4 ms·

>Show me where Jackson Pollack or Mark Rothk Those guys aren't collage artists. This guy isn't doing anything different than most collage artists. I'm sure you

>Show me where Jackson Pollack or Mark Rothk Those guys aren't collage artists. This guy isn't doing anything different than most collage artists. I'm sure you've heard of Warhol and Liechtenstein (sp?). Long story short, this is free speech and clearly his buyers think his work has monetary value. The same way other works do - via market forces. The Mona Lisa's importance can't be quantified with a "cultural value" detector. >Do I think their art is worth millions? Nope. You don't get to make that assessment. The art market does.

6stringmerc 11y ago
It's free speech until it starts infringing on the rights of others insofar as there are laws on the books against what he's doing - which he proudly admits to not care about. Should there finally be a court (civil?) case that tests the applicability of fair use in his Instagram method, he very well could be found no better than a person who sits in a movie theater and records the film on a camcorder and says because they coughed every once and a while or farted or rustled a bag of popcorn that they've "added" something to the art. By implication, the buyers will have implicity supported an unauthorized work - they'd be no better than pirates buying bootleg DVDs on the street. And, for the record, yes, I do get to make the assessment that I, as an individual, do not believe Rothko's art is worth millions, and the art market can not force me to believing otherwise as a person. Am I allowed to pay what I believe it is worth? No, the art market does indeed set that value. Trying to split "market forces" from "cultural value" is, to me, a short-sighted proposition when in the context of art, which, by its inherent existence, doesn't have intrinsic monetary value (unless it's made from precious metals or stones or whatnot, which is a tangential notion of value).
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  >which he proudly admits to not care about. Why is this a problem. If another artist cuts out stuff from a bunch of different magazines and makes a collage, does he owe money to every magazine? That would be absurd. Why should these photos be different?

6stringmerc 11y ago

It's free speech until it starts infringing on the rights of others insofar as there are laws on the books against what he's doing - which he proudly admits to not care about. Should there finally be a court (civil?) case that tests the applicability of fair use in his Instagram method, he very well could be found no better than a person who sits in a movie theater and records the film on a camcorder and says because they coughed every once and a while or farted or rustled a bag of popcorn that they've "added" something to the art. By implication, the buyers will have implicity supported an unauthorized work - they'd be no better than pirates buying bootleg DVDs on the street. And, for the record, yes, I do get to make the assessment that I, as an individual, do not believe Rothko's art is worth millions, and the art market can not force me to believing otherwise as a person. Am I allowed to pay what I believe it is worth? No, the art market does indeed set that value. Trying to split "market forces" from "cultural value" is, to me, a short-sighted proposition when in the context of art, which, by its inherent existence, doesn't have intrinsic monetary value (unless it's made from precious metals or stones or whatnot, which is a tangential notion of value).

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
>which he proudly admits to not care about. Why is this a problem. If another artist cuts out stuff from a bunch of different magazines and makes a collage, does he owe money to every magazine? That would be absurd. Why should these photos be different?