Is It Okay To Shoot Someone Else's Art?

[paul6001]

Almost all my photos are taken while bushwhacking (wandering around off trail) in one of the lowest population density areas on the north coast of BC, Canada, or by boating to remote anchorages where few boaters bother going ashore.

Well, you certainly put me in my place. I’m at a loss for words. Is that the only kind of work that earns your seal of approval? Nomads in the Gobi desert or perhaps a recently uncovered ice sheet in Antarctica?

 

[koraks]

there’s lots of interesting work being made and I wish you could appreciate it.

I do; there's no reason to feel bad for me at all. And I enjoy the "bad" art (in Don's terminology) as much as the "good" art. But I admit I have very little affinity with pretentiousness. Excuse my grumpiness; it's for that reason, mostly. Indeed, if Cartier-Bresson would show up at MoMA, he wouldn't get a show on. The same for Titian, Rembrandt, Van Gogh, Michelangelo and all the other old masters. Not because their work is bad, but because it's not contemporary. The art world has moved on, and it's perfectly alright if many people to refuse to move along with it.

 

[paul6001]

You know, when I was growing up my parents taught me to make strangers feel welcome. In my experience, the culture of the internet is exactly the opposite. There have been a few forums that I have visited on occasion, everything from chef knives to stereo gear, and I always feel like I’m instantly put on the defensive. Koraks, in particular, guns me down for posting schlock.

(Apologies Daniela and thanks for the kind words.)

This has hardly been the worst of those experiences but I feel like I should take my unoriginal picture, the one that’s splattered all over Flickr, and go home or at least log out of this forum. The picture I posted has hung in three different galleries (Praxis in Minneapolis, Black Box in Portland, and the SE Center For Photography in the Southeast) and got pretty good reactions, overall. (If limited sales.) Isn’t there anyone out there who could muster a kind word? I guess not.

I dunno. Maybe I’m being too sensitive. But I don’t think so. This post was a question: Is it a legitimate activity to use someone else’s art to make a new piece of art? The answer seems to be that there’s nothing wrong with the idea in general but I specifically don’t have much chance of doing anything worthwhile. Well, I generally get plenty of rejection after something is finished and I try to get it shown here and there; I certainly don’t need to add a new layer of pre-completion rejection.

Goodbye, Photrio. See you in another ten years.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

She went public with it, put on display,

OP:
If the world followed that principle, we'd lose street photography almost in its entirety.

No - I don't think you can equate a gallery space with the street. This isn't the public domain. In my post I mentioned our city market which wants to know who you are and why you are photographing there. It seemed odd to me at the time, but they are within their rights. My mistake was to think of the place as a public space, which in one sense it is, but not in every sense. When I go through the door of the market building, I am on their property, space for which they have responsibilities, and rights attached to them. One of their stated concerns is that they feel a duty toward their customers - whatever their motivation, some people don't like to be photographed - I don't much like it myself - and the market's main concern is that their customers be happy. Their house, their rules. When I worked in retail, we too would ask someone what they were about if they were photographing in our store.

If I were running a gallery, I would want to let my visitors look at the exhibits without worrying about being watched themselves.

I'm a photographer myself, but I am aware that my photography isn't the only thing that matters in this world.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

Isn’t there anyone out there who could muster a kind word? I guess not.

but also

I'm not fishing for compliments but I would like to know if people thought that picture of mine to be an honest effort or just a copy of something by Richter.

It does seem maybe you expected some compliments. They are a lot easier to pick up at Flickr (and I speak as someone who keeps a lot of his photos there; but I don't have much time for the mutual back-slapping there - all those 'Award' groups, and 'Only post when you have 10000 views' groups, and 'Look at me I made Explore' groups).

 

[paul6001]

but also



It does seem maybe you expected some compliments. They are a lot easier to pick up at Flickr (and I speak as someone who keeps a lot of his photos there; but I don't have much time for the mutual back-slapping there - all those 'Award' groups, and 'Only post when you have 10000 views' groups, and 'Look at me I made Explore' groups).

I didn’t expect to get beaten up quite so viciously. Once that started I thought someone might take might offer up a kind word. But the world keeps turning.

Lot of talk of Flickr here. I don’t use it so it’s hard for me to relate.

 

[Don_ih]

I always feel like I’m instantly put on the defensive

I think, in this instance at least, your defensiveness was a case of jumping at shadows. No one was attacking you. When you ask for a debate on here, you quite often get one, and you will find people who disagree with you.

As for whether Cartier-Bresson or Michelangelo would make the gallery walls today, I'd bet they could hold their own. It would be foolish to think that Bach would be composing on a harpsichord or pianoforte if this was his era, for example. Artists are more than their product; they are the ones who make and do. What they make and do depends on when and where they exist.

 

[koraks]

Koraks, in particular, guns me down for posting schlock.

That's unfair.
You bring up a contentious topic (in fact, a number of associated ones). That's OK, but it's evident that some of the viewpoints expressed will not be to your liking.

Moreover, you raise the bar for your own photography and then, within this context, actively ask others to comment on the example you've posted. It's not realistic to expect nothing but praise when doing so.

I agree with @Don_ih that nobody has been disrespectful to you - and neither has anyone been disingenuous.

It would be foolish to think that Bach would be composing on a harpsichord or pianoforte if this was his era, for example.

That's a fair argument and interesting, but I feel we should distinguish between technique/material and artistic vision. Whether Bach would have composed for harpsicord or synthesizer is one thing. Whether his music would have made a difference is another. I would expect, given Bach's genius (no argument there, at least from my side), he wouldn't have written the music today he wrote around three centuries ago. However, had he composed something similar today but for different instruments, he wouldn't get a whole lot of airplay. After all, lots of neo-baroque is being made (even with AI, these days) and while some of it may be pleasant (perfectly fine), it doesn't have quite the same impact.
But the discussion / thought experiment of how the artistic mind relates to the artistic product is quite a different one from the initial tenet of this thread.

 

[Hassasin]

No - I don't think you can equate a gallery space with the street. This isn't the public domain. In my post I mentioned our city market which wants to know who you are and why you are photographing there. It seemed odd to me at the time, but they are within their rights. My mistake was to think of the place as a public space, which in one sense it is, but not in every sense. When I go through the door of the market building, I am on their property, space for which they have responsibilities, and rights attached to them. One of their stated concerns is that they feel a duty toward their customers - whatever their motivation, some people don't like to be photographed - I don't much like it myself - and the market's main concern is that their customers be happy. Their house, their rules. When I worked in retail, we too would ask someone what they were about if they were photographing in our store.

If I were running a gallery, I would want to let my visitors look at the exhibits without worrying about being watched themselves.

I'm a photographer myself, but I am aware that my photography isn't the only thing that matters in this world.

She looked exactly the same on any street outside that gallery. My hole point was about shooting one's back with a "requirement" to ask first to which I say no way.

If a gallery/museum says up front "no photographs to be taken" then nobody should be arguing that. If there is no sign or instructions to same effect prior to entry, that is no longer debatable, all other rules apply bu not some sort of implied ban. After all, if anybody should know what to allow or not, it is the owner/manager of a place.

 

[Don_ih]

However, had he composed something similar today but for different instruments, he wouldn't get a whole lot of airplay.

Fair enough. My point, though, is that the creativity behind the work will make use of what's available. Ultimately, though, an artist is so closely embedded in his or her own experience, it's practically impossible to say what they'd do or who they'd be if they had been born in a different era.

Back on topic, Don McCullin has been taking photos of statues.

I'm sure the photo book will be available eventually. So he's ok with it.

 

[koraks]

Ultimately, though, an artist is so closely embedded in his or her own experience, it's practically impossible to say what they'd do or who they'd be if they had been born in a different era.

Indeed!

 

[Dustin McAmera]

She looked exactly the same on any street outside that gallery

Maybe she did; but outside the gallery she had no reason to expect privacy or respect, because that's what the street is like.* An art gallery is, or should be, for anybody to come and contemplate the art. As a gallery visitor, she should be able to demand decency and privacy from the other visitors; it's not public space. For me, the photograph is *of* the woman; without her, it's just a random interior. If I ever want to photograph a person, as my main subject, not just as a minor element in the background, I will ask. If anything, I think we should steer further in that direction for women, who suffer the male gaze too much. There are exceptions; people who have put themselves in the public eye as politicians, criminals, etc.

*That said, I wouldn't take that photo outside on the street either. I now people's attitudes to this vary, and that discussion is off topic.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

Lot of talk of Flickr here. I don’t use it so it’s hard for me to relate.

But you mentioned it first, apparently as a badge of how good your photo must be.

This has hardly been the worst of those experiences but I feel like I should take my unoriginal picture, the one that’s splattered all over Flickr,

 

[Don_ih]

If anything, I think we should steer further in that direction for women, who suffer the male gaze too much.

I'd agree. In this instance, we can ask the guy who took the photo: why did you take that photo? Would you have taken it if it had been a man? Would you have taken it if she was wearing sweat pants and a jacket?

In the photo @awty posted, it could be practically anyone occupying the "person" spot.

 

[Hassasin]

Gallery is no privacy, you are in public going there, no matter how anyone wants to slice it. When you chose to put on a deep cut dress and step in it outside of own home, you are subject to be looked at even more, in fact by that choice you are screaming to be looked at, draw interest, and ... be photographed. You want privacy you make different choices.

But in the case of photograph that caused some comments, I think it ws a good composition and surely the "model" fit it better than most men would. I say because of the show the lines of female body and cut out dress complement the rest of the frame.

 

[BrianShaw]

Well this has been the most interesting thread I’ve read on Photrio in the past decade!

I’m glad I didn’t participate, though, because my only comment probably would have been about the centering of the subject.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Well, you certainly put me in my place. I’m at a loss for words. Is that the only kind of work that earns your seal of approval? Nomads in the Gobi desert or perhaps a recently uncovered ice sheet in Antarctica?

You had implied that no photographer these days can stand in a place where no other artist had ever found inspiration.

Sorry if you read anything confrontational in my reply...just giving an example of one photographer who lives in an area where few people live, few people visit, and almost all of those who hike stay on established trails.

There are many mountains and areas here with no modern human made trails, and when there are, I take big meandering loops into the forest to discover what can’t be seen from the trail.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If I want a copy of a work of art, I will purchase it. If I am taking a photograph in a museum, I will take the photograph will any art that shows up in the photograph off axis so that it is not a direct copy of the art works. If there are people in the way or a column or a statue, so much the better.

 

[Dr. no]

Well, you certainly put me in my place. I’m at a loss for words. Is that the only kind of work that earns your seal of approval? Nomads in the Gobi desert or perhaps a recently uncovered ice sheet in Antarctica?

You had implied that no photographer these days can stand in a place where no other artist had ever found inspiration.

Sorry if you read anything confrontational in my reply...just giving an example of one photographer who lives in an area where few people live, few people visit, and almost all of those who hike stay on established trails.

There are many mountains and areas here with no modern human made trails, and when there are, I take big meandering loops into the forest to discover what can’t be seen from the trail.

"art"
By any reasonable definition, Paul made art here. He captured a vision that moved him in a media that allows him to share it with others. Discussion is finished.
Everything else here is talking about individual's preferences for "good" art (at extreme length, as always happens with people that think that they may be artists. True artists I know, several who make their living at it, don't seem to care what other people think and especially don't get into discussions about it), and about the moral, ethical and legal aspects of this particular photograph and the idea as a whole.

And just to add to that, I don't think a simple representation of a piece of visual art, say a photograph of a photograph (Walker Evans for example), is new art. Colorize a portrait (say, of Prince), may be derivative art, but then it is a collaboration and credit and profit should be shared. Pictures of people (or light, or weather, etc) interacting with art (architecture, landscaping, etc) may be in continuum with this, but far enough down the line that it doesn't necessarily feel like collaboration.

As far as anything that has been photographed before by anyone being derivative: rubbish! Not going to even elaborate on that.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

When you chose to put on a deep cut dress and step in it outside of own home, you are subject to be looked at even more, in fact by that choice you are screaming to be looked at, draw interest, and ... be photographed. You want privacy you make different choices.

'She was askin' for it, yer honour.'

 

[Vaughn]

'She was askin' for it, yer honour.'

Unfortunately, that is where I though Hassasin's logic was heading, also.

For me, questions about objectifying women, cultural approbiation, photographing the art of others, and so on, is a matter of respect. In most cases in the USA, citizens have a right to be disrespectful. This also means when people are disrespectful, no one else is required to respect their disrespectfulness. One may reconize their right, but still think they are a shitty person for exercising that right.

 

[Pieter12]

I go to museums a lot, and I usually have a camera with me. I have a series of phots I call "At the Museum" consisting of photos of people at those museums and how they might interact with the art or juxtapositions of the visitors and the art. Although some museums are private, I treat them as public spaces and have no qualms about taking photos of the people there, including the guards and other employees. Most of the time there is art in the photos, but not always. Sometimes it is just the grounds or the buildings.



Some examples. Feel free to dislike, dismiss, criticize or otherwise vent. That seems to be the theme of this thread now.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

For anyone who thinks everything has been photographed and you have 45 minutes to kill, check out this film about when the International League of Conservation Photographers and National Geographic photographers came to the north coast of BC, Canada.

The ILCP will conduct a RAVE (Rapid Assessment Visual Expedition) when they feel their photographs can help a worthy cause. They came to create images for use in campaigns to increase awareness of the area because a massive diluted bitumen pipeline and supertanker port proposal was being considered to terminate in Kitimat, where I live.

Spoiler alert...the supertanker & pipeline project didn't get approved.

Lots of wild places left where no photographers have tread.

 

[markjwyatt]

I go to museums a lot, and I usually have a camera with me. I have a series of phots I call "At the Museum" consisting of photos of people at those museums and how they might interact with the art or juxtapositions of the visitors and the art. Although some museums are private, I treat them as public spaces and have no qualms about taking photos of the people there, including the guards and other employees. Most of the time there is art in the photos, but not always. Sometimes it is just the grounds or the buildings.

View attachment 363502View attachment 363503View attachment 363506

Some examples. Feel free to dislike, dismiss, criticize or otherwise vent. That seems to be the theme of this thread now.

I have done this also:


textextext by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr


Madeleine by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

 

[BrianShaw]

Unfortunately, that is where I though Hassasin's logic was heading, also.

For me, questions about objectifying women, cultural approbiation, photographing the art of others, and so on, is a matter of respect. In most cases in the USA, citizens have a right to be disrespectful. This also means when people are disrespectful, no one else is required to respect their disrespectfulness. One may reconize their right, but still think they are a shitty person for exercising that right.

Your right to voice your opinion has been reconized.