Hirst version available too

The internet can be so cruel.

Eh I hav never said MW is in Banksy's class. I have also said I don't collect his work although I have an early eternal reflection. I don't support plagiarism but do accept that most stencil artists don't create the original source of their stencils.  
I'm just trying to work out how you judge appropriating an image. What are the rules with the exception of copyright. Or does it depend on which artists you believe should be in the same sentence? Cause I and not sure that's good reasoning.
Also does creating a conversation make a good enough technical difference. I don't think so

eg Is Wharhol's Mao not a good piece of Art pretty sure it was in your art history books? He just took the standard pic of Mao used by the Chinese made it diff colors and whacked a few squiggles on it.
so as you have studied so much art history can you tell me how you differentiate and the process technically.

Now I obviously am not as clever as you and have never read art history so may be you can explain technically the difference for us un educated members.

ps. Although I'm uneducated in art history.....I am gonna go out on a limb here and work on the assumption that Mao did not pose for either the photo or a painting to create the screen. But sure you will be able to correct me. Picked these pics up in Art History for Dummies which I assume you have read.



i1142.photobucket.com/albums/n617/johnnyh2/6c7807f20c519436a6a58c3d8581ad96.jpg

I'm struggling here and it needs a clever person like you to help???

Recognize this from anywhere??




So it's not that uncommon a practice in stencil art. In neither of the above pieces do Warhol or Banksy add more to the piece than Whatson did or didn't technically so please as mentioned explain the difference.

Sent from my iPad

Many things come into play.
One is what the artist has done before. If you are an established, respected artist who has triumphed before, you get leeway.
Another is what else you do. If besides knocking off pictures you are also witty, are a good ilustrator, have a mastery of color, etc, you get leeway.
Another is the message. Are you saying something by doing that apropiation? This has been discussed.
Related to the last one is something like Irony. I find the Warhol image beautifully ironic for instance.
I think there's a reason why flags is one of Banksy's least popular images. I personally still like it, however. I like it because for me it's visually appealing and because it's Banksy (nothing wrong with this).

Warhol takes one of the most terrifying rulers in history and paints him pink. Everybody in China had that simple picture of Mao on the wall out of tremendous respect or tremendous necessity and Warhol comes around and now people halfaway around the world are fighting and spending big bucks for this same "priviledge"; for opposite reasons (interesting discussion about the nature of capitalism, democracy, and communism). One of the most reproduced pictures on earth, the world has had it up to "here" with it but Warhol reproduces it yet again. The list goes on, but a good book on Pop-art would give a better answer.


Are the tags on the Whatson print beautiful and or special?
Is there a message behind "En Pointe"?
Does his body of work contain an intelectual, historical, social etc, discourse?
Is he collected?
Is he admired by and influences his peers?
Maybe. I really don't know. This questions I just ask, don't answer.

Thats a pretty good point, Warhols work was about taking icons and images that were instantly recognisable and tweeking them, very clever, all the hard work of creating an image people want and can relate to was already done. Martins doing something similar(not putting him up there with warhol), taking a very commercial subject matter, the ballerina (1000's of artists use) and adding tagging which is currently very much in vogue so its going to be a good seller, its very commercial, i dont see the point in tagging a tutu but it will be popular and he can carry on doing what he wants to do for a living, art. In the fine art world stealing other artists styles and even images(changing them slightly) is common place, as soon as an artist starts to do well they invariably come to the attention of other artists and then the half dozen variant artists come along. 
I dont follow his work but ive always liked the eternal reflection one, why is a butterfly in outer space? Nobody cares, everyones fascinated with the moon walking and everyone loves butterflys

I am saying that Warhol's Mao is ok because it is ironic (I might be wrong), because it is pleasing, because it fits inside Warhol's Aesthetic, inside Warhol's theoretic costruct, and because it is Warhol and all that that entails.  Is Warhol just a pretty picture or is there something else behind it?  What do you think? (This is not a rhetoric question).

Banksy putting a flag on top, is not enough, this is why I said I think it's not a popular image, it is subpar. But at the end of the day it is a Banksy, and has Banksy's typical elements, and it's pretty.

Does MW tag's have meaning? It  doesn't have to, but if it does, then that's a point in his favor.

I have given reasons (wrong or not?) for why Flags and Mao are ok.  What are MW's reasons? I'm not saying he does't have any.  I just want to know what you think they are.  I would rather prop up MW than knock down Banksy or Warhol.  And I have an open mind.

Finally: You cannot forget who each artist is.  The artist is part of the equation.

You don't see a difference between Warhol taking a 'popular image' and whatson taking a 'unknown artists work'?

I would imagine about £350 check Curry's website for a base quote then shop around

note iPads crap in the rain but Macs very useful!!!!

PS  If you want an MW one I can get you one in China???

they really make a distinction between college and university students in the UK? not here

someone quickly change the thread title

OK... art history lesson...

Andy Warhol's thing is to mass produce popular images. That's his concept and how he gets away with it. His studio was called the Factory because he didn't want it to be an emotional process. It had to be mass produced. So taking images of celebrities (including Mao) and creating art with them is part of his whole idea... Also, a lot of the celebrity photographs he did actually take himself!

Banksy takes images and by adding other things to the scene, or changing the context, makes a statement... or sometimes just makes a silly joke. But he's used a particular image for a reason... to tell the story he wants to tell... not the same story as the original image. (Yeah, and some are dubious... but most aren't)

These are both very different from taking a nice photograph, and adding paint splats or tags or other decoration for purely aesthetic reasons...

I think Whatson probably does think he has a strong enough reason... that he's vandalising these pretty things... but I'm not sure it's that great a concept!

Ha ha do agree their Happy I am not sure it's a great concept either. But it appears it is his concept. Which although not my cup of tea I don't see it is that different to others concepts other than its a different concept.