17 ms·
> The dissent manages to be even worse by, as you point out, essentially arguing that everything Andy Warhol does deserves to be fair use because it's Andy Warh
by klyrs 3y ago
> The dissent manages to be even worse by, as you point out, essentially arguing that everything Andy Warhol does deserves to be fair use because it's Andy Warhol.
That's not how I read it. The gist I took was that Andy Warhol deserves fair use because the art establishment has consistently viewed his works, the Prince piece included, as revolutionary. And to state the bloody obvious, if his work was not transformative, it never would have been seen as revolutionary.
- gvedem 3y ago>>to state the bloody obvious, if his work was not transformative, it never would have been seen as revolutionary. that is not at all obvious to me--what is revolutionary in Warhol is not the art but the way people see it, like found art. but if you "found" the art in someone else's comic, and aren't substantially changing the actual image--the actual appearance of the work, the only part that could reasonably be described as being ripped off from someone else... it can be revolutionary without having meaningfully transformed the original, just the way people see it. disclaimer: I don't have a lot of time for that kind of art, which no doubt biases me.
- ghaff 3y agoIt's still essentially an appeal to authority. “Good artists copy, Great artists steal” and all that. If an artist is great enough, by definition they're doing transformative things with anything they touch.
- klyrs 3y agoFor whatever it's worth, I'd say that artists are more qualified to make that assessment than the justices on the supreme court.