3 ms·
But that’s the point if it. He took something that existed in the world and was considered low trash and turned it into something that was considered high art.
by nemo44x 4y ago
But that’s the point if it. He took something that existed in the world and was considered low trash and turned it into something that was considered high art.
If he just made a generic comic book styled thing he’d have something but by taking existing, bottom of the barrel culture and transforming it, he made something entirely new.
This is common in art. Picasso for instance would turn prostitutes into beautiful art. Or even something as banal as a news clipping.
- goosedragons 4y agoI have a strong suspicion if someone took his art, made light changes and slapped it on a T-shirt they'd probably get sued by his estate. It's arguably just as "new" but I doubt few would argue it's not plagiarism.
- krisoft 4y agoHeck, if you would take the art he ripped of and put it on a t-shirt, wouldn't be surprised if his estate would sue you for that too.
- nemo44x 4y agoWell the Andy Warhol Supreme Court case should have a decision soon. The argument I find compelling in support of Warhol is that his painting is fair use and that it “meaningfully transformed” the source material (photo of Prince). It is an appropriation, not a copy. In your example I’d say that Lichtenstein meaningfully transformed the source material and is fair use of a drawing in a book of drawings. But making t-shirts of either the source or the painting would not meaningfully transform it nor would it be fair use and therefore a copyright violation.
- derbOac 4y agoSo Picasso painted those prostitutes, he didn't paint paintings of prostitutes. It would be one thing — and probably more intellectually interesting — if he had credited the original art more openly. For example by including the artist and work in his title ("Untitled, after Private Secretary, Eisman"). But it seems like in many or most cases he didn't even acknowledge that he was copying the work. I'm not sure what kind of statement he was making by the way he did things. Whatever he intended it's turning into something else.
- nemo44x 4y agoMy point with Picasso was to illustrate how artists like to take things considered low value by society (prostitutes, soup cans, comic book art, etc) and turn it into something if high value. The Supreme Court is actually ruling on this soon. The argument is that the artwork creates something meaningfully different and is fair use. So far the lower courts agree.
- carlosjobim 4y agoHow beautiful of this distinguished artist! Next let me start copying and selling some music recordings that's considered "low trash" for a high price and keep all the money for myself. What a grand contribution to culture!
- tsimionescu 4y agoA prostitute is a human being, not a work of art. Painting a prostitute is not in any way similar to recreating a piece of art with slightly different style.
- nemo44x 4y agoThe fine art is possibly meaningfully different because of context. So far district courts agree. But the Supreme Court is hearing a case now that’s similar regarding Andy Warhol using a photo of Prince. The prostitute comparison was about art in general - taking something considered worthless and making sone beautiful from it.