Evidence » course: visual culture

you totally ripped me off! i've got another photo just like that actually...i wont post it cause i dont want to show you up, no worries. i like the FedEx abstraction.

Well, if you wanted to get all competitive, I'm sure I could go back in my files and find something from the last couple of years that is very similar.
I took THAT photo today because I was thinking about the other one you posted.

hey its ok, i'm just messing with you...sure you should pull out some old stuff. i'm sure we'd all love to see.

usually ripping off a fellow artist is frowned upon, but maybe thats just the way I was raised to understand cheating.

Check out Bruce Mau's "Incomplete Manifesto". Especially #35, but the whole thing is amazing.
And dude, when you say "ripping off a fellow artist is frowned upon", who are you talking about? Who is doing the frowning? Are you just making stuff up out of nowhere?
I've heard you talk a lot about what being an artist is. I'm interested in seeing what you've been working on.

This is the URL meant for the last comment

now now boys, no fighting.

david
your story (harrowing) about this place
was spine-tingling
doom and disaster
i think about daniel's very different (sad) experience
and how both were unexpected results to this little experiment
the portrait of simon causes me to pant

also, i am glad you introduced the bmd manifesto
a must read indeed

and now for some ripping off of some ripping off for myself
kevin hamilton brought this site to the ordinary aura discussion of watching plane trails, longing for eternal
i too love the boards of canada

dave, when I say ripping off a fellow artist, I was referring to you ripping off karis. when I say its frowned upon, the people doing the frowning are other artists who have some form of ethics. No I'm not making this up out of nowhere, I just simply have more respect for the work of others. Oh and as for what I've been working on, you're welcome to drive down to Kentucky to my brother's studio and check it out, but I doubt you have that much spare time.

Micah,
Did you read the Incomplete Manifesto? You really should.
The point #35 is making is that if you are a real artist, striving to make quality work, even if you appropriate the form or idea of someone else, your own ideas and process will take the ripped off idea and move it in a new direction.
And when I asked you if you were making it up out of nowhere, I was saying that I really don't think you have ever come across an artist who is worried about other people ripping them off. I'm just wondering specifically how you got that impression.
Finally, on the day that I saw Karis' flower/sky photo, I was out walking through some parking lots, and looked up and saw a similar scene (skewed though), with two evidences of the presence of industry and civilization, rather than the idyllic flowers. I took this image that Karis captured, and switched out the content. Instead of a scene of flowerfield serenity, both an airplane and a robotic looking lightpost are encroaching on the sky, creating (in me) thoughts of what we are doing to things (like the sky) that at one point were so uncluttered and pure.

You might remember the two slides that Wolpa showed in class on Wednesday; two artists that took Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain", and twisted it. One made it a statement on masculinity, the other turned it into a self-portrait.
This is why I think that your "frowned upon" statement is false and unfounded.
Right?

about imitation:

i think at this point in history we may ask ourselves if there is any idea/image/object which is new/unique/different
even the bible says there is nothing new under the sun
in terms of originality, who owns an image
we have been exposed to so much visual information, that we can't help but reference or even copy
the copy is embedded in american ideologies, certainly
think of disneyland, las vegas, souveniers of almost any kind,
the hollywood remake, etc.

there is nothing wrong with imitation or copy, if as david says, your own ideas move the piece in a different direction
( i just stole from his comment )
there is art historical precedence for the art copy
see sherrie levine's work or mike bidlo's

there is a tradition too of art about art
duchamp, tansey, broodthers, etc.
and something to be said about an awareness of art history
it requires research to copy well

one final thought
it has been said that imitation is flattery
and this i believe to be true
especially if you operate under the concept that there is no new thing

no dave I did not read your suggested writing, didn't have time. And I believe that there is such a concept that one artist may change an impression of another artist but it usually requires giving that artist due credit. Thats where I believe you failed to go to the fullest requirement. And yes, I have met artists who have expressed concern for someone copying their art. Its an individual expression and is therfor more personal than, lets say, a test answer. I was not saying that you were a villain of sorts, simply that you did not give proper credit to Karis when others are not aware of her work. As to the fact that there are no new images, I have a hard time believing that. I believe God gave humans the imagination to use, so that we would not be limited to only what we see. This is an opinion and can be ignored if you choose to do so. Once more if it was not clear already, this was not a personal attack on your artistic abilities, but on the ethics I was raised to understand were common amongst artists. Notice that I said "frowned upon" not "beaten".

by the way I do not believe in all rules and regulations set forth in print. The Bible works well enough as a source of ethics for me, so forgive me for not adhering to your "Incomplete Manifesto". I'll look into it, but I can't say that I'll keep it on my shelf.

Dude, you are seriously missing the point of what I'm saying.
I DID NOT rip off Karis. I used her idea as a stimulus to facilitate more ideas in some photos I was taking.
And you should scroll up and look at what I said underneath the photo, I gave more credit than what was even necessary.
ETHICS? What? Didn't you read what I just wrote? (Wolpa too.)

I did read what you wrote, and I understand your point. I was just explaining my point when you became a little more inquisitive into my claims. I wasn't saying that you ripped off karis, you used the term before I did. I just didn't think that as an artist using someone else's work to spin off more ideas that you should havce cited which photos prompted you etc. My personal ethics differ from yours as far as giving credit, so we can simply agree to disagree and let it be at that. And no one said I had to agree with Wolpa simply because he's the prof. He has a different opinion and is entitled to it just as well as you and I are. I grow weary of this conversation and therfor consider it done.

Yeah. Agree to disagree.
But I am saying that I don't respect that opinion, and I think it is misinformed.
You haven't had any original ideas in your life. No one has. There is nothing new.
All we have to work with are things which already exist and the filters we put on them. There you go. I assume your stance on ethics is based on nothing (you won't say what code of ethics you are citing or why or where they come from).
If you're tired of this conversation, that's cool. But realize that you started it with your snide little "frowned upon" comment, and that you should be able to finish it.
The point that Wolpa was making is that art museums are filled with pieces of art that are ABOUT ART, or referencing and critiquing existing art inside their own work. I know you're not about to walk into the MCA or MOMA and give your ethics rap to half the work in there.
Not that I want to hammer this into the ground, but I really do want to know where your ethics are coming from. I would also like to tell you that without ever having seen your artwork, I will tell you that it is not original. Nothing is. Your art is influenced by other art that you have seen. That is true, and I doubt you can truthfully deny it. Realize that I'm not saying this as a rip, the way you tried to rip on my photograph. That's the basis of this conversation.. you gave a critique, and it won't be taken as a valid critique unless you can back it up. So far, you can't. In other words, it might be smart to keep quiet if your criticism is based in unfounded opinion.
I could be a lot more harsh about this.

i really hope more people will join this conversation, a really interesting one, i think

as i was driving to work
i couldn't help but think about some parallel's to contemporary music

there has often been debates and even legal action surrounding sampling in hip-hop
appropriation, gleaning, or stealing
what about the ideas of credit or originality here

furthermore, it becomes a lot cloudier when we begin to question the new
what about the white stripes, a new led zeppelin
or coldplay, a new echo & the bunnymen
outkast, a new funkadelic
or jay-z, a new johnny cash, if you begin to think even more abstractly and consider personna
is marilyn manson showing up bowie

matmos gets around the sampling issue by recording rhinoplasty, liposuction, or the mouse in their studio
to use for their electronic dance music

let's talk about originality, reference, sampling, appropriation, ethics