5 ms·
Example of the art: - https://ibb.co/wyMdvvd https://ibb.co/wyMdvvd _________________ Regardless of the outcome, Warhol wins. Art really comes down to two t
by O__________O 4y ago
Example of the art:
- https://ibb.co/wyMdvvd https://ibb.co/wyMdvvd
_________________
Regardless of the outcome, Warhol wins.
Art really comes down to two things: content and style.
Warhol’s style is definitely defined, it is copied all the time, and odds of a court enforcing the estate’s rights to that style are zero. Regardless of if he’s paid for it, no one will ever be able to take that from him — not even the American Supreme Court.
The photograph referenced in the case is not an original work of art. Photographer happened to get access to a celebrity and took a photograph that if combined with 1000s of other photographs by photographers on the same day of the same celebrity would not be distinctive — it literally deserves no protection.
Warhol, if alive, regardless of the outcome in court would have produced even more meaningful art based on the experience, which would have enriched the world.
The litigant in this case, unless case is thrown out has literally contributed nothing, deserves nothing — and if America rules in their favor, that is exactly what Americans deserve too. The litigant, if remembered, will not be remembered as an artist, but as the troll they are.
- sbuk 4y agoIronically, the image you linked completely disproves your point. The derivative work is identical to the point that it is an obvious copy. Warhol should absolutely have sought permission, especially since he and his estate have profited handsomely from the copy.
- Aerroon 4y agoBut you don't know whether you will profit or not before you make the work. And asking for permission after the fact is too late and might even weaken your fair use case.
- sbuk 4y agoI should retract the part about profiting, but it's there because, undoubtedly, given Prince's iconic status even at the time, and Warhol's reputation, it has a bearing on the outcome. Ultimately the moral thing to do, artist to artist, would have been to seek permission.
- treerunner 4y agoIt’s worth noting that this particular Warhol piece was done much later in his career after he had established his style. Usually he didn’t even execute the work, it was done by assistants in the studio. This painting of Prince is an example of Warhol as art business — which incidentally was one of his statements as an artist. Opinion: bout the photo and the painting are actually not very good representation of either artists work. I imagine both the photo and the painting would be considered unimportant if it wasn’t for this legal wrangling. There are many ways that this issue could be approached. For example, could Warhol be allowed fair use in execution but, post-mortem, his estate pay? After all, one thing that the author of the article did not go into is that this argument is really no longer about the creative act.
- musingsole 4y agoDespite your emphasis, I don't find that anything has been "obvious" or "proven" about these pieces. The fact of the ongoing lawsuit implies it's not definitive for the authorities involved either. If you see it so clearly, it's because you're uninformed about or otherwise disrespectful to the actual social norms/rules at play.