Whose art is it?

[avb]

If I remember correctly, I recall an article in the Canadian photo magazine "Photo Life" entitled "Whose art is it?" or something like that, discussing the photography of others' art.
In particular, I was thinking about art such as graffiti, murals, sculptures, paintings, advertisements, signage, and the like.

Do you consider our pictures of these items art?
When we take pictures of this art, are we, in effect, stealing some ownership of the original work?
Should we stop taking pictures of, for instance, graffiti and murals, if we want to make (truly) our own photographic art?
If the photographs are interesting, is it only because the original art is interesting?
Should it be required that our photographs provide an increase interest on top of the interest of the original work?

 

[dpurdy]

It is something I think about and I don't photograph other peoples creative work. There is the idea that interpretation of other's art is valid but I think the original person should be credited if possible.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

In "everybody street" documentary about street photography in NYC they have photographer dedicated to graffiti as the project. Graffiti is same form of art as cavemen scratching cave's walls. For some it is vandalism, for others - art.
This lady in this documentary treated graffiti as art, but she was far from primitive one to one reproduction.
If you taking someone else art as form of reproduction it isn't art. It is reproduction of someone else art.
Or you take it as element of yours.

 

[Wallendo]

Graffiti, signs and advertisements are by their nature publicly accessible. I have no hesitation in photographing these subjects. There may be copyright issues, but I shoot for fun, not for photograph sales. Much, if not most. graffiti is illegal and the "copyright holder" is generally not identifiable. I would never think of claiming this as my own work, but would not hesitate to claim an interpretive work.

The problem with copyright is that almost all man-made objects have some copyright ownership: background painting, architectural designs (essentially any building built in the last 70 years), all signs, billboards, products designs, et al. technically have copyright attached (although it is frequently not enforced). If we exclude all copyrighted material from our photographs, we are basically stuck with taking pictures of flowers all day.

 

[AgX]

When we take pictures of this art, are we, in effect, stealing some ownership of the original work?

When we take photographs of them which only can be reasoned by those artifacts, then we life on someone other's fruits so to say.

Legally publication of such photographs may be basically illegal. It depends on legal system. However, still legally, one could argue both on the depth of creativity of such artifacts and whether by their way of presentation their maker gave up rights (anonymously, not tracable).
If protected works of others play only a lesser part in a photograph it depends whether they could be substituted by another work without changing the impact of the photograph.

 

[AgX]

Graffiti, signs and advertisements are by their nature publicly accessible.

Legally, just being publicly accessible does not necessarily vanish protection of otherwisec protected works. Here we got the legal concept of "freedom of panorama" which is applied in some countries and in some others not.

 

[AgX]

There may be copyright issues, but I shoot for fun, not for photograph sales.

Violating a protection is not dependant on sale, but on publishing.

(In times of the internet, a non-commercial work today may even gain more publicity than a commercially published work in the old days.)

 

[mooseontheloose]

What counts as art? Is it anything made by a person? There are many things out there that don't fall into the traditional category of art, but are still artistic - buildings, bridges, staircases, bonsai trees, etc. If we photograph something that we did not construct (or set up) ourselves, does that count? I don't see any difference between the photographer who shoots grafitti or buildings in city or one that photographs trees in the countryside. In both cases, neither photographer had anything to do with the beauty (or lack of) in the scene he or she is photographing. So does it matter?

I'm not being facetious here, this is actually a question I struggle with myself, as someone who's main photographic project at the moment is photographing other people's art (statues in cemeteries). It's more than documentary in nature, as I try to look at things with a photographic eye, I guess putting my "art" on the art, but sometimes I feel a bit of a loss creatively if I spend too much time doing it, which is good I guess, since it pushes to spend time photographing other things. But I'm not shooting moments (street photography), nor am I setting up situations/scenes (for example, like Cindy Sherman) or still lifes that come from my own imagination. Most everything I shoot (and I'm guessing I'm not alone here) is something that interests me (whether it's the subject and/or the light) but it's not something that I have specifically put together to create a totally original piece of photographic art.

So does it matter? If we enjoy shooting what we do, who cares what anyone thinks?

 

[Ian Leake]

T.S. Elliot:
“Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn.”
(Quoted from: https://www.benshoemate.com/2012/08/02/what-does-it-mean-good-artists-copy-great-artists-steal/)

 

[AgX]

So does it matter? If we enjoy shooting what we do, who cares what anyone thinks?

It does as people may approach you (for whatever reason) and may try to keep you from taking photographs (just taking, not even published), so better be prepared for some discussion. There even may be official restrictions on just taking a photograph. (For instance one Brussels cemetary, to refrain to your field.) So be prepared to discuss legal matters too.

 

[guangong]

Sometimes a photograph is just a recorded document. I often take photographs of sculpture because most publications only show one view but many works are designed to viewed in the round. Although many museums and other venues are more permitting about photography than in the past, probably because of the iPhone, I usually use an old Contax or Super Ikonta B, or even a Minox 8x11. Usually these are for my own reference, but some, such as my series on the Roman piece The Boxer, are quite beautiful.

 

[blockend]

If you want a record of a sculpture, painting, church window or graffiti, I don't see a problem. If you want to make something original , the photograph needs to contain more than just the art object. There are some great shots that include visual art juxtaposed with people.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

When my photo club has contests, we don't accept photos of art produced by others unless it's incidental to the rest of the photo.

 

[slackercrurster]

If you want a record of a sculpture, painting, church window or graffiti, I don't see a problem. If you want to make something original , the photograph needs to contain more than just the art object. There are some great shots that include visual art juxtaposed with people.

Yes, concur.

 

[jim10219]

I don’t see a problem with it, at least no worse that so many other forms of photography, unless the photo is composed in a manner to only show the graffito straight on and without context of its surroundings or situation. So if it’s just a photo of the entire work of graffito then you’d have a good arguement for copyright infringement and a poor creative eye. But if the subject of the photo is of the area the graffito/graffiti is in, of people or objects near it, or a detail of the graffito, then I don’t see any difference in that and taking a picture of a building. Remember, building designs can also be copyrighted, yet most photographers have no issues with architectural photography despite the same legal and ethical conundrums.

There are a lot a gray areas in photography most people don’t consider, especially in street photography. Like if you photograph a person, are you stealing their look or the way they dress? They created that look that you found compelling, and may have spent years of hard work and lots of money developing it. What about the architects, engineers, and landscape designers whose works lie in the background of your photo? What about the work of any other photographer who shot from that spot before you that you may not even be aware of? Are you stealing from all of them to? Even if you gain all of the necessary permissions, aren’t you still profiting from the creativity of others while showing very little of your own? Those are one of the many reasons I don’t like street photography. The whole genre is based on stealing from others to claim as your own. But just because I think it’s lazy and shows a lack of creativity doesn’t mean I think it should be banned altogether. That would be a slippery slope that would hobble the art too much.

 

[guangong]

Good grief!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

If I remember correctly, I recall an article in the Canadian photo magazine "Photo Life" entitled "Whose art is it?" or something like that, discussing the photography of others' art.
In particular, I was thinking about art such as graffiti, murals, sculptures, paintings, advertisements, signage, and the like.

Do you consider our pictures of these items art?
When we take pictures of this art, are we, in effect, stealing some ownership of the original work?
Should we stop taking pictures of, for instance, graffiti and murals, if we want to make (truly) our own photographic art?
If the photographs are interesting, is it only because the original art is interesting?
Should it be required that our photographs provide an increase interest on top of the interest of the original work?

This is slicing soup. The subject is one thing, the image thereof is something else. You must be very bored.

 

[AgX]

Lawyers over here that handle such cases are less bored...
Luckily legal cases about art within art are rare, but can become absurd.

 

[Maris]

I've had direct experience with an art where photography is pretty well essential. This is performance art. When the performance stops the art disappears unless there is a photographic record.
Sometimes the performance artist hired me to make pictures so that they would have something to sell in a gallery. They pay my fee and they own the copyright.
Sometimes I'd pay their fee and the model release specified that I own the copyright and can sell the pictures in a gallery.
In a world in which it is possible to claim any act or contrivance as an instance of artistic expression it's useful to be sure whose art is whose.

 

[Dali]

Sad to read such thread where personal opinion are shaped by law more than by moral code as if Photrio were a legal forum... I says a lot about our time.

 

[removed account4]

T.S. Elliot:
“Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn.”
(Quoted from: https://www.benshoemate.com/2012/08/02/what-does-it-mean-good-artists-copy-great-artists-steal/)

"good artists copy, great artists steal" pablo picasso

 

[Sirius Glass]

If I am photographing a sculpture, then I am highlighting the artist's work. If I am photographing a cityscape or architecture and their is artwork or graffiti on the wall, then the composition is mine, but I might need to give credit to the art work.

 

[AgX]

Sad to read such thread where personal opinion are shaped by law more than by moral code as if Photrio were a legal forum... I says a lot about our time.

Ethical stands may vary. The legal situation is unique (within a country and with interpretation aside).

And at least over here there has come new legislation on photographic matter, a hysteric media is even referring to legislation that does not exist, and a bunch of lawyers is covering non-commercial people throughout the country with expensive infringement cases (including photographic matters).
Today most amateur photographers do publish, what they hardly ever did in the heydays of film. So they have to face a legal sutuation non-existant for them in past.

 

[AgX]

I've had direct experience with an art where photography is pretty well essential. This is performance art. When the performance stops the art disappears unless there is a photographic record.
Sometimes the performance artist hired me to make pictures so that they would have something to sell in a gallery. They pay my fee and they own the copyright.
Sometimes I'd pay their fee and the model release specified that I own the copyright and can sell the pictures in a gallery.
In a world in which it is possible to claim any act or contrivance as an instance of artistic expression it's useful to be sure whose art is whose.

What you describe is a win-win situation. And I assume that even most artists are glad to get publicity.
The trouble typically starts when they themselves offer photograpic works of their art.

 

[Dali]

Ethical stands may vary. The legal situation is unique (within a country and with interpretation aside).

And at least over here there has come new legislation on photographic matter, a hysteric media is even referring to legislation that does not exist, and a bunch of lawyers is covering non-commercial people throughout the country with expensive infringement cases (including photographic matters).
Today most amateur photographers do publish, what they hardly ever did in the heydays of film. So they have to face a legal sutuation non-existant for them in past.

So what do we do? Nothing because it could be against "the law" or do we follow our ethics?