4 ms·

I don't completely agree. If what she presented was a "narrative" for a specific audience, I think that's fine. Sort of like literary fiction vs non-fiction s

by mc32 4y ago

I don't completely agree. If what she presented was a "narrative" for a specific audience, I think that's fine. Sort of like literary fiction vs non-fiction story writing. We have historical fiction where we mix past and present real and fake. I don't see why a conceptual artists can't do the same with their photography/art --unless they were completely deceiving their audience for manipulation or monetary gain, i.e. fraud. On the other hand it seems people are using her images without permission and passing them as authentic—which if we’re talking about transgressions, would be worse.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
matkoniecz 4y ago
> We have historical fiction where we mix past and present real and fake. It is fine as long as it presented as historical fiction. > unless they were completely deceiving their audience for manipulation or monetary gain, i.e. fraud. They were at least deliberately deceiving their audience (though technically without stating demonstrably false statement - nevertheless they were lying)
- mc32 4y ago
  That’s a possibility. However maybe her “real” audience is a small group to whom she presented these via other media and are or were looking for reaction to the art. In other words a public art installation. Is it real, is it fake? That’s the art. The bigger problem to me is other people swiping her art, not confirming and not attributing it —simply using her art.
  - matkoniecz 4y ago
    They proudly announced that some newspaper posted their collages (presented as real photos): https://kittiyapawlowski.com/news-publications/published-in-the-times-of-london https://kittiyapawlowski.com/news-publications/published-in-... They had no trouble with selling collages as real photos.
    - mc32 4y ago
      Interesting. If they passed them as real to the newspaper then yeah, that's problematic. What I don't know and can't tell from that is if that claim is part of the art. In other words I cannot verify that was actually published on the Times on Nov 10. Or if it was how much the times knew.

by mc32 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

matkoniecz 4y ago

> We have historical fiction where we mix past and present real and fake. It is fine as long as it presented as historical fiction. > unless they were completely deceiving their audience for manipulation or monetary gain, i.e. fraud. They were at least deliberately deceiving their audience (though technically without stating demonstrably false statement - nevertheless they were lying)

mc32 4y ago
That’s a possibility. However maybe her “real” audience is a small group to whom she presented these via other media and are or were looking for reaction to the art. In other words a public art installation. Is it real, is it fake? That’s the art. The bigger problem to me is other people swiping her art, not confirming and not attributing it —simply using her art.
- matkoniecz 4y ago
  They proudly announced that some newspaper posted their collages (presented as real photos): https://kittiyapawlowski.com/news-publications/published-in-the-times-of-london https://kittiyapawlowski.com/news-publications/published-in-... They had no trouble with selling collages as real photos.
  - mc32 4y ago
    Interesting. If they passed them as real to the newspaper then yeah, that's problematic. What I don't know and can't tell from that is if that claim is part of the art. In other words I cannot verify that was actually published on the Times on Nov 10. Or if it was how much the times knew.