Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Deleted on Nov 12, 2014 17:45:42 GMT 1, Probably because Hirst sold to very rich people and Whatson sells to people who save up and buy for pleasure and investment?
Maybe also it's seen as lazy to just take an image and not change it before doing something with it.
Banksy girl with tinnitus took a well known but out of copyright painting and put it on a wall.
I was never a fan of Warhols to begin with but could see his point about the fifteen minutes of fame and getting publicity from what he took as standard images and objects and put them in a gallery or show and then say they are art.
Hence i'm not a big fan of screenprints made from photographic images.
The image might be fun and quirky and it's in the realm of commercial art to me?
I don't see why any artist who uses an image from whatver source doesn't change the image as in re drawing it or re making it, change the pose and other details and use an image as a basis but create something unique from that?
It seems to come down to marketing and selling skills more than artistic skills for some.
Maybe might have been just as effective if he stencilled Van Goghs portrait with the bandaged ear using the alarm too?
Probably because Hirst sold to very rich people and Whatson sells to people who save up and buy for pleasure and investment?
Maybe also it's seen as lazy to just take an image and not change it before doing something with it.
Banksy girl with tinnitus took a well known but out of copyright painting and put it on a wall.
I was never a fan of Warhols to begin with but could see his point about the fifteen minutes of fame and getting publicity from what he took as standard images and objects and put them in a gallery or show and then say they are art.
Hence i'm not a big fan of screenprints made from photographic images.
The image might be fun and quirky and it's in the realm of commercial art to me?
I don't see why any artist who uses an image from whatver source doesn't change the image as in re drawing it or re making it, change the pose and other details and use an image as a basis but create something unique from that?
It seems to come down to marketing and selling skills more than artistic skills for some.
Maybe might have been just as effective if he stencilled Van Goghs portrait with the bandaged ear using the alarm too?
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Deleted on Nov 12, 2014 17:46:30 GMT 1, My mac mini has died, I need an ipad (3 I think?, thats ipad 3 not 3 ipads). I borrowed a pc and hate it. How much?. is there a refurb section on the UK apple site? usually find good deals and the warranty etc is all in tact. I can do a deal on a second hand Amstrad if you want.
With sugar on top.
My mac mini has died, I need an ipad (3 I think?, thats ipad 3 not 3 ipads). I borrowed a pc and hate it. How much?. is there a refurb section on the UK apple site? usually find good deals and the warranty etc is all in tact. I can do a deal on a second hand Amstrad if you want.
With sugar on top.
|
|
tab1
Full Member
๐จ๏ธ 8,519
๐๐ป 3,679
September 2011
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by tab1 on Nov 12, 2014 17:56:42 GMT 1,
No Internet back then ;-)
No Internet back then ;-) |
|
mojo
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,185
๐๐ป 3,710
May 2014
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by mojo on Nov 12, 2014 17:57:43 GMT 1, My mac mini has died, I need an ipad (3 I think?, thats ipad 3 not 3 ipads). I borrowed a pc and hate it. How much?.
My mac mini has died, I need an ipad (3 I think?, thats ipad 3 not 3 ipads). I borrowed a pc and hate it. How much?. I was recommended these www.macfixcentre.com they're excellent and offer 12 months guarantee too |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Deleted on Nov 12, 2014 18:09:05 GMT 1, @elviswarhol Perhaps my favorite piece on Hirst.
@elviswarhol Perhaps my favorite piece on Hirst.
|
|
dreadnatty
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 5,431
๐๐ป 6,992
February 2013
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by dreadnatty on Nov 12, 2014 18:18:49 GMT 1, @elviswarhol Perhaps my favorite piece on Hirst.
@elviswarhol Perhaps my favorite piece on Hirst. Hennessey Youngman LMAO!!! That name is brilliant. |
|
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Deleted on Nov 12, 2014 22:41:56 GMT 1, is there a refurb section on the UK apple site? usually find good deals and the warranty etc is all in tact. I can do a deal on a second hand Amstrad if you want.
With sugar on top.
No.
is there a refurb section on the UK apple site? usually find good deals and the warranty etc is all in tact. I can do a deal on a second hand Amstrad if you want.
With sugar on top.
I see what you did there. No. |
|
|
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Rouen Cathedral on Nov 13, 2014 1:01:27 GMT 1, Warhol took pop images or images of celebrities. And in doing so created a style with a concept.
Whatson is taking a painting and making that exact painting with something on top.
Totally different.
What's next jasper johns should be included too cause he stole the American flag, a target (bullseye) or a map of the usa? Lol
Warhol took pop images or images of celebrities. And in doing so created a style with a concept.
Whatson is taking a painting and making that exact painting with something on top.
Totally different.
What's next jasper johns should be included too cause he stole the American flag, a target (bullseye) or a map of the usa? Lol
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Deleted on Nov 13, 2014 1:06:03 GMT 1, What was a rather simplistic and rather facile discussion about legislation, has morphed into a deeper discussion about The creation of work - the thinking or lack of behind it.
In a nutshell conceptually whatson's work stumbles somewhat, once it's given a moments thought.
What was a rather simplistic and rather facile discussion about legislation, has morphed into a deeper discussion about The creation of work - the thinking or lack of behind it.
In a nutshell conceptually whatson's work stumbles somewhat, once it's given a moments thought.
|
|
Pipes
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,438
๐๐ป 2,883
January 2012
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Pipes on Nov 13, 2014 4:24:46 GMT 1, Seems appropriate to mention this exhibition:
www.moma.org/visit/calendar/exhibitions/1497
Sturtevant (American, 1924โ2014) began โrepeatingโ the works of her contemporaries in 1964.
|
|
Fairxat
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 464
๐๐ป 127
May 2013
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Fairxat on Nov 13, 2014 13:38:41 GMT 1, www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-30033747
now that's where rycas hansolo idea comes from..
all artists borrow ideas from past and present ,
some aratists are guided by their mentors / gallerists and only look for quick gains not the future of the artist
www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-30033747
now that's where rycas hansolo idea comes from..
all artists borrow ideas from past and present ,
some aratists are guided by their mentors / gallerists and only look for quick gains not the future of the artist |
|
Poesia
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 114
๐๐ป 163
July 2013
|
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Deleted on Nov 13, 2014 15:29:32 GMT 1, Makes me wonder which will be viewed as a more criminal in the future, appropriation or graffiti?
Makes me wonder which will be viewed as a more criminal in the future, appropriation or graffiti? |
|
Hairbland
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,946
๐๐ป 2,740
November 2010
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Hairbland on Nov 13, 2014 16:08:24 GMT 1, We get this. Wiki definition of appropriation.
Taking current lesser known artists' work and adding a few things to it is not appropriation, it is stealing.
Appropriation requires context. There is none regarding En Pointe. A cute print that would have looked nice as a $20 poster in a girl's bedroom turns out to be based on a nice painting that as a $20 poster would look good in a girl's bedroom.
And IMO there is nothing "Street Art" about swiping a ballerina image and making it a cute poster. This "there's no rules in street art" is a joke.
This thread has had some great thoughts once one moves past the Whatson Sucks! No He Doesn't, Banksy Does! and the misguided assumptions that all artists do this.
We get this. Wiki definition of appropriation. Taking current lesser known artists' work and adding a few things to it is not appropriation, it is stealing. Appropriation requires context. There is none regarding En Pointe. A cute print that would have looked nice as a $20 poster in a girl's bedroom turns out to be based on a nice painting that as a $20 poster would look good in a girl's bedroom.
And IMO there is nothing "Street Art" about swiping a ballerina image and making it a cute poster. This "there's no rules in street art" is a joke. This thread has had some great thoughts once one moves past the Whatson Sucks! No He Doesn't, Banksy Does! and the misguided assumptions that all artists do this. |
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by graffuturism on Nov 13, 2014 16:28:07 GMT 1, We get this. Wiki definition of appropriation. Taking current lesser known artists' work and adding a few things to it is not appropriation, it is stealing. Appropriation requires context. There is none regarding En Pointe. A cute print that would have looked nice as a $20 poster in a girl's bedroom turns out to be based on a nice painting that as a $20 poster would look good in a girl's bedroom.
And IMO there is nothing "Street Art" about swiping a ballerina image and making it a cute poster. This "there's no rules in street art" is a joke. This thread has had some great thoughts once one moves past the Whatson Sucks! No He Doesn't, Banksy Does! and the misguided assumptions that all artists do this.
I think looking at appropriation or copyright is only one part of the equation, you have to ask secondary questions such as intent and if the image will be used for reproductions or merchandise which a Print or Poster could be but as a work of art that article is very clear on the basics. Artists are sued all the time for taking photographers images much like the whatson reference but in the end its always about the financial gain of suing someone. If someone made a million prints then financially it might be worth paying attorney fees to sue someone and you could have a case due to the profiting off an image and reproducing it. Yet its no gurantee you will win and you possibly could lose alot of attorney fees so weighing the financial gain is key in a case like this.
In a case where an artist made a painting off an image and its an original work of art it could be worth thousands but its one work of art not reproduced and not that famous of an image then what would be the financial reason to sue. Also this would seem to be a shakier argument as the artists intent was more inline with appropriating an image to create a work of art.
There is no clear cut answer and in the end if the photographer wants to sue they can but at their own cost of financial loss or gain. The law is going to move along many factors like mentioned above, even if its blatant infringement if its not worth suing its probably going to be looked past.
We get this. Wiki definition of appropriation. Taking current lesser known artists' work and adding a few things to it is not appropriation, it is stealing. Appropriation requires context. There is none regarding En Pointe. A cute print that would have looked nice as a $20 poster in a girl's bedroom turns out to be based on a nice painting that as a $20 poster would look good in a girl's bedroom.
And IMO there is nothing "Street Art" about swiping a ballerina image and making it a cute poster. This "there's no rules in street art" is a joke. This thread has had some great thoughts once one moves past the Whatson Sucks! No He Doesn't, Banksy Does! and the misguided assumptions that all artists do this. I dont think people do get that Wiki version of Appropriation when it is concerned with art due to the amount of comments that makes generalizations and arguments not based on the simple facts and insight that wiki article that comes up on google gives. Not saying you dont but there is alot of conjecture but not much else. I think looking at appropriation or copyright is only one part of the equation, you have to ask secondary questions such as intent and if the image will be used for reproductions or merchandise which a Print or Poster could be but as a work of art that article is very clear on the basics. Artists are sued all the time for taking photographers images much like the whatson reference but in the end its always about the financial gain of suing someone. If someone made a million prints then financially it might be worth paying attorney fees to sue someone and you could have a case due to the profiting off an image and reproducing it. Yet its no gurantee you will win and you possibly could lose alot of attorney fees so weighing the financial gain is key in a case like this. In a case where an artist made a painting off an image and its an original work of art it could be worth thousands but its one work of art not reproduced and not that famous of an image then what would be the financial reason to sue. Also this would seem to be a shakier argument as the artists intent was more inline with appropriating an image to create a work of art. There is no clear cut answer and in the end if the photographer wants to sue they can but at their own cost of financial loss or gain. The law is going to move along many factors like mentioned above, even if its blatant infringement if its not worth suing its probably going to be looked past. |
|
Hairbland
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,946
๐๐ป 2,740
November 2010
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Hairbland on Nov 13, 2014 17:56:46 GMT 1, We get this. Wiki definition of appropriation. Taking current lesser known artists' work and adding a few things to it is not appropriation, it is stealing. Appropriation requires context. There is none regarding En Pointe. A cute print that would have looked nice as a $20 poster in a girl's bedroom turns out to be based on a nice painting that as a $20 poster would look good in a girl's bedroom.
And IMO there is nothing "Street Art" about swiping a ballerina image and making it a cute poster. This "there's no rules in street art" is a joke. This thread has had some great thoughts once one moves past the Whatson Sucks! No He Doesn't, Banksy Does! and the misguided assumptions that all artists do this. I dont think people do get that Wiki version of Appropriation when it is concerned with art due to the amount of comments that makes generalizations and arguments not based on the simple facts and insight that wiki article that comes up on google gives. Not saying you dont but there is alot of conjecture but not much else. I think looking at appropriation or copyright is only one part of the equation, you have to ask secondary questions such as intent and if the image will be used for reproductions or merchandise which a Print or Poster could be but as a work of art that article is very clear on the basics. Artists are sued all the time for taking photographers images much like the whatson reference but in the end its always about the financial gain of suing someone. If someone made a million prints then financially it might be worth paying attorney fees to sue someone and you could have a case due to the profiting off an image and reproducing it. Yet its no gurantee you will win and you possibly could lose alot of attorney fees so weighing the financial gain is key in a case like this. In a case where an artist made a painting off an image and its an original work of art it could be worth thousands but its one work of art not reproduced and not that famous of an image then what would be the financial reason to sue. Also this would seem to be a shakier argument as the artists intent was more inline with appropriating an image to create a work of art. There is no clear cut answer and in the end if the photographer wants to sue they can but at their own cost of financial loss or gain. The law is going to move along many factors like mentioned above, even if its blatant infringement if its not worth suing its probably going to be looked past.
As others have pointed out that much of the work looks like Ikea/Urban Outfitter prints, a good comparison might be...if Urban Outfitter had designers sorting through artist websites for images of original work, then tweaking them without permission on their computers to be used on tshirts and dorm room posters what would the response be? From what I've seen every time they get caught there's a social media storm.
We get this. Wiki definition of appropriation. Taking current lesser known artists' work and adding a few things to it is not appropriation, it is stealing. Appropriation requires context. There is none regarding En Pointe. A cute print that would have looked nice as a $20 poster in a girl's bedroom turns out to be based on a nice painting that as a $20 poster would look good in a girl's bedroom.
And IMO there is nothing "Street Art" about swiping a ballerina image and making it a cute poster. This "there's no rules in street art" is a joke. This thread has had some great thoughts once one moves past the Whatson Sucks! No He Doesn't, Banksy Does! and the misguided assumptions that all artists do this. I dont think people do get that Wiki version of Appropriation when it is concerned with art due to the amount of comments that makes generalizations and arguments not based on the simple facts and insight that wiki article that comes up on google gives. Not saying you dont but there is alot of conjecture but not much else. I think looking at appropriation or copyright is only one part of the equation, you have to ask secondary questions such as intent and if the image will be used for reproductions or merchandise which a Print or Poster could be but as a work of art that article is very clear on the basics. Artists are sued all the time for taking photographers images much like the whatson reference but in the end its always about the financial gain of suing someone. If someone made a million prints then financially it might be worth paying attorney fees to sue someone and you could have a case due to the profiting off an image and reproducing it. Yet its no gurantee you will win and you possibly could lose alot of attorney fees so weighing the financial gain is key in a case like this. In a case where an artist made a painting off an image and its an original work of art it could be worth thousands but its one work of art not reproduced and not that famous of an image then what would be the financial reason to sue. Also this would seem to be a shakier argument as the artists intent was more inline with appropriating an image to create a work of art. There is no clear cut answer and in the end if the photographer wants to sue they can but at their own cost of financial loss or gain. The law is going to move along many factors like mentioned above, even if its blatant infringement if its not worth suing its probably going to be looked past. Yes all good points. Recently artists have found their original art stolen off Etsy or Artsy by clothing retailers such as Urban Outfitters, Abercrombie and others, and when caught have pulled it, apologized and made amends. I would liken the current discussion to this. As others have pointed out that much of the work looks like Ikea/Urban Outfitter prints, a good comparison might be...if Urban Outfitter had designers sorting through artist websites for images of original work, then tweaking them without permission on their computers to be used on tshirts and dorm room posters what would the response be? From what I've seen every time they get caught there's a social media storm. |
|
iamzero
Full Member
๐จ๏ธ 9,190
๐๐ป 8,545
May 2011
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by iamzero on Nov 13, 2014 18:10:58 GMT 1, I've stood in front of one of those Warhol Elvis prints last year. Amazing up close but not sure I'd stretch to $90 million.
I've stood in front of one of those Warhol Elvis prints last year. Amazing up close but not sure I'd stretch to $90 million.
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Deleted on Nov 13, 2014 18:12:30 GMT 1, Looking at that fucking dancer print ever time I log into this fourm is doing my fucking head in. If I didnt like it before, I fucking hate it now
that is all
Looking at that fucking dancer print ever time I log into this fourm is doing my fucking head in. If I didnt like it before, I fucking hate it now
that is all
|
|
Fairxat
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 464
๐๐ป 127
May 2013
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Fairxat on Nov 13, 2014 19:17:12 GMT 1, Eventually the questioning will make it into bigger circles than here on the forum and guys will question all past work now.
Some do buy as an investment or to make a bit on release can see this shying away now, read eb forum people buy this guys releases purely to flip , then again re editing editions to re release puts people off .so much changes in a year ,
Hope it works out well for all involved ..
Who's hot now ? Dot dot dot
Eventually the questioning will make it into bigger circles than here on the forum and guys will question all past work now.
Some do buy as an investment or to make a bit on release can see this shying away now, read eb forum people buy this guys releases purely to flip , then again re editing editions to re release puts people off .so much changes in a year ,
Hope it works out well for all involved ..
Who's hot now ? Dot dot dot
|
|
Fะฏ
Full Member
๐จ๏ธ 8,264
๐๐ป 9,252
May 2013
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Fะฏ on Nov 13, 2014 19:19:06 GMT 1, Is this thread still going and any way to block this from appearing on recent threads.
It is getting boring to read and not going anywhere.
Is this thread still going and any way to block this from appearing on recent threads.
It is getting boring to read and not going anywhere.
|
|
iamzero
Full Member
๐จ๏ธ 9,190
๐๐ป 8,545
May 2011
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by iamzero on Nov 13, 2014 19:21:12 GMT 1, I like the climber one with all the tagging... It makes sense. But the ballerina... Not for me. Looks like the usual suspects have the latest release up on eBay.
I like the climber one with all the tagging... It makes sense. But the ballerina... Not for me. Looks like the usual suspects have the latest release up on eBay.
|
|
opalis141
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 182
๐๐ป 113
April 2014
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by opalis141 on Nov 13, 2014 19:25:54 GMT 1, Ok I have read through most of this thread and I hope I am not repeating too much of what was said here:
So legally, in the U.S. at least, Whatson would most likely be ok when it comes to copyright infringement following the precedent of the Cariou v. Prince case 2013 appeal ruling. Under the ruling, Prince's minimal manipulations of Cariou's work were considered enough under the "transformation of meaning" clause in copyright law to not be considered infringement. Whatson's transformation of Young's work here would most likely be more than enough to be considered "transformation of meaning" in a court, in the U.S. (I realize this case would most likely be in the U.K).
That said, legal and ethical are two different things. A while ago I found out that some of the images I had used as references in my artwork were not actually fair-use as I had originally been led to believe. Even though I significantly altered the images, and would have been fine under copyright law, becuase they were based on other artists' work I decided to take them down off of my site and not show them in galleries any more (I also got the images removed from what websites, other than my own, that I could). I now only use royalty-free images from one, very trusted, database as references for my work (using live models would be cost-prohibitive and also potentially dangerous) and change the images pretty significantly. I think it is something a lot of artists probably struggle with and is an incredibly complicated subject when it comes to visual art.
Ok I have read through most of this thread and I hope I am not repeating too much of what was said here:
So legally, in the U.S. at least, Whatson would most likely be ok when it comes to copyright infringement following the precedent of the Cariou v. Prince case 2013 appeal ruling. Under the ruling, Prince's minimal manipulations of Cariou's work were considered enough under the "transformation of meaning" clause in copyright law to not be considered infringement. Whatson's transformation of Young's work here would most likely be more than enough to be considered "transformation of meaning" in a court, in the U.S. (I realize this case would most likely be in the U.K).
That said, legal and ethical are two different things. A while ago I found out that some of the images I had used as references in my artwork were not actually fair-use as I had originally been led to believe. Even though I significantly altered the images, and would have been fine under copyright law, becuase they were based on other artists' work I decided to take them down off of my site and not show them in galleries any more (I also got the images removed from what websites, other than my own, that I could). I now only use royalty-free images from one, very trusted, database as references for my work (using live models would be cost-prohibitive and also potentially dangerous) and change the images pretty significantly. I think it is something a lot of artists probably struggle with and is an incredibly complicated subject when it comes to visual art.
|
|
|
|
|
|
samfrost
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 787
๐๐ป 530
June 2014
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by samfrost on Nov 13, 2014 19:36:44 GMT 1, Ok I have read through most of this thread and I hope I am not repeating too much of what was said here: So legally, in the U.S. at least, Whatson would most likely be ok when it comes to copyright infringement following the precedent of the Cariou v. Prince case 2013 appeal ruling. Under the ruling, Prince's minimal manipulations of Cariou's work were considered enough under the "transformation of meaning" clause in copyright law to not be considered infringement. Whatson's transformation of Young's work here would most likely be more than enough to be considered "transformation of meaning" in a court, in the U.S. (I realize this case would most likely be in the U.K). That said, legal and ethical are two different things. A while ago I found out that some of the images I had used as references in my artwork were not actually fair-use as I had originally been led to believe. Even though I significantly altered the images, and would have been fine under copyright law, becuase they were based on other artists' work I decided to take them down off of my site and not show them in galleries any more (I also got the images removed from what websites, other than my own, that I could). I now only use royalty-free images from one, very trusted, database as references for my work (using live models would be cost-prohibitive and also potentially dangerous) and change the images pretty significantly. I think it is something a lot of artists probably struggle with and is an incredibly complicated subject when it comes to visual art.
The larger issue is that you have an "artist" who is lacking serious, inspired works. MW has profiteered nicely largely on the creativity of others, but this appears to be ending. There are a lot of good, hardworking folks on this forum and I hate to see good money thrown after bad art (and yes a large portion of artists on these boards will be forgotten a decade from now). Again, I frankly don't care about how "nice" of a person MW might be, I just hate seeing so many get swept up in the hype of each release.
Ok I have read through most of this thread and I hope I am not repeating too much of what was said here: So legally, in the U.S. at least, Whatson would most likely be ok when it comes to copyright infringement following the precedent of the Cariou v. Prince case 2013 appeal ruling. Under the ruling, Prince's minimal manipulations of Cariou's work were considered enough under the "transformation of meaning" clause in copyright law to not be considered infringement. Whatson's transformation of Young's work here would most likely be more than enough to be considered "transformation of meaning" in a court, in the U.S. (I realize this case would most likely be in the U.K). That said, legal and ethical are two different things. A while ago I found out that some of the images I had used as references in my artwork were not actually fair-use as I had originally been led to believe. Even though I significantly altered the images, and would have been fine under copyright law, becuase they were based on other artists' work I decided to take them down off of my site and not show them in galleries any more (I also got the images removed from what websites, other than my own, that I could). I now only use royalty-free images from one, very trusted, database as references for my work (using live models would be cost-prohibitive and also potentially dangerous) and change the images pretty significantly. I think it is something a lot of artists probably struggle with and is an incredibly complicated subject when it comes to visual art. My issue isn't so much the legality of whether or not MW is infringing on someone's work, but rather criticism of his work itself. I have failed to see what is so earth-shattering or mind-blowing about a few colorful lines and squiggles?!? The fact that we are having this dialogue about whether or not it's legal/not is totally aside from the point. The larger issue is that you have an "artist" who is lacking serious, inspired works. MW has profiteered nicely largely on the creativity of others, but this appears to be ending. There are a lot of good, hardworking folks on this forum and I hate to see good money thrown after bad art (and yes a large portion of artists on these boards will be forgotten a decade from now). Again, I frankly don't care about how "nice" of a person MW might be, I just hate seeing so many get swept up in the hype of each release. |
|
opalis141
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 182
๐๐ป 113
April 2014
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by opalis141 on Nov 13, 2014 19:41:48 GMT 1, Ok I have read through most of this thread and I hope I am not repeating too much of what was said here: So legally, in the U.S. at least, Whatson would most likely be ok when it comes to copyright infringement following the precedent of the Cariou v. Prince case 2013 appeal ruling. Under the ruling, Prince's minimal manipulations of Cariou's work were considered enough under the "transformation of meaning" clause in copyright law to not be considered infringement. Whatson's transformation of Young's work here would most likely be more than enough to be considered "transformation of meaning" in a court, in the U.S. (I realize this case would most likely be in the U.K). That said, legal and ethical are two different things. A while ago I found out that some of the images I had used as references in my artwork were not actually fair-use as I had originally been led to believe. Even though I significantly altered the images, and would have been fine under copyright law, becuase they were based on other artists' work I decided to take them down off of my site and not show them in galleries any more (I also got the images removed from what websites, other than my own, that I could). I now only use royalty-free images from one, very trusted, database as references for my work (using live models would be cost-prohibitive and also potentially dangerous) and change the images pretty significantly. I think it is something a lot of artists probably struggle with and is an incredibly complicated subject when it comes to visual art. My issue isn't so much the legality of whether or not MW is infringing on someone's work, but rather criticism of his work itself. I have failed to see what is so earth-shattering or mind-blowing about a few colorful lines and squiggles?!? The fact that we are having this dialogue about whether or not it's legal/not is totally aside from the point. The larger issue is that you have an "artist" who is lacking serious, inspired works. MW has profiteered nicely largely on the creativity of others, but this appears to be ending. There are a lot of good, hardworking folks on this forum and I hate to see good money thrown after bad art (and yes a large portion of artists on these boards will be forgotten a decade from now). Again, I frankly don't care about how "nice" of a person MW might be, I just hate seeing so many get swept up in the hype of each release.
That said, I am not really a fan of what I have seen of MW's work, and to be honest, I am not that familiar with his oeuvre because the one or two pieces I have seen have not made me want to explore it further. I welcome criticism of the work itself, but is seemed like a good portion of the debate here was about appropriation/infringement and I was specifically addressing that. I don't feel like I have the appropriate knowledge to critique his work from an art historical standpoint becuase I am just not that familiar with his body of work, so I can't speak to a piece of his contextually.
Ok I have read through most of this thread and I hope I am not repeating too much of what was said here: So legally, in the U.S. at least, Whatson would most likely be ok when it comes to copyright infringement following the precedent of the Cariou v. Prince case 2013 appeal ruling. Under the ruling, Prince's minimal manipulations of Cariou's work were considered enough under the "transformation of meaning" clause in copyright law to not be considered infringement. Whatson's transformation of Young's work here would most likely be more than enough to be considered "transformation of meaning" in a court, in the U.S. (I realize this case would most likely be in the U.K). That said, legal and ethical are two different things. A while ago I found out that some of the images I had used as references in my artwork were not actually fair-use as I had originally been led to believe. Even though I significantly altered the images, and would have been fine under copyright law, becuase they were based on other artists' work I decided to take them down off of my site and not show them in galleries any more (I also got the images removed from what websites, other than my own, that I could). I now only use royalty-free images from one, very trusted, database as references for my work (using live models would be cost-prohibitive and also potentially dangerous) and change the images pretty significantly. I think it is something a lot of artists probably struggle with and is an incredibly complicated subject when it comes to visual art. My issue isn't so much the legality of whether or not MW is infringing on someone's work, but rather criticism of his work itself. I have failed to see what is so earth-shattering or mind-blowing about a few colorful lines and squiggles?!? The fact that we are having this dialogue about whether or not it's legal/not is totally aside from the point. The larger issue is that you have an "artist" who is lacking serious, inspired works. MW has profiteered nicely largely on the creativity of others, but this appears to be ending. There are a lot of good, hardworking folks on this forum and I hate to see good money thrown after bad art (and yes a large portion of artists on these boards will be forgotten a decade from now). Again, I frankly don't care about how "nice" of a person MW might be, I just hate seeing so many get swept up in the hype of each release. I think that is what I was trying to point to--that there is a difference between legal and ethical, both of which are interesting discussions (to me at least). I was trying to add to the conversation on both ends. That said, I am not really a fan of what I have seen of MW's work, and to be honest, I am not that familiar with his oeuvre because the one or two pieces I have seen have not made me want to explore it further. I welcome criticism of the work itself, but is seemed like a good portion of the debate here was about appropriation/infringement and I was specifically addressing that. I don't feel like I have the appropriate knowledge to critique his work from an art historical standpoint becuase I am just not that familiar with his body of work, so I can't speak to a piece of his contextually. |
|
Dr Plip
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 7,043
๐๐ป 8,981
August 2011
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Dr Plip on Nov 13, 2014 19:42:52 GMT 1, This thread is soul destroying.
This thread is soul destroying. |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Deleted on Nov 13, 2014 19:46:32 GMT 1, This thread is soul destroying.
This thread is soul destroying. I literally cant read it any more, hurts my head |
|
dreadnatty
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 5,431
๐๐ป 6,992
February 2013
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by dreadnatty on Nov 13, 2014 20:12:37 GMT 1, This thread is soul destroying. I literally cant read it any more, hurts my head
This thread is soul destroying. I literally cant read it any more, hurts my head We need a 'block thread' button !!!! |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Deleted on Nov 13, 2014 20:41:10 GMT 1, 
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Martin Whatson En Pointe Print Release, by Deleted on Nov 13, 2014 22:24:51 GMT 1, Too many people scared to think and we wonder why the establishment get away with so much,
Too many people scared to think and we wonder why the establishment get away with so much,
|
|
