Are you gonna expose your ''Sandra Chevrier Plot Theory'' on each thread relating to her?!!I think we got your point that you do not like her work in a lots of previous threads. Fine for you. What I do not accept is your constant lies around her artistic process. You are still insinuating that she was copying Marion and because I told her that her ink drawings were looking like Bolognessi's work (that she didn't know) she started to glue comics to make something different. That's f@#$*? bul#$%!. She were doing her ''cages series'' since 2012.She were doing female portraits with brushstrokes and raw paints on their face and then she moves into comics collage!I already told you that but you don't want to understand.I'm bored.

Please next time, before stating lies and being contemptuous over her work do your home works.
Also if you find her work soooooooo boring why are you taking the time to read each thread about her?! There's a lot of artists that do not suit my personal taste on the forum and I don't loose my time reading stuff on them, commenting and doing some google search images and uploading pics to prove my lies. Life is short man.Do something constructive.Thanks.

You have a very funny definition of "lies." To you, the word seems to have the exact opposite meaning as it has for the rest of us.

This was one of her first "cages." To me, it looks like a bad knockoff of Marion Bolognesi. If you want to claim it's coincidental, I don't think it makes much of a difference. We can both agree her "cages" starting out looking like someone else's work.



As for where the comic book idea came from, those are her words, not mine.

"The comic book collage was another idea that was born by accident. I was working on a DIY project by covering one of my Ikea dressers with comic book pages but it broke during the process. I had no idea what to do with all the comics I bought, but by recycling them on to my art, the idea of creating these different cages came to life."

chasseurmagazine.com/2013/08/29/chasseur-interviews-artist-sandra-chevrier/#

If you want to hype her work for your personal gain, go right ahead. But if you want to call someone a liar while lying through your teeth, you should probably pick a lie that isn't so easily proven false. 

Surely people are allowed to counter your continued and constant hyping? Or perhaps not given your position on the forum.

Carry on.

I just dont think it is relevent to keep bringing up the copyright stance as a passive aggressive way of not liking something. If you do not like it, then why so annoyed about it. Just seems odd that people would care so much. Either ignore the thread or just so it is not for you... That is it.

Why are you even 'countering' a discussion about artwork that you do not like in the first place?

It is a also a boring argument for those that want to talk about the exhibition. It is not hyping, it is called a discussion about something you are interested in. Im not going to stop talking about the work and show just because people are jealous or dont like the artist, it is a ridiculous thing to keep saying.

right.. Can we get on with this thread now...

Yes thats cool nex, its just the repetitive comments from the same members. Saying once is ok but not on every single thread. Discuss away...

Those interested in the issue of copyright/creative commons/copyleft/fair use etc etc or would just like a more nuanced and informed look at the issues around the topic should check out this great eyeopening documentary.

Quit posting the same hype in every thread and you might not get the same response. 

You post the same shit in every thread. And you're going to get the same response.

Quit saying her work is more than comics pasted over someone else's style and we'll quit proving you wrong.

Someone stole what I stole thats stealing

Lastly, dont present the "fair use" arguement as if this has been decided. This issue is constantly battled and as you know ther are really 4 pillers that define fair use. I think its more than arguable that SC's use of the orther artists work doesn't meet standards of fair use depending on your lens and for that reason debate will exist. Ron English taking Ronald McDonald and making him Obese is fair use, it adds something, it isnt depriving mcdonalds of revenue they should receive for their creation, its not directly copying the image as it is, and the nature of the work provides the public with useful information in its appropriation. In contrast, Sandra's work, through her own admission was something she realized was "cool" while doing something, she took the creative product as it was and collaged it onto something else, its using that artists creative work to generate revenue, and there is little being added to the public conversation. It's not clear cut, but you can absolutely make arguements for or against without being a hater.

Since the last time I brought this up, one of the stinkfish magazine pieces I own was brought up, let me run that down the same funnel.

1. Purpose of use, has the work taken on new meaning. I think that the Stinkfish piece clearly takes on new meaning, the thorn marks in a pattern that echos the history of the latin american environment the artist grew up in provides a clear juxtapozition of the magazine cover that was used. Also, to be fair, the comparative artistic impact of the magazine cover pales in comparrison to the visual impact and cultural awareness of Wolverine or Superman.

2. Does the work benefit the public by providing useful information and was the source work previously published. Yes the magazine was previously published, however it wasn't done so for artistic purposues, it was advertising / editoral. The value culturally to the rework was really covered in my prior point.

3. Proportion or signfigance of use. In this area, Stinkfish clearly used the entire image. So you could from this lens argue that it doesnt meet fair use. I would gladly give this point to the magazine. I could argue that his rework is of greater signficance artistically than the intial purpose of the magazine image, but I made that point prior and could let it go here.

4. Impact of the new work on a potential market. Is the magazine losing out on revenue based on the use of its IP by stinkfish. Is stinkfish leveraging their cache to benefit his own. No and this is quite possibly the most damning point against CV's use. People who like the characters in the Marvel / DC universe can buy this work solely for that connection and that absolutely leverages the benefit of someone elses creativity to financial gain.

There, cogent arguement, your turn.

They have penicillin for that I think.

you know she paints the comics right