CErasure ethical? Or creative?

Ross Chambers · May 24, 2012

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/may/23/mishka-henner-less-americains

I'd like to be able to erase some of my life history, but I feel that of others is theirs to keep as they like (unless we're talking Soviet Russia)

The 10m volumes of mainly black pages representing the Solar System has to be a great recent con.

markbarendt · May 24, 2012

I say creative.

It has been said, I don't know by whom, that painting is an additive art (you put in what you want) and that photography is a subtractive art (you decide what to take/leave out).

Photographers have been using that principle a long, long time.

The very act of framing a shot leaves things out.

Diapositivo · May 24, 2012

I think it's bullshit.

Rick A · May 24, 2012

I might be okay with that $h!theads concept if he had used his own images. As it stands, I believe he has zero talent and just likes to f__k with other peoples work for a quick buck.

zsas · May 24, 2012

Seems there is a trend in this lately, a few months ago we saw Pavel Maria Smejkal's series where he removed content from famous photographs, my comments re Smejkal wd apply to Henner:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

blansky · May 24, 2012

markbarendt said:
I say creative.

It has been said, I don't know by whom, that painting is an additive art (you put in what you want) and that photography is a subtractive art (you decide what to take/leave out).

Photographers have been using that principle a long, long time.

The very act of framing a shot leaves things out.

You could argue that there is nothing on the canvas when the artists begins and nothing on the photographic paper as well. They both place their art on the blank sheet, thereby both are additive. The subtractive part is when the photographer's lens crops out what he wants to take back to his darkroom, the same way the artist crops in his head, what to place in his empty canvas. Most painters paint scenics or portraits and when they stare at the scene before laying down paint, they are subtracting as much as a photographer.

I would say the only person who truly subtracts is a sculptor who removes material to find the art underneath.

E. von Hoegh · May 24, 2012

He doesn't seem to have the talent and discipline to make his own images, so he manipulates another's and calls the result "original". The dump I took the morning is "original" in the same sense.

David Brown · May 24, 2012

Yawn ...

pbromaghin · May 24, 2012

It was fun to do in 6th grade.

markbarendt · May 24, 2012

blansky said:
You could argue that there is nothing on the canvas when the artists begins and nothing on the photographic paper as well. They both place their art on the blank sheet, thereby both are additive. The subtractive part is when the photographer's lens crops out what he wants to take back to his darkroom, the same way the artist crops in his head, what to place in his empty canvas. Most painters paint scenics or portraits and when they stare at the scene before laying down paint, they are subtracting as much as a photographer.

I would say the only person who truly subtracts is a sculptor who removes material to find the art underneath.

I don't disagree. In fact I like that idea too.

markbarendt · May 24, 2012

E. von Hoegh said:
He doesn't seem to have the talent and discipline to make his own images, so he manipulates another's and calls the result "original". The dump I took the morning is "original" in the same sense.

Actually starting with something known provides a social context.

I'd contend that we all steal ideas, it is part of how creativity works. We build on what others have done.

blansky · May 24, 2012

markbarendt said:
Actually starting with something known provides a social context.

I'd contend that we all steal ideas, it is part of how creativity works. We build on what others have done.

I'd probably agree.

The concept is interesting and only works with known or iconic images.

But he has to have permission. He can't steal the images.

That's the only caveat for me.

removed account4 · May 24, 2012

musicians have been doing this for decades

zsas · May 24, 2012

Mark - Using the definition Kirby Ferguson came up with (copy, transform, combine), this could be argued to be creative, now is it art, that is a whole other matter (legal too, ie fair use)..

http://vimeo.com/kirbyferguson/everythingisaremix3

markbarendt · May 24, 2012

This comes down to a "Fair Use" question. Essentially, is it different enough to constitute something new?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Nature_of_the_copied_work

I'd say it is.

zsas · May 24, 2012

jnanian said:
musicians have been doing this for decades

For sure, check out Ferguson's video 1....

http://vimeo.com/14912890

markbarendt · May 24, 2012

jnanian said:
musicians have been doing this for decades

The fashion industry too.

removed account4 · May 24, 2012

architects do this all the time as well ...

hh richardson in the 1800s invented the richardson romanesque style
using assyrian arches &c. he borrowed towers and "motifs" from churches
ineurope and "scaled" them down to work with the buildings he was building.
most notably he did this with the trinity church in copley square, boston,
and to this day that building is noted as being one of the greatest american churches ever built..

Darkroom317 · May 24, 2012

Creative but just a bit late. http://jowharaalsaud.com/section/168752_2008.html She has been doing this for awhile

But these are her own photographs

Appropriation art is just poor excuse for no talent. Again all concept and little actual craft.

removed account4 · May 24, 2012

SNIP

Darkroom317 said:
Appropriation art is just poor excuse for no talent. Again all concept and little actual craft.

not sure about that ...

mozart appropriated just as kanye west does,
just like braque, picasso and banksy does today.

photographers photograph someone else's architecture, or do a detail of an architectural element, they appropriate that as well.

industrial designers do it all the time as well ...
not sure if it has anything to do with lack of talent ...
unless the newly created art, is bad

cliveh · May 24, 2012

I have no problem with this, as the original still exists.

removed account4 · May 24, 2012

zsas said:
For sure, check out Ferguson's video 1....

http://vimeo.com/14912890

thanks andy
i've seen that before but forgot about it
i love the fact he actually has THE MONKEYS in the video ... brilliant !!

thanks
john

Poisson Du Jour · May 24, 2012

For a supposed sociologist, this guy is in a very bad way indeed.

kevs · May 24, 2012

First of all, the article doesn't mention whether Henner had Frank's permission to use The Americans. I do think it's uncreative to plagiarise, as happened in the ongoing saga of the painter (I won't call Richard Prince an artist!) who copied and modified a photographer's images and overpainted them. (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

At least Henner's "work" is more intelligently thought out and realised that Prince's - which imo amounts to childish doodles. I also think the "work" in both these cases amount to steaming piles of postmodermist extruded male bovine excrement.

Just my 2d - YMMV.

Cheers,
kevs

Michael W · May 24, 2012

Looks like a 2nd year art school project.

CErasure ethical? Or creative?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency