Comments on: Molotov Cocktail – II http://artandperception.com/2007/10/molotov-cocktail-ii.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=molotov-cocktail-ii a multi-disciplinary dialog Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:08:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Sunil Gangadharan http://artandperception.com/2007/10/molotov-cocktail-ii.html/comment-page-1#comment-42566 Sunil Gangadharan Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:39:10 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2007/10/molotov-cocktail-ii.html#comment-42566 Great words, Steve!! Tree, Scandalous, how dare you derive off Sherrie Levine's work? June, Finally, I got to the subject that I was aiming to discuss. When you allude to: "Attribution in a manner specified by the author" Would that constrain the appropriator to follow the original dictates specified by the author - example: If the author says “This image may only be used for the purposes of highlighting the effects of poverty”… Would that constrain the appropriator? Would the appropriator be able to use an altered, appropriated, derived work of the same for purposes other than to “highlight the effects of poverty”? Loved your lecture! Great words, Steve!!

Tree,
Scandalous, how dare you derive off Sherrie Levine’s work?

June,
Finally, I got to the subject that I was aiming to discuss.

When you allude to:
“Attribution in a manner specified by the author”

Would that constrain the appropriator to follow the original dictates specified by the author – example: If the author says “This image may only be used for the purposes of highlighting the effects of poverty”… Would that constrain the appropriator? Would the appropriator be able to use an altered, appropriated, derived work of the same for purposes other than to “highlight the effects of poverty”?

Loved your lecture!

]]> By: June http://artandperception.com/2007/10/molotov-cocktail-ii.html/comment-page-1#comment-42501 June Fri, 19 Oct 2007 04:22:31 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2007/10/molotov-cocktail-ii.html#comment-42501 Now, now, Tree, such irreverence has not place in this high-falutin' discussion. I see you have a reddish glow to your face -- flushing, are we (add snort right here!) Sunil, you've grabbed a topic which makes me sigh a lot, particularly considering the six figures. Levine has been mining this particular vein for years -- I only wonder how she originally gained prestige. But that's a different question. As to the question of image useage, I'm really into something like the Creative Commons "attribution-Share Alike" license; it goes like this -- You are free to share and to remix (adapt) under the following conditions: attribution in a manner specified by the author, and share alike -- that is, if you alter, transform or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same similar or compatible license. As I understand it, the Creative Commons licenses are a response to the Disney copyright mafia, which to some extent has all of us clinching our art tightly to our chests and refusing to allow anything but eyes to deal with it. I like a Commons concept in general, a gift economy which runs alongside and has equal weight as the moneyed one, and the kind of license that asks only that you pay it forward. Besides, quilted art doesn't exactly cry out for using elsewhere. I think that the extended copyright laws that now exist in the US really inhibit creativity and using the past to improve the present; instead, they stultify growth and change and working with a community. End of lecture. Now, now, Tree, such irreverence has not place in this high-falutin’ discussion. I see you have a reddish glow to your face — flushing, are we (add snort right here!)

Sunil, you’ve grabbed a topic which makes me sigh a lot, particularly considering the six figures. Levine has been mining this particular vein for years — I only wonder how she originally gained prestige. But that’s a different question.

As to the question of image useage, I’m really into something like the Creative Commons “attribution-Share Alike” license; it goes like this –

You are free to share and to remix (adapt) under the following conditions: attribution in a manner specified by the author, and share alike — that is, if you alter, transform or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same similar or compatible license.

As I understand it, the Creative Commons licenses are a response to the Disney copyright mafia, which to some extent has all of us clinching our art tightly to our chests and refusing to allow anything but eyes to deal with it.

I like a Commons concept in general, a gift economy which runs alongside and has equal weight as the moneyed one, and the kind of license that asks only that you pay it forward.

Besides, quilted art doesn’t exactly cry out for using elsewhere.

I think that the extended copyright laws that now exist in the US really inhibit creativity and using the past to improve the present; instead, they stultify growth and change and working with a community.

End of lecture.

]]> By: Tree http://artandperception.com/2007/10/molotov-cocktail-ii.html/comment-page-1#comment-42450 Tree Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:49:42 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2007/10/molotov-cocktail-ii.html#comment-42450 I've decided that I'm going to disconnect my toilet, bronze it and sell it. My twist to the whole toilet as art thing? I'll also bronze my toilet brush. I'll title it "A Swirl of Activity" I’ve decided that I’m going to disconnect my toilet, bronze it and sell it. My twist to the whole toilet as art thing? I’ll also bronze my toilet brush.
I’ll title it “A Swirl of Activity”

]]> By: Steve Durbin http://artandperception.com/2007/10/molotov-cocktail-ii.html/comment-page-1#comment-42438 Steve Durbin Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:52:17 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2007/10/molotov-cocktail-ii.html#comment-42438 Well, I might expect acknowledgement somewhere, just as I've credited others who were inspirations, but I'd hardly insist or get upset at the lack of it. I retain sole capability of making high-quality prints of my photographs, but if anyone wants to use any on the low-resolution images here on A&P, or on my web site, I say go ahead. They're not watermarked or labeled, and I'd be happy if they provide some enjoyment through someone else's use. Well, I might expect acknowledgement somewhere, just as I’ve credited others who were inspirations, but I’d hardly insist or get upset at the lack of it. I retain sole capability of making high-quality prints of my photographs, but if anyone wants to use any on the low-resolution images here on A&P, or on my web site, I say go ahead. They’re not watermarked or labeled, and I’d be happy if they provide some enjoyment through someone else’s use.

]]> By: Sunil Gangadharan http://artandperception.com/2007/10/molotov-cocktail-ii.html/comment-page-1#comment-42419 Sunil Gangadharan Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:15:55 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2007/10/molotov-cocktail-ii.html#comment-42419 "I’m fine with anything that might be done to my work, except selling it as is, claiming to be the artist" Wow, Steve - I never did expect that from you. That is a very open fair-use point of view that not every photographer or artist might subscribe to. Would you not want them to credit you as an inspiration atleast? . "have you ever tried basing a painting on parts of two or more different faces?" I have often thought about this - especially in regard to self-portraits... but have never really followed up on it. Maybe a project for next year. “I’m fine with anything that might be done to my work, except selling it as is, claiming to be the artist”

Wow, Steve – I never did expect that from you. That is a very open fair-use point of view that not every photographer or artist might subscribe to.

Would you not want them to credit you as an inspiration atleast?

.

“have you ever tried basing a painting on parts of two or more different faces?”

I have often thought about this – especially in regard to self-portraits… but have never really followed up on it. Maybe a project for next year.

]]> By: Steve Durbin http://artandperception.com/2007/10/molotov-cocktail-ii.html/comment-page-1#comment-42416 Steve Durbin Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:52:02 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2007/10/molotov-cocktail-ii.html#comment-42416 I'm fine with anything that might be done to my work, except selling it as is, claiming to be the artist. I certainly think the sort of transformation you do is to be encouraged. By the way, have you ever tried basing a painting on parts of two or more different faces? I’m fine with anything that might be done to my work, except selling it as is, claiming to be the artist. I certainly think the sort of transformation you do is to be encouraged. By the way, have you ever tried basing a painting on parts of two or more different faces?

]]> By: Sunil Gangadharan http://artandperception.com/2007/10/molotov-cocktail-ii.html/comment-page-1#comment-42412 Sunil Gangadharan Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:19:20 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2007/10/molotov-cocktail-ii.html#comment-42412 Steve, After looking at it for a long time, I did see it. Maybe it is Duchamp telling Levine - please stop this... I created this urinal addressing a completely different context. I do not care much for Levine's work either, but the fact that she dabbles in blatant appropriation should at least get us thinking on what might be its limits (especially in the online world of today)… Wonder if you would feel OK if someone takes a picture you shot and appropriated it and produced art that conveys a fundamentally different outcome and perspective from what you had envisaged… Steve,
After looking at it for a long time, I did see it. Maybe it is Duchamp telling Levine – please stop this… I created this urinal addressing a completely different context.

I do not care much for Levine’s work either, but the fact that she dabbles in blatant appropriation should at least get us thinking on what might be its limits (especially in the online world of today)…

Wonder if you would feel OK if someone takes a picture you shot and appropriated it and produced art that conveys a fundamentally different outcome and perspective from what you had envisaged…

]]>