Sherrie Levine

[Roger Hicks]

I'd offer up the notion that cultural evolution, not unlike biological evolution, produces a lot of cul de sacs. Dead ends are dead ends but they're only known to be so because someone ventured there. All exploration has value.

Allow me to return the compliment: your observation is blindingly obvious -- once you've realized it. The difficult bit is always seeing the blindingly obvious for the first time, and you have certainly enlightened me with that one.

I suspect we'd agree that this particular niche has been over-explored by Ms. Levine.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jstraw]

Allow me to return the compliment: your observation is blindingly obvious -- once you've realized it. The difficult bit is always seeing the blindingly obvious for the first time, and you have certainly enlightened me with that one.

I suspect we'd agree that this particular niche has been over-explored by Ms. Levine.

Cheers,

R.

Thank you. Whether or not she's over-explored it, our examination of her exploration is probably rather quickly exhausted. Yes, I think we'd agree. As you described with the book titles. Sometimes the conceptual has true aesthetic, visceral merit. Sometimes you're through with it as soon as you 'get it.' For me, Levine took about ninety seconds.

 

[removed account4]

this post has gotten me to think about something ...
is plagiarism only the act of making a direct copy of something
and passing it off as one's own, or something else.
while i understand where ms levine is coming from, and "get it" sort of ..

can it be drawn out a bit further and say that photographers that look for
ansel adam's ( or anyone's for that matter ) tripod holes to re-take
someone else's photographs could that be called plagiarism as well.
yes, i know weather changes, nature grows, stones/mountains erode &C
as time passes, but the "idea" has not changed ...

just wonderin'

 

[jstraw]

photographers that look for
ansel adam's ( or anyone's for that matter ) tripod holes to re-take
someone else's photographs could that be called plagiarism as well

or maybe it's just a profound lack of imagination

 

[Jim Chinn]

I don't think there is anything wrong with using someone elses "tripod holes" as long as it is in the pursuit of learning and understanding how someone worked in order to grow. I have read accounts of how various artists would look at the cubist works of Picasso and make as close as possible copies to try to understand his thinking in order to then be able to go beyond or at least not subconsciously copy his technique in later works.

If all you do is try to emulate someone else down to the same scene all the time, I think you cheat yourself as an artist. You might be better served just buying the originals in book form.

But copying or repeating subject matter and technique is common and accepted. For instance, the latest issue of Lenswork has a portoflio of abstracts by Brooks Jensen. Yo may or not like them but there is nothing original there. He is just repeating an idea that I first saw done by Aron Siskind, who got his idea from his painter friend Franz Kline and made them as an homage to his friend who passed away. But that does not mean his version of the idea does not have value and merit to a certain audience.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I don't think there is anything wrong with using someone elses "tripod holes" as long as it is in the pursuit of learning and understanding how someone worked in order to grow.

Dear Jim,

Sure, and we come back to the 'obeying Rules without recognizing them'. The cover picture of the American edition of 'Medium and Large Format Photography' (Hicks & Schultz, Amphoto 2001) is a bit of a 'tripod holes' image, but I didn't know that when I shot it. The simple truth is that there are at most half a dozen 'honey pot' pictures in Honfleur (where I took the picture) and most people shoot the same things.

I'd completely agree that it's an excellent idea to try to reproduce the images of people whose work you admire -- and that it's a LEARNING experience, not the creation of art.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[kjsphoto]

I'd completely agree that it's an excellent idea to try to reproduce the images of people whose work you admire -- and that it's a LEARNING experience, not the creation of art.

So do I, when the person goes to the same location and tries to emulate it, that is the learning experience and I have no problem with that. I do however have a problem when someone makes a copy of another artist work by means of buying a poster, or print of it for that matter, takes a photograph of that original artwork, places a spin on it and calls it art and the sell the original artist work. So to me that is stealing the artwork. not creating anything of your own. The self expression when done by the original artist not by her even though she may have stated what she is doing, it is wrong as far as I am concerned..

A painter, sculptor, photographer, etc… can take an idea of other and use it to create something for themselves, but with this work, she takes the actual image ( and not by going to the scene the artist went to, but actually re-photographing the photograph that is not hers to begins with ), then uses a spin to call it her work, sell it and call it art.

How it that learning, or go even further, how is it art? It isn’t hers to begin with.

And as I stated before even thought I got slammed for my remarks, it is not art but theft period and it doesn’t matter what term them spin to justify it.

 

[Sparky]

S I do however have a problem when someone makes a copy of another artist work by means of buying a poster, or print of it for that matter, takes a photograph of that original artwork, places a spin on it and calls it art and the sell the original artist work. So to me that is stealing the artwork. not creating anything of your own. The self expression when done by the original artist not by her even though she may have stated what she is doing, it is wrong as far as I am concerned..

I don't mean to start in on you again, Kevin - but that's really NOT, IMO, what she was trying to do. The strength of her work has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the aesthetic merits of the original work. You could, in fact, replace it with any other VERY WELL KNOWN work (that is important that it be a known, existing recognizable work) - and the net effect would be the very SAME. It's not about the original image. Therefore it is not stealing. using- maybe - but not stealing.

If she's engaged in stealing - then we are all engaging in stealing when we take a photograph of something 'in the environment'. This is precisely what she was trying to do. Just at a different level of discourse perhaps.

 

[Roger Hicks]

How it that learning, or go even further, how is it art? It isn’t hers to begin with.

And as I stated before even thought I got slammed for my remarks, it is not art but theft period and it doesn’t matter what term them spin to justify it.

I'm with Sparky here. It's not even theft. It's a feeble apology for an idea. The idea was at first interesting (Duchamps/Mutt, then Warhol) but by the time it had been appropriated by Levine for this purpose it was so over-intellectualized that it didn't need to be realized: verbally stating the intention (the book title idea) was more than enough.

The solid bronze replical of the Mutt urinal was amusing (I have to admit I was not aware of this one), and so was was arguably Art, but from my extremely limited acquaintance with Levine's work (this thread has increased my knowledge by at least one order of magnitude) it has nothing of what jstraw called visceral content. I also agree with him that our collective analysis has probably said all that any of us really has to say about it -- but it's so interesting to see what others say!

Cheers,

Roger

 

[jstraw]

So do I, when the person goes to the same location and tries to emulate it, that is the learning experience and I have no problem with that. I do however have a problem when someone makes a copy of another artist work by means of buying a poster, or print of it for that matter, takes a photograph of that original artwork, places a spin on it and calls it art and the sell the original artist work. So to me that is stealing the artwork. not creating anything of your own. The self expression when done by the original artist not by her even though she may have stated what she is doing, it is wrong as far as I am concerned..

A painter, sculptor, photographer, etc… can take an idea of other and use it to create something for themselves, but with this work, she takes the actual image ( and not by going to the scene the artist went to, but actually re-photographing the photograph that is not hers to begins with ), then uses a spin to call it her work, sell it and call it art.

How it that learning, or go even further, how is it art? It isn’t hers to begin with.

And as I stated before even thought I got slammed for my remarks, it is not art but theft period and it doesn’t matter what term them spin to justify it.

So you've said. And you're asking rhetorical questions, not sincere ones...as they have been addressed and you cannot acknowledge the answers. For you, everything is black and white. That must be very comforting.

 

[kjsphoto]

So you've said. And you're asking rhetorical questions, not sincere ones...as they have been addressed and you cannot acknowledge the answers. For you, everything is black and white. That must be very comforting.

It looks like you like to talk to just talk without making any sense. Shows your ture ignorance and arragonace.

You kind of remind me of a child. Always having to get the last word in. Good day...


Where is that ignore button...

 

[Sparky]

(speechless)

 

[kjsphoto]

If appropriation is art, and part of the so called artist vision, then why was Warhol sued? Why did he settle at all? Why was Koons and Hirst sued? If this is an art form why were settlements made if they did nothing wrong?

 

[jstraw]

Now something can't be art if its creation violates civil or criminal satute? I believe I've officially heard everything.

Kevin, you don't understand Levine. You don't. Saying otherwise won't change that. The subject matter of her work was not the subject matter Walker Evans' photographs. The subject matter of her work was not even the Walker Evans photographs. The subject matter of her work was the nature of art. This isn't a very big idea but it's a bigger idea than you can get your head around. Give it up.

 

[kjsphoto]

(speechless)

Another post with mo merit. I am assuming you need to get the last word in also... Because your speechless states nothing. I have sat here and took your tripe when all I wanted was an honest answer to the question I asked.

But you couldn't do that except sling verbal insults.

So go on, get your ego filled and let your BS spew. Everyone knows you got to be the big man by slamming others because they don't conform to your views. Go on, really let your ego get the best of you. Sling more insults.

I just want to know, how is what she does considered art. I still don't have an answer and I still don't understand why it is called art. Yes, I am familiar with the Urinal and I don't understand how that is art, I am familiar with the Mona Lisa piece that was done where a mustache was drawn on it, and I don't understand how that is art either, as nothing was created.

I really don't get it.

To appropriate I was under the impression, you take something and make it your own, even though I don't agree with it. But you modify it in a way where is it not like the original anymore. These pieces of hers are just direct copies and I don't see the artistic vision in it. I see the artistic vision in the original piece that was copied verbatim.

 

[kjsphoto]

Now something can't be art if its creation violates civil or criminal satute? I believe I've officially heard everything.

Kevin, you don't understand Levine. You don't. Saying otherwise won't change that. The subject matter of her work was not the subject matter Walker Evans' photographs. The subject matter of her work was not even the Walker Evans photographs. The subject matter of her art was the nature of art. This isn't a very big idea but it's a bigger idea than you can get your head around. Give it up.

Honestly I don't get it. I try to understand it, and I have read about it. But I just do not get it at all.

I give up and I just dont get it.

 

[matthewbetcher]

i hate to even begin here as this topic AGAIN speaks to the massive and increasingly violent divide between {P}hotographers® and artists engaged in the world of fine art who happen to use photography as a medium... but i can't resist...

john has hinted at the entire crux of the matter here - in the midst of sparky's common sense articulation of the idea behind works of art that seems to be completely ignored. whether or not you like and/or appreciate the ideas at work here in this work (or levine's, or duchamp's, or warhol's, or hockney's, or prince's, or da vinci's, or wall's, or... you get the point) the question here is of authenticity and whether or not plagiarism is at work.

all you need to do is simply look at what plagiarism is and the answer is clear. plagiarism is NOT simply the use of another's production or even copying another's image for that matter. plagiarism is the use of another's production or copying of another's work (image in this case) in order to use as one's own WITHOUT A CREDIT TO THE SOURCE. again, you don't have to like it as art, but it IS a matter of intent and there is no intent in either's work to pass the images off as their own. it's textbook early post-modern "appropriating as recontextualization" at work :rolleyes:

again, as art you don't have to like it, but please realize that the entire notion of the artist as some sort of authentic auteur is and always has been through the entire history of art a romanticized load of shite. and yes, i actually do have the background/education to make such a statement.


_M

 

[Sparky]

speechless = surprised... but I think anything more I can say would only be non-productive.

 

[jstraw]

This really is my last word to you on this subject just in case you're trying to understand this. The point she was making with her work could not be made without appropriating work. It's essential to the exersize. The viewer must be aware that she didn't take the original photographs or the entire point is lost. They not only must be appropriated images, the must be well-known images.

As I said, I think it's a silly parlor trick and I'm not impressed with her but it must be judged on what it is, not what it is not. Her work is not photography.

 

[jstraw]

Oh, and right on, Matthew.

 

[kjsphoto]

John and Matthew, thank you very much. Makes more sense now.

 

[gr82bart]

Jeez Matthew, why'd ya have to put the brakes on the thread with such clear articulation and logic? GAWD man, have you learned nothing from these threads?

Regards, Art. (There goes a perfectly good bag of popcorn)

 

[matthewbetcher]

sorry art (you, not the idealized notion)- my fault, a good batch of popcorn wasted is really a shame... i mean, by the time you get the popcorn to butter to salt ratio just right you start feeling frisky and want to add just a touch of sugar only to realize that now you've upset the whole mess...

and michael - you're articulation of this mess is right on... what's funny is the apparent inability here for some people to appreciate what they don't like or doesn't fit within their little technical bubbles. hell, i think this work is absolute garbage when discussed in the mileu of the fine art world, not because it's not a "good" photograph or it's plagiarised, but because it's simply way too didactic and obvious - a combination that makes me feel like i'm in church and i don't go to church! the thing about it though is that it's pretty obvious as what's going on in terms of image recontextualization and has NOTHING to do with the photograph per se and should not be critiqued as such...

i just wish this forum would stay away from discussions of "what is art" and "why is this photograph worth $_______ when it is out of focus" when, while many here are certainly brilliant photographers and master technicians, it seems like many do not have an in-depth understanding of art history or contemporary art world experience/knowledge. this is not to degrade anyone, i just think that there two different areas of expertise here that are getting confused. there is a major diffference having your "photograph" critiqued from a photographically technical point of view and having it critiqued from the p.o.v. of the contemporary art world - both equally valid, just REALLY REALLY different and up to the creator of such image to determine the context in which it should be seen.

again, my $0.o2 - stop critiqueing dogs as cats! they are wholly unsuccessful as such.

 

[gr82bart]

i just wish this forum would stay away from discussions of "what is art" and "why is this photograph worth $_______ when it is out of focus" when, <snip>

again, my $0.o2 - stop critiqueing dogs as cats! they are wholly unsuccessful as such.

There you go again spoiling a perfectly good source of entertainment. What now? Soon you'll be telling'em not to post pictures of penises in the gallery. Sheesh.

Regards, Art.

 

[jstraw]

The terror that art strikes into the hearts of some of the fine photographers here suggests that if this were an oil painting website, Bob Ross would be their patron saint.