|
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Mirus Gallery Poesia on Mar 24, 2015 4:25:03 GMT 1, Pro176 used image after image taken directly from Michael Mykola Haleta's website of archived collages that were completed 2001-2015.. futuristictexturesfromthefuture.blogspot.com/?m=1This was not a case of one time appropriation of a stumbled across image on found on Google. This is more like artistic identity theft. Image after image stolen, photoshopped, twisted, price tag.. Passed on by Pro176 as his own work which was offered for sale on this forum.. I have collected originals from Michael for years and almost spit coffee through my nose when I saw a picture of Pro176 standing in front of a blown up twisty version of Haleta's work. At least Pro176 has admitted his lifting of Michael's collage work to his gallerist and said he would stop offering Haleta's work for sale. Thank you for a sensible conversation Poesia..
If it is ok to take the Color, texture of ink drawings, overall aesthetic and parts of the artists composition then cutting it up and putting it together in a different way but not changing the Color, the inking, the overall aesthetic then its tough to find where Michael holds any ownership to the work other than composition. The original artist is still more prevalent in the original collages than the collages are and You can argue that Michael didnt add much in way of aesthetic to the conversation. You then take Pro who comes along and is already deconstructing and abstracting comic images then he takes an already composed collage then abstracts it even more. He adds to a larger conversation that was already in play. I appreciate the fact that Pro handpaints these images with great accuracy adding a layer of rendering that isnt accomplished in the original works on paper or the collage work. Its just my opinion and I am open to debate on it, and I can show examples of Pro's earlier and more recent work that has nothing to do with Michaels collage work. Yet it holds the same aesthetic that both artists have used as inspiration.
Again any argument that you have against pro goes directly back on Michael even if its collage, he did not add much to the work other than cut and pasting in a new composition which is fine, but Pro did the same thing but in a new different era of cut and paste. Collage can be so many things as can painting, both have large open ended interpretations But as Michael can be upset so can the original artist who he borrowed from. Its a double edged sword.
Again could this pass the test of Fair use and be legal, well that would be the real question as we all are just pushing an opinion other than that.
Pro176 used image after image taken directly from Michael Mykola Haleta's website of archived collages that were completed 2001-2015.. futuristictexturesfromthefuture.blogspot.com/?m=1This was not a case of one time appropriation of a stumbled across image on found on Google. This is more like artistic identity theft. Image after image stolen, photoshopped, twisted, price tag.. Passed on by Pro176 as his own work which was offered for sale on this forum.. I have collected originals from Michael for years and almost spit coffee through my nose when I saw a picture of Pro176 standing in front of a blown up twisty version of Haleta's work. At least Pro176 has admitted his lifting of Michael's collage work to his gallerist and said he would stop offering Haleta's work for sale. Thank you for a sensible conversation Poesia.. Like I said its a tough situation where artists use references from many areas, this one being another artists work for a series of paintings that make up less than 5% of the artists work in the genre. Pro painted this style before using the series as reference and painted the series after. I cant speak for Pro and I never said he admitted to stealing anyones work, I think using something as a reference for a new painting that utilized the original artists aesthetic as well as Michael's composition was more a byproduct of circumstance then malevolent intent. Again you only have to look back at the progression of this style of work from Pro where he hand painted them more representational with the same swirly effect throughout his career as an artist. Because we are forgetting to mention the original comic book artist which both have borrowed from I think you have to bring that into a conversation of appropriation. If it is ok to take the Color, texture of ink drawings, overall aesthetic and parts of the artists composition then cutting it up and putting it together in a different way but not changing the Color, the inking, the overall aesthetic then its tough to find where Michael holds any ownership to the work other than composition. The original artist is still more prevalent in the original collages than the collages are and You can argue that Michael didnt add much in way of aesthetic to the conversation. You then take Pro who comes along and is already deconstructing and abstracting comic images then he takes an already composed collage then abstracts it even more. He adds to a larger conversation that was already in play. I appreciate the fact that Pro handpaints these images with great accuracy adding a layer of rendering that isnt accomplished in the original works on paper or the collage work. Its just my opinion and I am open to debate on it, and I can show examples of Pro's earlier and more recent work that has nothing to do with Michaels collage work. Yet it holds the same aesthetic that both artists have used as inspiration. Again any argument that you have against pro goes directly back on Michael even if its collage, he did not add much to the work other than cut and pasting in a new composition which is fine, but Pro did the same thing but in a new different era of cut and paste. Collage can be so many things as can painting, both have large open ended interpretations But as Michael can be upset so can the original artist who he borrowed from. Its a double edged sword. Again could this pass the test of Fair use and be legal, well that would be the real question as we all are just pushing an opinion other than that. |
|
|
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Mirus Gallery Poesia on Mar 24, 2015 4:29:35 GMT 1, Also a Note on the Website to Michael's work you posted he makes the no mention of the artist he appropratied his images from, there is no artist credit to the original artist that can be seen. Yet 95% of the aesthetic comes from the other artist. The other 5% is composing an image by cut and paste. Conceptually we can argue differently but everyone is arguing along on aesthetic not conceptual lines.
Also a Note on the Website to Michael's work you posted he makes the no mention of the artist he appropratied his images from, there is no artist credit to the original artist that can be seen. Yet 95% of the aesthetic comes from the other artist. The other 5% is composing an image by cut and paste. Conceptually we can argue differently but everyone is arguing along on aesthetic not conceptual lines.
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 7:09:50 GMT 1, Also a Note on the Website to Michael's work you posted he makes the no mention of the artist he appropratied his images from, there is no artist credit to the original artist that can be seen. Yet 95% of the aesthetic comes from the other artist. The other 5% is composing an image by cut and paste. Conceptually we can argue differently but everyone is arguing along on aesthetic not conceptual lines.
Also a Note on the Website to Michael's work you posted he makes the no mention of the artist he appropratied his images from, there is no artist credit to the original artist that can be seen. Yet 95% of the aesthetic comes from the other artist. The other 5% is composing an image by cut and paste. Conceptually we can argue differently but everyone is arguing along on aesthetic not conceptual lines. No disrespect but there's a huge difference, I don't think Pro has a defensible position unless his pieces are titled "Haleta with a twist". It's just to fess up, honest mistake and all that, apologise, remove from sale and move on. I don't think trying to undermine "collage" as a concept will get very far. Quite a different argument regarding intent there. |
|
|
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Mirus Gallery Poesia on Mar 24, 2015 8:00:43 GMT 1, Also a Note on the Website to Michael's work you posted he makes the no mention of the artist he appropratied his images from, there is no artist credit to the original artist that can be seen. Yet 95% of the aesthetic comes from the other artist. The other 5% is composing an image by cut and paste. Conceptually we can argue differently but everyone is arguing along on aesthetic not conceptual lines. No disrespect but there's a huge difference, I don't think Pro has a defensible position unless his pieces are titled "Haleta with a twist". It's just to fess up, honest mistake and all that, apologise, remove from sale and move on. I don't think trying to undermine "collage" as a concept will get very far. Quite a different argument regarding intent there.
I think you are correct that Pro needs to move on and he has said he would move on, he will be taking down the paintings in question from his site which is I believe 7-10 paintings of over a couple hundred paintings the artist has painted in the last decade. Which is why i stand behind Pro as 10 paintings using Haleta as a reference a drop in the bucket to what Pro has painted and in no way define his work or aesthetic. I can flood this thread with image after image till you get the point that Pro painted way more paintings then these 10 that were used from google of haleta.
But I hear your point and I respect it as well, always good to hear solid debate.
Also a Note on the Website to Michael's work you posted he makes the no mention of the artist he appropratied his images from, there is no artist credit to the original artist that can be seen. Yet 95% of the aesthetic comes from the other artist. The other 5% is composing an image by cut and paste. Conceptually we can argue differently but everyone is arguing along on aesthetic not conceptual lines. No disrespect but there's a huge difference, I don't think Pro has a defensible position unless his pieces are titled "Haleta with a twist". It's just to fess up, honest mistake and all that, apologise, remove from sale and move on. I don't think trying to undermine "collage" as a concept will get very far. Quite a different argument regarding intent there. Like I said the debate goes both ways, if Haleta were to have titled his pieces. "Comic book artist Name" collage then I think it would be a fair argument but Haleta did not mention the original comic book artist in the title of his work and I dont see why Pro would need to either. I think you are correct that Pro needs to move on and he has said he would move on, he will be taking down the paintings in question from his site which is I believe 7-10 paintings of over a couple hundred paintings the artist has painted in the last decade. Which is why i stand behind Pro as 10 paintings using Haleta as a reference a drop in the bucket to what Pro has painted and in no way define his work or aesthetic. I can flood this thread with image after image till you get the point that Pro painted way more paintings then these 10 that were used from google of haleta. But I hear your point and I respect it as well, always good to hear solid debate. |
|
|
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Mirus Gallery Poesia on Mar 24, 2015 8:20:03 GMT 1, Also @nuartfestival I am not trying to undermine collage as I love the medium and work in it myself but I do think that it can be used in different ways. How Haleta used it is similar to using photoshop cutting and pasting and making a new image but not changing the original overall aesthetic. Recomposing the image and there are other artists collaging comic book art, other artists using comic collage on painting such as sandra Chevrier as many know.
I can see what Haletta was originally doing in his work and its not a bad idea, but he does lean on the original art very much and adds very little to the overall look of the work. But conceptually its another story and I think conceptually his work is more potent because he is creating a new idea but not a new aesthetic. Also he is attacking Pro based on the aesthetic not the concept.
Does the work of an artist like Sandra or Pro, or Seen depend on the actual comics or reference material. I dont think it does, I think each has appropriated an overall aesthetic with their work that is larger than a couple of paintings or images in a series of work. Its the artists overall journey how they got where they are that I look for and judge them on and when we infringe upon each others styles, ideas sometimes its accident but not really as important as the overall body of work which I can defend as being authentic. Haleta has his own journey and his work means something different than Pro's and they have nothing in common other than they used the same reference material or Pro crossed paths with Haleta's work briefly. I dont see Haleta influencing Pro's work outside of the images he used for the particular paintings.
Also @nuartfestival I am not trying to undermine collage as I love the medium and work in it myself but I do think that it can be used in different ways. How Haleta used it is similar to using photoshop cutting and pasting and making a new image but not changing the original overall aesthetic. Recomposing the image and there are other artists collaging comic book art, other artists using comic collage on painting such as sandra Chevrier as many know.
I can see what Haletta was originally doing in his work and its not a bad idea, but he does lean on the original art very much and adds very little to the overall look of the work. But conceptually its another story and I think conceptually his work is more potent because he is creating a new idea but not a new aesthetic. Also he is attacking Pro based on the aesthetic not the concept.
Does the work of an artist like Sandra or Pro, or Seen depend on the actual comics or reference material. I dont think it does, I think each has appropriated an overall aesthetic with their work that is larger than a couple of paintings or images in a series of work. Its the artists overall journey how they got where they are that I look for and judge them on and when we infringe upon each others styles, ideas sometimes its accident but not really as important as the overall body of work which I can defend as being authentic. Haleta has his own journey and his work means something different than Pro's and they have nothing in common other than they used the same reference material or Pro crossed paths with Haleta's work briefly. I dont see Haleta influencing Pro's work outside of the images he used for the particular paintings.
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 9:31:56 GMT 1, At least it's brought Haleta's work to people's attention. Every cloud and all that.
At least it's brought Haleta's work to people's attention. Every cloud and all that.
|
|
|
|
Dr Plip
Junior Member
🗨️ 7,043
👍🏻 8,981
August 2011
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Dr Plip on Mar 24, 2015 9:43:28 GMT 1, At least it's brought Haleta's work to people's attention. Every cloud and all that.
At least it's brought Haleta's work to people's attention. Every cloud and all that. True. And Jack Kirby's. |
|
|
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Happy Shopper on Mar 24, 2015 10:17:01 GMT 1, ...but I do think that its ironic as he is using collage of another artists work that he would take ownership of the aesthetic all together....Both are the same concept but both appropriating another artists aesthetic.
These 2 things are polar opposites.
Haleta took comic book art and created a new concept/aesthetic with it. Something quite new looking.
Pro has just taken that art and twisted it in Photoshop.
...but I do think that its ironic as he is using collage of another artists work that he would take ownership of the aesthetic all together....Both are the same concept but both appropriating another artists aesthetic. These 2 things are polar opposites. Haleta took comic book art and created a new concept/aesthetic with it. Something quite new looking. Pro has just taken that art and twisted it in Photoshop. |
|
|
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Mirus Gallery Poesia on Mar 24, 2015 10:41:51 GMT 1, ...but I do think that its ironic as he is using collage of another artists work that he would take ownership of the aesthetic all together....Both are the same concept but both appropriating another artists aesthetic. These 2 things are polar opposites. Haleta took comic book art and created a new concept/aesthetic with it. Something quite new looking. Pro has just taken that art and twisted it in Photoshop.
Polar opposites yes.
...but I do think that its ironic as he is using collage of another artists work that he would take ownership of the aesthetic all together....Both are the same concept but both appropriating another artists aesthetic. These 2 things are polar opposites. Haleta took comic book art and created a new concept/aesthetic with it. Something quite new looking. Pro has just taken that art and twisted it in Photoshop. They are polar opposites, but I see it different I guess. Haleta took comic book art and created a collage that looks like comic book art but rearranged a bit. Pro took comic book art distorts it then paints it on canvas. He does not just leave them in photoshop or leave them as a small scale collages. He paints them by hand on canvas, in large scale on murals, and creates distorted images of irregular shapes. Polar opposites yes. |
|
|
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Jersey Phresh on Mar 24, 2015 11:00:55 GMT 1, Poesia, don't undermine what Haleta has done with one of his bodies of work (that he's been at for almost 20 years). If it wasn't good, Pro176 wouldn't have used it as one of his primary sources for work of the last 2-3 years..
You say he only photoshopped Haleta's work 10 times, I'm close to seeing 20 examples where Pro176 photoshopped Michael's work, put a twist on it, signed it, offered for sale here on this forum.. Haleta's imagery is also flooded all over Pro176's Instagram and website, often posing in front of the work like it was his collage work..
Haleta created collages, Pro176 sold said collage work as his own.
Poesia, don't undermine what Haleta has done with one of his bodies of work (that he's been at for almost 20 years). If it wasn't good, Pro176 wouldn't have used it as one of his primary sources for work of the last 2-3 years..
You say he only photoshopped Haleta's work 10 times, I'm close to seeing 20 examples where Pro176 photoshopped Michael's work, put a twist on it, signed it, offered for sale here on this forum.. Haleta's imagery is also flooded all over Pro176's Instagram and website, often posing in front of the work like it was his collage work..
Haleta created collages, Pro176 sold said collage work as his own.
|
|
|
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Mirus Gallery Poesia on Mar 24, 2015 11:24:18 GMT 1, Jersey again you cant show me conclusively how Pro's whole career which spans about the same amount as michaels is all based on this small sample and somehow Michael birthed everything Pro has done and his style. That simply isnt true, anyone can go and find hundreds of pieces with no haleta in them from Pro.
Thats my point and will continue to be, everyone is upset when Pro's work has been on this board for some time. Helata gets some exposure which is good as well now and the original artist who created the real meat and potatoes of the work gets some exposure also that is the comic book artist. Art is so big and these artists careers are so long this moment when they met is minimal in eachs careers.
Pro Will continue to work, and I hope Helata comes out of retirement with his new found fame and creates some new work, hey maybe even takes the next step from collage to painting or drawing. In the end we all get new art and everyone is happy.
Jersey again you cant show me conclusively how Pro's whole career which spans about the same amount as michaels is all based on this small sample and somehow Michael birthed everything Pro has done and his style. That simply isnt true, anyone can go and find hundreds of pieces with no haleta in them from Pro.
Thats my point and will continue to be, everyone is upset when Pro's work has been on this board for some time. Helata gets some exposure which is good as well now and the original artist who created the real meat and potatoes of the work gets some exposure also that is the comic book artist. Art is so big and these artists careers are so long this moment when they met is minimal in eachs careers.
Pro Will continue to work, and I hope Helata comes out of retirement with his new found fame and creates some new work, hey maybe even takes the next step from collage to painting or drawing. In the end we all get new art and everyone is happy.
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 11:36:44 GMT 1, Interesting & pertinent discussion. Ethics and rules in the world of Internet and Postinternet Art.
Sort of recycles what was happening in music by the early 90s when rap and electronic were "sampling" "appropriating" "reiterating" "reifying" "recontextualizing" or "stealing", depending on where your head heart and money was at.
Interesting & pertinent discussion. Ethics and rules in the world of Internet and Postinternet Art.
Sort of recycles what was happening in music by the early 90s when rap and electronic were "sampling" "appropriating" "reiterating" "reifying" "recontextualizing" or "stealing", depending on where your head heart and money was at.
|
|
|
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Jersey Phresh on Mar 24, 2015 11:43:54 GMT 1, Haleta has never offered his work for sale on this forum, nor does his website have a store. You though, are explicitly advertising and conducting sales for Pro176 on this forum.
You have to protect your inventory and product, I get it. Pro176 sells a canvas, he profits, you profit.. The collectors on this board have a right to know that the imagery you are selling was stolen from Haleta's website archives. Collectors don't profit from these sales, nor does the collage artist ..
Being from the US as well, I'm assuming you know what we call folks who pose in front of work that isn't theirs..
Haleta has never offered his work for sale on this forum, nor does his website have a store. You though, are explicitly advertising and conducting sales for Pro176 on this forum.
You have to protect your inventory and product, I get it. Pro176 sells a canvas, he profits, you profit.. The collectors on this board have a right to know that the imagery you are selling was stolen from Haleta's website archives. Collectors don't profit from these sales, nor does the collage artist ..
Being from the US as well, I'm assuming you know what we call folks who pose in front of work that isn't theirs..
|
|
|
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Mirus Gallery Poesia on Mar 24, 2015 11:57:00 GMT 1, Interesting & pertinent discussion. Ethics and rules in the world of Internet and Postinternet Art. Sort of recycles what was happening in music by the early 90s when rap and electronic were "sampling" "appropriating" "reiterating" "reifying" "recontextualizing" or "stealing", depending on where your head heart and money was at.
Interesting & pertinent discussion. Ethics and rules in the world of Internet and Postinternet Art. Sort of recycles what was happening in music by the early 90s when rap and electronic were "sampling" "appropriating" "reiterating" "reifying" "recontextualizing" or "stealing", depending on where your head heart and money was at. You make a good point with the relation to music as both Pro and haleta mentioned music and sampling when I talked to them within the last 48 hrs since this thing came about. I think Google is a game changer for reference images for artists in the postinternet and so much stuff is unsourced to the original creator who knows what people are using as reference or who the original artist was that made a collage, a photo, a photoshop image, then its sampled turns into something big and voila all of a sudden the sources start to come forward demanding recognition which i get. But its usually the 2nd source as some of the original music, photography, or art is older so maybe we lose track of what started it all. Meaning Jack Kirby in this case, or some old musician in another case. |
|
|
|
|
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Happy Shopper on Mar 24, 2015 12:03:04 GMT 1, Interesting & pertinent discussion. Ethics and rules in the world of Internet and Postinternet Art. Sort of recycles what was happening in music by the early 90s when rap and electronic were "sampling" "appropriating" "reiterating" "reifying" "recontextualizing" or "stealing", depending on where your head heart and money was at. You make a good point with the relation to music as both Pro and haleta mentioned music and sampling when I talked to them within the last 48 hrs since this thing came about. I think Google is a game changer for reference images for artists in the postinternet and so much stuff is unsourced to the original creator who knows what people are using as reference or who the original artist was that made a collage, a photo, a photoshop image, then its sampled turns into something big and voila all of a sudden the sources start to come forward demanding recognition which i get. But its usually the 2nd source as some of the original music, photography, or art is older so maybe we lose track of what started it all. Meaning Jack Kirby in this case, or some old musician in another case.
Taking another artist's work and painting it larger is not the same as sampling, or even collage.
If you're not creating something new, then you're just ripping off someone else's idea.
Ask Robin Thicke ! 
Interesting & pertinent discussion. Ethics and rules in the world of Internet and Postinternet Art. Sort of recycles what was happening in music by the early 90s when rap and electronic were "sampling" "appropriating" "reiterating" "reifying" "recontextualizing" or "stealing", depending on where your head heart and money was at. You make a good point with the relation to music as both Pro and haleta mentioned music and sampling when I talked to them within the last 48 hrs since this thing came about. I think Google is a game changer for reference images for artists in the postinternet and so much stuff is unsourced to the original creator who knows what people are using as reference or who the original artist was that made a collage, a photo, a photoshop image, then its sampled turns into something big and voila all of a sudden the sources start to come forward demanding recognition which i get. But its usually the 2nd source as some of the original music, photography, or art is older so maybe we lose track of what started it all. Meaning Jack Kirby in this case, or some old musician in another case. Taking another artist's work and painting it larger is not the same as sampling, or even collage. If you're not creating something new, then you're just ripping off someone else's idea. Ask Robin Thicke ! |
|
|
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Mirus Gallery Poesia on Mar 24, 2015 12:08:11 GMT 1, Haleta has never offered his work for sale on this forum, nor does his website have a store. You though, are explicitly advertising and conducting sales for Pro176 on this forum. You have to protect your inventory and product, I get it. Pro176 sells a canvas, he profits, you profit.. The collectors on this board have a right to know that the imagery you are selling was stolen from Haleta's website archives. Collectors don't profit from these sales, nor does the collage artist .. Being from the US as well, I'm assuming you know what we call folks who pose in front of work that isn't theirs..
If that makes me a bad guy for defending an artist so be it, I can live with that. Haleta he can defend himself or you can as I know you are a big collector of his so you told me over the phone today. So I own zero Pro canvases, now who has a interest to protect?
Again lets stick to the points of debate we can be here all day bickering about money and things that have no say so in what matters in art.
Haleta has never offered his work for sale on this forum, nor does his website have a store. You though, are explicitly advertising and conducting sales for Pro176 on this forum. You have to protect your inventory and product, I get it. Pro176 sells a canvas, he profits, you profit.. The collectors on this board have a right to know that the imagery you are selling was stolen from Haleta's website archives. Collectors don't profit from these sales, nor does the collage artist .. Being from the US as well, I'm assuming you know what we call folks who pose in front of work that isn't theirs.. Pro has 2 paintings out of 72 paintings in our recent group show which is nothing inventory wise. I stand behind all my artists wether its one painting or none. I hate to see an artist railroaded when its clear there was no ill intent to defraud or harm someone. Saying I only have my financial interest at heart tells me you really might not know what or who i stand for. I have spent the past 5 years championing artists i believe in and doing my best to help artists like Pro make a living for themselves instead of being lost to what life takes from us sometimes. I believe and fight for all the artists I work for and curate in my gallery and in others around the world. Financial gain is a means to an end to make sure these artists make a living and I can witness a career from them, not just a moment before they had to quit painting. If that makes me a bad guy for defending an artist so be it, I can live with that. Haleta he can defend himself or you can as I know you are a big collector of his so you told me over the phone today. So I own zero Pro canvases, now who has a interest to protect? Again lets stick to the points of debate we can be here all day bickering about money and things that have no say so in what matters in art. |
|
|
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Jersey Phresh on Mar 24, 2015 13:12:25 GMT 1, Haleta is a painter as well, I'd post a pic but afraid it might become Pro176's next body of work..
Pro176 had Haleta's work in his shows and ultimately, he knew where he was sourcing from. Over and over again.. This was not an example of 2-3 images.
This was a whole body of work taken from Haleta, for profit.
Poesia, you are the only siding with Pro176 on this one.. I understand you are his gallerist, but this is total lameness.
Haleta is a painter as well, I'd post a pic but afraid it might become Pro176's next body of work..
Pro176 had Haleta's work in his shows and ultimately, he knew where he was sourcing from. Over and over again.. This was not an example of 2-3 images.
This was a whole body of work taken from Haleta, for profit.
Poesia, you are the only siding with Pro176 on this one.. I understand you are his gallerist, but this is total lameness.
|
|
|
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by behaviorist on Mar 24, 2015 16:00:19 GMT 1, is the astral wave print based off a haleta image?
is the astral wave print based off a haleta image?
|
|
|
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Jersey Phresh on Mar 24, 2015 16:10:54 GMT 1, Yes
Yes
|
|
|
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by behaviorist on Mar 24, 2015 16:27:28 GMT 1, What does Pro have to say about any of this? Has anyone reached out to him or gallery? Saying that paintings will be retracted is not enough - it's an admission of guilt, I suppose, but it's no explanation. Does Pro think he's in the right here, and if so, what's his justification?
I'm in agreement that what Haleta did is quite novel - lots of people use collage to sample pre-existing elements to create something new. Haleta did just this. I'd never heard of him, but I do like what I've seen. What Pro then did with Haleta's work does not seem, in my eyes, particularly novel or inventive. It's a subjective evaluation, as it's not a mirror copy, but it's VERY close to the original, with all elements still recognizable. I suppose it's a bit like taking a track composed by an artist from old funk samples and just tweaking certain parts by raising or lowering the pitch.
What does Pro have to say about any of this? Has anyone reached out to him or gallery? Saying that paintings will be retracted is not enough - it's an admission of guilt, I suppose, but it's no explanation. Does Pro think he's in the right here, and if so, what's his justification?
I'm in agreement that what Haleta did is quite novel - lots of people use collage to sample pre-existing elements to create something new. Haleta did just this. I'd never heard of him, but I do like what I've seen. What Pro then did with Haleta's work does not seem, in my eyes, particularly novel or inventive. It's a subjective evaluation, as it's not a mirror copy, but it's VERY close to the original, with all elements still recognizable. I suppose it's a bit like taking a track composed by an artist from old funk samples and just tweaking certain parts by raising or lowering the pitch.
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 16:32:49 GMT 1, What does Pro have to say about any of this? Has anyone reached out to him or gallery? Saying that paintings will be retracted is not enough - it's an admission of guilt, I suppose, but it's no explanation. Does Pro think he's in the right here, and if so, what's his justification? I'm in agreement that what Haleta did is quite novel - lots of people use collage to sample pre-existing elements to create something new. Haleta did just this. I'd never heard of him, but I do like what I've seen. What Pro then did with Haleta's work does not seem, in my eyes, particularly novel or inventive. It's a subjective evaluation, as it's not a mirror copy, but it's VERY close to the original, with all elements still recognizable. I suppose it's a bit like taking a track composed by an artist from old funk samples and just tweaking certain parts by raising or lowering the pitch. 
What does Pro have to say about any of this? Has anyone reached out to him or gallery? Saying that paintings will be retracted is not enough - it's an admission of guilt, I suppose, but it's no explanation. Does Pro think he's in the right here, and if so, what's his justification? I'm in agreement that what Haleta did is quite novel - lots of people use collage to sample pre-existing elements to create something new. Haleta did just this. I'd never heard of him, but I do like what I've seen. What Pro then did with Haleta's work does not seem, in my eyes, particularly novel or inventive. It's a subjective evaluation, as it's not a mirror copy, but it's VERY close to the original, with all elements still recognizable. I suppose it's a bit like taking a track composed by an artist from old funk samples and just tweaking certain parts by raising or lowering the pitch. |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 16:33:56 GMT 1, 
|
|
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 16:35:07 GMT 1, I think most people understand the case you are trying to make, I do. That doesn’t take away from the fact that it happened. Haleta can probably fend for himself but as far as I know he’s not a member here and for now it still says the following on page one of this thread: Robin Thicke had his day in court, I’m not saying Pro176 should be forced to pay Haleta. But a simple statement saying that he did (unknowingly) borough the images to alter them for his own purpose would probably be the least he can do. Just to give Haleta some credit. That’s all. 
I think most people understand the case you are trying to make, I do. That doesn’t take away from the fact that it happened. Haleta can probably fend for himself but as far as I know he’s not a member here and for now it still says the following on page one of this thread: Robin Thicke had his day in court, I’m not saying Pro176 should be forced to pay Haleta. But a simple statement saying that he did (unknowingly) borough the images to alter them for his own purpose would probably be the least he can do. Just to give Haleta some credit. That’s all. |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 16:36:12 GMT 1, You know what to do with Glitter Gorilla dont you?
You know what to do with Glitter Gorilla dont you? hahaha yes |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 16:38:12 GMT 1, You make a good point with the relation to music as both Pro and haleta mentioned music and sampling when I talked to them within the last 48 hrs since this thing came about. I think Google is a game changer for reference images for artists in the postinternet and so much stuff is unsourced to the original creator who knows what people are using as reference or who the original artist was that made a collage, a photo, a photoshop image, then its sampled turns into something big and voila all of a sudden the sources start to come forward demanding recognition which i get. But its usually the 2nd source as some of the original music, photography, or art is older so maybe we lose track of what started it all. Meaning Jack Kirby in this case, or some old musician in another case. Taking another artist's work and painting it larger is not the same as sampling, or even collage. If you're not creating something new, then you're just ripping off someone else's idea. Ask Robin Thicke !
You make a good point with the relation to music as both Pro and haleta mentioned music and sampling when I talked to them within the last 48 hrs since this thing came about. I think Google is a game changer for reference images for artists in the postinternet and so much stuff is unsourced to the original creator who knows what people are using as reference or who the original artist was that made a collage, a photo, a photoshop image, then its sampled turns into something big and voila all of a sudden the sources start to come forward demanding recognition which i get. But its usually the 2nd source as some of the original music, photography, or art is older so maybe we lose track of what started it all. Meaning Jack Kirby in this case, or some old musician in another case. Taking another artist's work and painting it larger is not the same as sampling, or even collage. If you're not creating something new, then you're just ripping off someone else's idea. Ask Robin Thicke ! last one (I'm bored at work) |
|
|
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Jersey Phresh on Mar 24, 2015 16:39:32 GMT 1, 
|
|
|
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by thriftypix on Mar 24, 2015 16:40:58 GMT 1, Interesting & pertinent discussion. Ethics and rules in the world of Internet and Postinternet Art. Sort of recycles what was happening in music by the early 90s when rap and electronic were "sampling" "appropriating" "reiterating" "reifying" "recontextualizing" or "stealing", depending on where your head heart and money was at. You make a good point with the relation to music as both Pro and haleta mentioned music and sampling when I talked to them within the last 48 hrs since this thing came about. I think Google is a game changer for reference images for artists in the postinternet and so much stuff is unsourced to the original creator who knows what people are using as reference or who the original artist was that made a collage, a photo, a photoshop image, then its sampled turns into something big and voila all of a sudden the sources start to come forward demanding recognition which i get. But its usually the 2nd source as some of the original music, photography, or art is older so maybe we lose track of what started it all. Meaning Jack Kirby in this case, or some old musician in another case.
You can argue all you want that conceptually there is no difference between what Mykola Haleta has been doing and what Pro176 has been doing. But let's get real: there is a huge difference between 1) an artist deconstructing many many comic books into bits and pieces of meaning, then reassembling them into a new and very different meaningful whole and 2) an artist stealing a single, extant work of art and applying a swirl filter. The difference is elemental. Mykola Haleta would almost certainly survive a fair use legal challenge. Pro176 would almost certainly be in dire legal straits if Mykola Haleta decided to sue for copyright infringement.
Interesting & pertinent discussion. Ethics and rules in the world of Internet and Postinternet Art. Sort of recycles what was happening in music by the early 90s when rap and electronic were "sampling" "appropriating" "reiterating" "reifying" "recontextualizing" or "stealing", depending on where your head heart and money was at. You make a good point with the relation to music as both Pro and haleta mentioned music and sampling when I talked to them within the last 48 hrs since this thing came about. I think Google is a game changer for reference images for artists in the postinternet and so much stuff is unsourced to the original creator who knows what people are using as reference or who the original artist was that made a collage, a photo, a photoshop image, then its sampled turns into something big and voila all of a sudden the sources start to come forward demanding recognition which i get. But its usually the 2nd source as some of the original music, photography, or art is older so maybe we lose track of what started it all. Meaning Jack Kirby in this case, or some old musician in another case. Excuse me, but why do you keep mentioning Jack Kirby? Do we know for a fact that Mykola Haleta only uses comic books drawn by Kirby as source for his collages? It's not as if Kirby is the only important comic book artist of the past 50 years. Do you insist on focusing on Kirby because by doing so you think it makes your "argument" stronger? That's to say: artist (Pro176) "takes" from artist (Mykola Haleta), just as artist (Mykola Haleta) "takes" from artist (Kirby)? If so, I don't agree. You can argue all you want that conceptually there is no difference between what Mykola Haleta has been doing and what Pro176 has been doing. But let's get real: there is a huge difference between 1) an artist deconstructing many many comic books into bits and pieces of meaning, then reassembling them into a new and very different meaningful whole and 2) an artist stealing a single, extant work of art and applying a swirl filter. The difference is elemental. Mykola Haleta would almost certainly survive a fair use legal challenge. Pro176 would almost certainly be in dire legal straits if Mykola Haleta decided to sue for copyright infringement. |
|
|
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Jersey Phresh on Mar 24, 2015 16:41:58 GMT 1, "Put a twirl on it!" - Pro176
"Put a twirl on it!" - Pro176
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 16:44:55 GMT 1, I do get what Mirus Gallery Poesia is saying, but I think the artist should in some way reference the original work in text somewhere. otherwise it looks like he's trying to hide something
I do get what Mirus Gallery Poesia is saying, but I think the artist should in some way reference the original work in text somewhere. otherwise it looks like he's trying to hide something |
|
|
|
PRO176 "Astral Wave" New Print, by thriftypix on Mar 24, 2015 17:05:38 GMT 1, I do get what Mirus Gallery Poesia is saying, but I think the artist should in some way reference the original work in text somewhere
This is the law we're talking about here. I'm a documentary film editor and if I want to reference another film, I can use a clip, but that clip's use is very limited, including overall length and the context in which it is employed. Pro176 has simply taken single works - each an entire work created by another artist that contains and retains its own meaning, then distorted them and sold them. That Mykola Haleta has appropriated shards, fragments, bits and pieces of other works into his collages is a very different thing and is an artistic approach and language that has survived many legal challenges over the years - including those associated with fair use.
I do get what Mirus Gallery Poesia is saying, but I think the artist should in some way reference the original work in text somewhere Simply referencing a work is nice, but it's not nearly enough to satisfy the fair use requirements. In order for this kind of reference to pass legal muster, Pro176 would first have to get Mykola Haleta to agree to allow him to use his work in this way. And I'm guessing an artistic partnership would have to be agreed to. This is the law we're talking about here. I'm a documentary film editor and if I want to reference another film, I can use a clip, but that clip's use is very limited, including overall length and the context in which it is employed. Pro176 has simply taken single works - each an entire work created by another artist that contains and retains its own meaning, then distorted them and sold them. That Mykola Haleta has appropriated shards, fragments, bits and pieces of other works into his collages is a very different thing and is an artistic approach and language that has survived many legal challenges over the years - including those associated with fair use. |
|
