all, they have placed themselves, out in the open, "above everyone else", for public scrutiny. These are the politicians, "personalities" or other famous folk in the limelight. The doctrine assumes that all, (willingly or unwillingly), forfeited rights to privacy.
So, there's a precedent for that way of thinking. Then Mishka, by self-publishing, is making some social-political or editorial comment, one might claim.
However, when Prince usurps someone else's art and merely signs it as a new work of art, pegging megabucks, that seems preposterous. But then, what about photographing a sunset and claiming it as one's own art? Isn't that preposterous too?
Asher
it's based on theft of other folks work.
I wonder what those people are thinking who know nothing about the origin of the photos?
Go Mishka!
Cheers
Tom
that is a hard question man.... you could test it of course... print oot the two books and show people the images and record their reactions...... you would need a control off course !
also video it as a performance piece - asher can write a statement ... i went to GSA - fukk we could have a turner prize in a year - we need a title.......
Geez, Mark, go lay down. I just asked the question. I didn't expect a Project. On second thought, do you think we could get a grant for it? I bags you write the statement. I can never understand what Asher says.
How's this for a title:
'A continuous study in the general understanding of the public on the rantings of the Arty Farty as they continue to gaze into their collective navels.'
I wish someone would steal one of my pictures and alter it for their own ends.
That's not my indignation, Jerome, that's Shanon's and I would n't mix with her in a fit.
It isn't your picture?
And what are you up to Mark? Fart arsing about again? Didn't work from this end. Have another go.
Tom
Tom - its a text based offering - Derived by or designating the process of reasoning from facts or particulars to general principles or from effects to causes; inductive; empirical.
2.
a. Justified by appeal to experience.
b. Knowable from experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Medieval Latin : Latin a, from + Latin posterior, ablative of posterior, later.].
I find its rhythm reminiscent of James Joyce at his best and the brutal red has shades of apocalypse now for me.
sorry it didn't work for you. i think I may leave this area of exploration for while.
thanks for asking for more !