3 ms·

So Picasso painted those prostitutes, he didn't paint paintings of prostitutes. It would be one thing — and probably more intellectually interesting — if he ha

So 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 ago
My 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.