its an abused concept for sure, but if it is an alteration of the source material to the point where both the replication and originality are intact, and the originality uses a significant amount of artistic input, then its ok.
not sure where pixelation stands on that line, but if i were in the position i'd be ok with it.
yeah, we could have a whole aesthetic discussion as to whether, say, a lot of what Warhol did--e.g. the Monroe multi-prints--was "art" or a simple derivation of the four-color printing process. was it a comment on the process, or just a derivative use? IIRC some of that was also litigated; didn't Campbell's Soup sue? but in that situation there was both obvious alteration and a major change in context; a Soho gallery and a supermarket shelf don't compete with other. some of Baio's problem, i think, is that he repurposed the art as an album cover for the same music, albeit re-interpreted. that makes it harder to show "transformative" use. using a pixellated image of Miles in a mural or painting about the reduction of organic forms to blocks of data would be an easier sell in legal terms.
i'll trust you and stand corrected on the not-a-Photoshop-filter issue; it wasn't clear from the pictures i saw last night.
In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
FIFTY YEARS OF SCARING THE CHILDREN 1970-2020--and i'm not done yet
Once again though, isn't all this discussion kind of moot? Clearly none of us are copyright experts, a knowledgeable judge should be the one to make these decisions. Maybe Baio is full of shit.
The problem here is that the cost for these court cases is prohibitively expensive. So expensive that they force people to turn over and settle out of court. It's a common misconception that when you win a case the other side pays your legal fees, the fact is Baio could walk out of the courtroom with a ruling in his favor and he'd still owe $300,000 in court fees. I don't know how anyone could argue that doesn't mean the system is fucked up.
dubkitty wrote:yeah, we could have a whole aesthetic discussion as to whether, say, a lot of what Warhol did--e.g. the Monroe multi-prints--was "art" or a simple derivation of the four-color printing process. was it a comment on the process, or just a derivative use? IIRC some of that was also litigated; didn't Campbell's Soup sue? but in that situation there was both obvious alteration and a major change in context; a Soho gallery and a supermarket shelf don't compete with other. some of Baio's problem, i think, is that he repurposed the art as an album cover for the same music, albeit re-interpreted. that makes it harder to show "transformative" use. using a pixellated image of Miles in a mural or painting about the reduction of organic forms to blocks of data would be an easier sell in legal terms.
i'll trust you and stand corrected on the not-a-Photoshop-filter issue; it wasn't clear from the pictures i saw last night.
the soup can was just a still life of mass produced goods, and thats basically what warhol did. he essentially paved the way for making it really fucking easy to make art, and pop art has suffered since.
though you COULD argue that its sort of intrinsic to the medium...
some people are so young that its almost irrelevant to them what wharhol did. his work just gets absorbed into the universal cloud of culture where it influences people indirectly. I think if we give him too much credit, we suffer to be duped by every witty lazy self indulgent hipster artist once again. I think people need to remember that art is as disposable, dishonest, truthful, and priceless as any human being.
eatyourguitar wrote: I think people need to remember that art is as disposable, dishonest, truthful, and priceless as any human being.
Yeah, really, a lot more people need to realize this a WHOLE lot more often. A large amount of art is total bullshit. But, that's what makes the good art so good.
sorry for the caps. we huggin and havin conversations all over the place today.
