8 ms·
My favourite story on a similar note is how a Marc Jacob's boutique was vandalised a few years ago. The vandal spray painted "ART" across the front of the store
by kaolinite 11y ago
My favourite story on a similar note is how a Marc Jacob's boutique was vandalised a few years ago. The vandal spray painted "ART" across the front of the store. Marc Jacobs responded by photographing it and putting it on a teeshirt and selling it for $700.
http://www.huhmagazine.co.uk/3721/art-by-art-jacobs-t-shirt http://www.huhmagazine.co.uk/3721/art-by-art-jacobs-t-shirt
- qq66 11y agoMind-boggling to think about, but could the vandal assert copyright over the spray painted wordmark?
- nosuchthing 11y agoNot really. For reference, Richard Prince's derivative 'artwork', particularly the slight modification of artwork from other artists without consent has more often than not been ruled fair use — http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-17/richard-prince-instagram-and-authorship-in-a-digital-world http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-17/richard-pr...
- PhasmaFelis 11y agoGeez, it's depressing what this stuff says about us. The definition of "art" becomes "anything produced by an Approved Artist," nothing less or more. If I showed up at the Frieze Gallery trying to sell them a piece of shit on a plate, they'd laugh in my face. If I produced documentation proving that the plate had in fact been shat upon by Andy Warhol, it would suddenly be Art and worth a fortune. If I revealed that I had faked the documentation, it would suddenly be worthless again--unless the whole routine had attracted enough attention for the art world to crown me a Designated Artist, in which case anything I smeared shit on henceforth would become, by fiat, Art. There is literally no quality intrinsic to the work itself that contributes to its status as Art. Traditionally someone says "Hah, I could have made that," and someone else smiles smugly and says "Yes, but you didn't, did you?" The thing is, it wouldn't matter if I had. I'm not an Artist, so wouldn't be Art. Art is reduced to nothing more than a subset of Celebrity. Richard Prince could print out this post and sell it for $50,000.
- ctdonath 11y agoI've concluded art = that which was made to be looked at.
- Natsu 11y agoI've concluded that art is anything an 'artist' can sell to someone, whether the sale price is reputation or money.
- nosuchthing 11y agoConceptual/performance art is often unsolicited.. Some art is simply about creating an experience for the recipients / audience /
- Natsu 11y agoRight, that's why I put 'reputation' as one of the possible payments to the artist.
- mcv 11y agoI've concluded that the best art is free, done by passionate amateurs rather than people looking to make a buck.
- PhasmaFelis 11y agoAnother thought I just had. The original artists of Richard Prince's pieces were understandably upset because it looked like he was profiting unfairly off of their artistic effort--a reasonable assumption, and something that happens all too often with art shared online. But the truth is actually worse. He didn't profit off of their art, didn't make money because of the quality of their photos. It could have been any photo. It could have been a frame from one of those rotating E-Mail .gifs from the '90s. It doesn't matter, because the only thing Richard Price was ever selling was his own celebrity. The image is merely the frame in which it was hung.
- danharaj 11y ago
- collyw 11y agoThe more I read about stuff like this the more I am convinced that most modern art is just pretentious crap.