Urban Art Association

Is it plagiarism?

Take Dface for example - sure he uses Lichtenstein, but he had the idea to change it, it was his original idea, so really its an original Dface. Artists use materials to create artworks, its just in this case the material is the art (or imagery) created by another artist.

I think in the design world if a 'copied' design is 7 steps removed from the original, then it is considered a new design (or something like that )

I was just looking to pair any artists who had similar styles to previous artists. Not saying it's right or wrong. Apple never invented the tablet, Toshiba did, Apple took the best bits and created the ipad. Google was one of the last search engines, they just put a simple front end on theirs and a decent algorithm in back.
I'm all for borrowing parts or changing but not just copying.

Lichtenstein did not copy Warhol. Warhol was always worried about Lichtenstein being more popular than him. They were titans of the same era. But Lichtenstein did copy, or took inspiration, from comics.

Andy Warhol - “Pop artists did images that anyone walking down the street would recognize in a split second—comics, picnic tables, men’s pants, celebrities, refrigerators, Coke bottles.”

Take a look at Sturtevant. She's a great example of an artist that made appropriation her craft. 

Derivative work for me comes down to what is left when you take the copied / appropriated element away.

DFace for example, clearly twists the comic book from Lichtenstein, who himself lifted it from the comic artists. Lichtenstein (like Warhol with the Marilyn image), took a snippet from the source work, and in doing so changed the perspective. DFace took the images, and then destroyed the subjects. If you take away the comic book in the Lichtenstein work what do you have? you have an artist who took a small portion of a great image and in reducing it brought out something in it that framed on its own takes on new perspective and meaning. DFace then appropriates the aesthetic, but not the framing, and then destorys the wholesome image and gives it a post apocalyptic, zombie twist. There are a handful of other artists who also take from Lichtenstein with varying degrees of result, some are just stealing, some are biting DFace, some are taking it new places.

Blek and Banksy has been discussed to infinitum and I'd like we can all agree that there is some early lifting of the rat, and little adjustment. the early rats were derivative. then banksy took it further. so while the earliest work with rats clearly was a direct bite, it moved on and the later work is clearly on its own.

banksy and brainwash, im still on the fence on what brainwash is. is brainwash a social experiment that is still playing itself out? questioning in a $$ = important art world, what is actually good art? taking work from yourself and using it for someone else as art, is art and would equal not being derivative. the presentation changed and was done with intent. brainwash just released a marilyn image that is directly derivative to warhol, with no change (other than the process). but if the person doing it is the art, then i suppose, the entire thing is art. if, brainwash isnt a social experiment and should instead be looked at as an artist then nearly all the work is derivative, appropriated, and large parts of it (with the rare exception) are shit.

Richard Prince - instagram photographs, i tend to lean in the came that says that prince is shit. that the work is theft, at best. however, i do enjoy the conversation, that someone taking something like an IG photo, blowing it up and printing it on canvas does by the removal of the item from where it was placed and then placing it on a canvas for sale could be making a statement and in doing so make it art. i still think its crap, but im sure when im 80 they will be selling for millions and i'll bitch and moan about it.

I don't consider Pose and KAWS artwork to be the same in the least bit. Both have very unique styles....

Nick Smith artwork is very derivative, in fact every piece he's done is based on an iconic work. He's used Hockney, Van Gogh, Warhol, Vermeer, etc.

Paint chip art has been around for a long time. It's popular with DIY home decorators. Some of his works reminds me of something you'd see on HGTV.

Valerio Adami, Frank Stella, Patrick Caulfield, are all worth checking out.

Urban art has fast become influenced by classical art, rennaisance art and pop art. Mix in some advertising style commercial art and urban art could be said to have become formulaic.

So no part of any cartoon caracter etc was used by kaws in his creations?

I like Fucci's work. I think there are similarities and differences, between his work and Parras.   Such is life.

To quote the artist:  "I don’t care. If you feel you like you own a certain style of art, I think that’s ridiculous. I don’t want to be compared and I don’t want to ride on anyone’s coattails. I’m doing my own thing and he’s doing his."

There is a nice Fucci show opening next week in Toronto which we are going to

https://www.instagram.com/p/BK6mfLtg-SI

First one by parra and the second by fucci who claims he is doing his own thing. This throws up an interesting debate: you guys think this is considered plagarism?

this could go on for years... lol

The Fucci fans will be saying the opposite 😂

Sam Flores got caught out for plagiarism a while back.

Banksy has done worse, he's ripped more than you could imagine.

Or as Hayden Kays says it.... Anyone collects him over here, by the way ?