 I could write reams about this. Making pictures of pictures: graffiti, snippets from the Beano, vintage children’s book illustrations, symbols taken from maps. Sometimes I manipulate these images and make them my own, sometimes I don’t. Often they’re perfect just as they are. It's over-quoted probably - but this does resonate: "When you start working, everybody is in your studio - the past, your friends, enemies, the art world, and above all your own ideas - all are there. But as you continue painting, they start leaving, one by one and you are left completely alone. Then, if you're lucky, even you leave" John Cage - and quoted by Philip Guston (my love). The daily avalanche of images our smart phones kindly deliver - a bit overwhelming - no? Addictive - yes! I killed a bit of time in Waterstones Charing Cross waiting for a connecting train to Sussex in the summer and leafed through Beg, Steal and Borrow: Artists Against Originality by Robert Shore. I agree there can't be such a thing as truly original art, that we're all borrowing and remixing. The questions about originality, authorship and ethics..... big questions for AI too...... The crucial distinction between appropriation and plagiarism revolves around intent I guess, the degree of transformation (if there is indeed any transformation). What about acknowledgement? I had a chat with Perplexity AI about this: "Appropriation artists may not always directly cite the source but often operate with the assumption that the source is recognizable to the public, especially in cases involving iconic images, and the context makes the act of borrowing. Plagiarists deliberately obscure the origin, intending for the viewer to believe the work is entirely their own creation" Thinking about my own work - say the painting I made in June with the Pink Panther leaving solid ground with anxious expression in a hot air balloon (?!). I assume he is recognisable to most people. Perplexity tells me that I should have considered copyright and trademark as he is fully protected under US law and managed by MGM! The copyright expires around 2060, so maybe he'll hibernate until then. Titling it Pink Panther made the situation worse - as that "implies an association with the trademark owner (MGM) " I'm not alone painting the Pink Panther - there's Katherine Bernhardt - https://galeriemagazine.com/katherine-bernhardt-art-omi-pink-panther/ I had a look wondering if she asked permission - I'm not genuinely concerned btw, or remotely hesitant about the images I use, just curious... - there's no mention of a licensing agreement. Perplexity AI says "her work is placed in a legally risky position, even if enforcement is rare for artists working in the fine art context." This is just 'Loose Thoughts' - just things that I think about as I'm about to ditch assemblages (again).  I can't remember where I found this piece of plastic - Dungeness maybe, its edges have been softened by the sea, there's a handle on the other side, thick plastic - sun bleached and been around a while I expect - like the old days when plastic toys didn't break - and could be passed down again and again, ... 1970s Fisher Price. I like the skin-like wrinkles in the hair roller - echoing the wrinkles on the back of my hands.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
