4 ms·

Art is in the eye of the beholder. I choose to accept Warhol’s gaze and I find it rewarding. His exposition means something different to me than the original ph

Art is in the eye of the beholder. I choose to accept Warhol’s gaze and I find it rewarding. His exposition means something different to me than the original photograph.

chrismcb 4y ago
"art is in the eye of the beholder" had nothing to do with copyright. That fact that it means something different to you is not relevant. Actually it is, and it implies that copyright is still necessary.
williamcotton 4y ago
And this is the reason for fair use! It is quite clear to me that Warhol is presenting these images in a profoundly different manner than the original. A copyright regime without such an allowance would deprive people like me of an aesthetic experience. You have a choice with someone like Warhol. You can feel something or you can feel nothing. And yes, most of this is a personal choice, a matter of faith, a matter of letting yourself enter into the world of the artist. Or don’t! Just look at this art and say “this is terrible” and “this is theft” or any number of other negative emotions.
- mhb 4y ago
  And if Warhol and his fans value the experience, they can pay for the use of the image.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  It’s really odd to frame such a dispute through the lens of whether it gives you enjoyment or not. A stolen Van Gogh would give the thieves’ house guests plenty of aesthetic pleasure otherwise unavailable as well.
  - shawnz 4y ago
    I don't think that's what they are saying. I think what they are saying is that we should try to construct laws to maximize net utility for society and this is an example of where net utility would have been deceased if Warhol wasn't able to make his parody paintings.
    - mannykannot 4y ago
      To anyone persuaded by this argument: consider that net utility could undoubtedly be increased by any number of redistributions of your net worth. In fact, it would arguably be easier to make this case than the one for the work in question. If the Warhol Foundation wishes to make this utility argument, it should first put all Warhol’s work into the public domain.
    - ethanbond 4y ago
      The imperative to “maximize net utility for society” would yield so many wild results that this question would be rendered well beyond pointless. In any case, I believe that the negative utility created by no original artists producing work because people like Warhol rip them off and mass produce (not to mention the [IMO] negative utility of distorting society’s expectations of art and artists) would far outweigh the utility of someone enjoying a slightly distorted version of an original piece. So even if that were society’s imperative, it’s not at all self-evident Warhol’s actions are positive utility and should be accepted.
pbhjpbhj 4y ago
I agree that Warhol has done something different, but it's entirely derivative to the original image, I can't see how there would ever be a question of whether he copied the image, he did. For Fair Use one asks if the copy is transformative, ie for a different purpose to the original, but it clearly shares the purpose of representing Prince. [Outside the USA, where we don't have Fair Use, this presumably would be tortuous infringement.]
- williamcotton 4y ago
  But Warhol did not intend to reproduce Prince. He intended to mass produce images of a celebrity in one of his “factories”.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    “No your honor I did not steal the painting off the gallery walls. I made a performance art piece, a derivative work, about art theft.” Awfully convenient eh?
    - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
      Copyright infringement is not theft. A video of someone stealing a piece of art from a gallery does not infringe the copyright of the art being stolen. It is still theft, though.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    We could discuss reproduction as a vibe, but it's easier and more falsifiable to discuss it as taking a photograph of a work, separating its colors, using those color separations to create plates (whether physical or digital), and using those plates to direct the application of dyes to a surface. We can't deny that Warhol both intended to do and did that to the photograph.
formerkrogemp 4y ago
That's a verbose and roundabout way of calling yourself a fan, friend. :)

Art is in the eye of the beholder. I choose to accept Warhol’s gaze and I find it rewarding. His exposition means something different to me than the original photograph.

chrismcb 4y ago

"art is in the eye of the beholder" had nothing to do with copyright. That fact that it means something different to you is not relevant. Actually it is, and it implies that copyright is still necessary.

williamcotton 4y ago

And this is the reason for fair use! It is quite clear to me that Warhol is presenting these images in a profoundly different manner than the original. A copyright regime without such an allowance would deprive people like me of an aesthetic experience. You have a choice with someone like Warhol. You can feel something or you can feel nothing. And yes, most of this is a personal choice, a matter of faith, a matter of letting yourself enter into the world of the artist. Or don’t! Just look at this art and say “this is terrible” and “this is theft” or any number of other negative emotions.

mhb 4y ago
And if Warhol and his fans value the experience, they can pay for the use of the image.
ethanbond 4y ago
It’s really odd to frame such a dispute through the lens of whether it gives you enjoyment or not. A stolen Van Gogh would give the thieves’ house guests plenty of aesthetic pleasure otherwise unavailable as well.
- shawnz 4y ago
  I don't think that's what they are saying. I think what they are saying is that we should try to construct laws to maximize net utility for society and this is an example of where net utility would have been deceased if Warhol wasn't able to make his parody paintings.
  - mannykannot 4y ago
    To anyone persuaded by this argument: consider that net utility could undoubtedly be increased by any number of redistributions of your net worth. In fact, it would arguably be easier to make this case than the one for the work in question. If the Warhol Foundation wishes to make this utility argument, it should first put all Warhol’s work into the public domain.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    The imperative to “maximize net utility for society” would yield so many wild results that this question would be rendered well beyond pointless. In any case, I believe that the negative utility created by no original artists producing work because people like Warhol rip them off and mass produce (not to mention the [IMO] negative utility of distorting society’s expectations of art and artists) would far outweigh the utility of someone enjoying a slightly distorted version of an original piece. So even if that were society’s imperative, it’s not at all self-evident Warhol’s actions are positive utility and should be accepted.

pbhjpbhj 4y ago

I agree that Warhol has done something different, but it's entirely derivative to the original image, I can't see how there would ever be a question of whether he copied the image, he did. For Fair Use one asks if the copy is transformative, ie for a different purpose to the original, but it clearly shares the purpose of representing Prince. [Outside the USA, where we don't have Fair Use, this presumably would be tortuous infringement.]

williamcotton 4y ago
But Warhol did not intend to reproduce Prince. He intended to mass produce images of a celebrity in one of his “factories”.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  “No your honor I did not steal the painting off the gallery walls. I made a performance art piece, a derivative work, about art theft.” Awfully convenient eh?
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    Copyright infringement is not theft. A video of someone stealing a piece of art from a gallery does not infringe the copyright of the art being stolen. It is still theft, though.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- pessimizer 4y ago
  We could discuss reproduction as a vibe, but it's easier and more falsifiable to discuss it as taking a photograph of a work, separating its colors, using those color separations to create plates (whether physical or digital), and using those plates to direct the application of dyes to a surface. We can't deny that Warhol both intended to do and did that to the photograph.

formerkrogemp 4y ago

That's a verbose and roundabout way of calling yourself a fan, friend. :)