Symbiotic Souls

I told myself  I'd resist covering the copyright theft stuff , but here we go, it's rife !

Arabelle Sicardi with Tayler Smith

So the 'Jezebel' piece name - checks the usual suspects , well Richard Prince anyways.
It's a well written piece, and a very emotive subject, obviously.
By the way, if you or anyone you know is involved in creativity and have encountered issues, there is a very active group on Facebook who are worth hooking up with, link here.

Personally, my jury is still out on the whole wider issue, and I take it on a case by case level. Certainly with regard to the recent furore over Mr Prince, I feel that people -  sorry - 'creators', are rightly aggrieved - but in the opaque world of publicity and dubious patronage (Suicide Girls), it all gets rather murky in a sea of symbiotic souls...

'Adolf,  the superman who turns gold into tin'

Long ago in my younger daze , I admired the works of Dadaists and surrealists, including John Heartfield, one of the first photomontage satirists, who  re-appropriated photographic images but with a clear message added.
During WWII , his powerful images were used as propaganda against the Nazis.

Radical reworking or lazy theft ?

In the case of the above photo theft, I would argue that there is no clear 'message' or otherwise, and the final piece is all too obviously derived from the original image.

Arctander retitled the piece 'Cheek', and certainly in the u.k. it is more than a little 'cheeky' to blatantly modify work and call it your own, but I don't think the title was intended ironically.

Forgive me being an Art philistine and all, but I would argue that it comes across as the work of someone who thought that applying splashes of colour and random bits of tape was enough to elevate a piece from the workaday to the realms of Art.
I would argue that more interesting permutations would result if the original photographer had perhaps used 'cut and paste' on original negatives or contact prints - but where Mr Arctander has been restricted to only using the finished piece, the limitations are very obvious.
I'd go so far as to say he's not even trying.

Did someone read up on the Richard Prince controversy and see a guaranteed method of garnering publicity ?

Part of the difficulty is that Art is such a nebulous thing now that it has no visible boundaries or definition.
It has passed through so many classifications , definitions and 'Movements' that it can be anything.
On that basis then, the original photograph is Art.
And so is the end result.

Personally, I would question whether the original image was 'Art' as opposed to merely a quirky photograph of the subject .

I'm not going to add to the controversy, I'm just an observer, after all.
But tell that to Shrödingers cat.

And is my flimsy piece of opinion valid at all, or just another 'symbiotic' layer ?

In this world of rehashing, reworking and reposting...perhaps this is art.

Are we guilty of arguing over how fine The Emperors New Clothes look ?

I'll just leave that thought.

Only Me !

Hello again!

Seems like only last week...

Perhaps, like me, some of you are old enough to remember the time when people had stereos that were way too heavy to cart around in their back pockets, and gigs were plentiful and well attended.
Ah yes, the Golden Glow of Nostalgia, which covers a lifetime of cracks in the wall.

'The Golden Glow of Nostalgia

Anyway, we're here now for better or worse, and what do we make of it all ?
According to Deepak Chopra we are all temporal beings in a finite multiverse
So we'll ignore that.

On another note, the self-promotion saga that is Richard Prince (recap) continues with a dull explanation / defence of sorts in a  pretentious but ultimately boring piece in an online magazine titled 'Autre'.
Which is French for 'Other '.

As you probably know.
I'm just telling you that because it's the most interesting thing about the article.

This got me thinking, as I gazed at the fluff in my navel,
Should online magazines be called 'digi-zines' ?
Does anyone care ?

Anyway, in case you're ambivalent about clicking the link to the Richard Prince article, I'll condense it for you, cutting to the chase, as it were.
There's a bit of an opening ramble: scene - setting, if you like, putting Mr Prince in context - name dropping, to be precise. 
So we know he's connected to Art.
Vaguely... like Mickey Mouse is connected to Michaelangelo.

In the article, Richard Prince basically details the process by which he 'followed' people on Instagram, isolated his preferred images of them and deleted comments leaving his own cosmic posturings as taglines.
Then it's copy, enlarge, print and voila !
The rest is history on the walls of Londons Gagosian Gallery and sensible offers only please.
Sensible meaning $90,000...

It's Art, Honey,
With a Capital Money...©™ ero2015

Is Art the new gold ?
If you have money to burn , apparently so.
Which is exactly what the KLF did in 1994, when they burnt a million quid.

Part of the rave  explosion  movement , they were also known as The Timelords, The Justified Ancients Of Mu-Mu, The JAMS - situationist , provocative and damn good fun all in one, they constantly derided 'the industry' in which they worked, making increasingly bold statements as a way of telling people not to settle for the hype.
Whilst hyping everything they did.
They were controversial and creative, in the best way.
Raising consciousness whilst flogging people 'Doctorin' The Tardis'
They even wrote the iconic 'How To Have A number One Hit : The Manual',
now out of print and currently changing hands for big money.

On another £note, there is Banksy.
Witty, powerful visual statements that comment on our fragile society
They now command silly money.
I enjoy the shenanigans of local councils arguing as to who the owner of  a certain tagged wall might be.
I like to think of Mr Banksy / Mr Mouthwash / whoever, sitting back and laughing at the petty squabbling , born of greed.
The film Exit Through The Gift Shop is an introduction to the strangeness.
Although it is another way of giving money to mr Banksy.
Which is difficult.

Anyways, reading back over this piece, I am sorry for re-visiting the Richard Prince thing.
Personally, I think it's relevant-
And pointless, at the same time.

It's all getting a bit philosophical for me.
Bring back unthinking hedonism...and corporal punishment !
Especially for those who draw on walls.
And those who steal virtual pictures from virtual walls.

Check Your Privilege At The Door

I was going to write a third and final piece about the long - running Richard Prince saga (to get up to speed please go back to my earlier blog, Bitch-Fest ) , but decided that it had devolved into the usual self-centred spectacle , with Doe Deere, The Suicide Girls, and others all claiming a piece of the media exposure, so I thought, why bother being part of that ?
The Suicide Girls angle is interesting because - do they intend to sell their original images with the amendments made by Mr Prince, thereby breaching the copyright of his intellectual property ?
Or will they just sell their original instagram photos, thereby breaching Instagrams rights ?
Which brought me to thinking the Big Question - Why ?

Suicide Girls join in the media feeding frenzy

WHY

This moment of existential self doubt was added to by then stumbling across a piece in my news feed regarding a separate issue (I include a link here) which is very dry, and the author debates the question of academics writing for free and asks whether they are, in fact, scabs:

'My use of the word “scab” is often met with a range of responses from irritation to blind fury.  Academics in particular, the sort who wax on about neoliberalism and its exploitation of labour, turn apoplectic as they insist that they’re not scabs but performing vital services by “choosing” to write for free.'

'But what is neoliberalism if not the rationalisation of capitalist exploitation under the rubric of “choice”? ' 

'what is neoliberalism', indeed.
The use of the word 'scabs' is highly emotive, given its previous use to describe those who cross picket lines in defiance of strike action and solidarity amongst workers.
For this reason it's a way of creating a sense of unity in a common cause.
It's also quite divisive in that it implies that anyone not following the authors reasoning is one of 'them', i.e. the 'enemy'.
The tone of the whole piece annoyed me, appealing to my sense of righteous indignation, and is indicative , in my opinion, of many of todays online problems.
It's a worthy read , as an example of the pretentious high-brow gibberish that gets bandied around.

Professor Brian Cox (yes. he of astronomy and previously D;Ream fame) said that part of the problem is the slew of self - published opinion pieces which could be mistaken for factual pieces.
This is almost tantamount to saying that the internet should be left to those who know best, thanks.
The next question is who knows best ?
Could it possibly be no-one, really ?

Let me take a deep breath, and stand back a little from the edge of this existential abyss.

1977 Primitive Blog...

As a disillusioned youth , I was inspired by the D.I.Y. ethos enshrined in punk / new wave, where many would attend gigs and scrawl reviews on paper which would then be xeroxed, stapled and sold for pennies  at gigs, or in record shops (remember those?).
The idea was that this was a form of empowerment, making a mark and taking control of a piece of media, rather than being told who to like and what bands to follow by 'the man' and his running - dog lackeys with their nepotistic promotion of mediocrity.
The downside of this of course, was that it was driven by a desire to stand out from a sea of faceless people, and fanzines were usually released without fanfare or a marketing budget: therefore making no money, or even losing money was considered par for the course, and a small price to pay for editorial freedom.

So here we are in the online world of the internet with its great levelling technology, where everyone can use the tools available to reach out and communicate for fun or learning or profit, or just to escape the humdrum workaday world - yet even here we encounter reactionaries masquerading as our superiors.

What I object to is the elitist agenda pushed by self-righteous types who flaunt their privilege by attempting to tell everyone else what not to do; i.e. unpaid writing !

What is missing here is the 'freedom of choice' option.

Don't get me wrong - I'd love to be paid for my rambling words.
What I'm saying is it happens regardless.
I feel compelled to write / create.
It's in the blood.
Therapy, if you like.

Looking back over this piece, I realise it's a bit divisive in the old 'us and them' way, and I apologise, but terms of reference are hard to come by these days without offending some poor flower...



Please note that the opinions expressed in this blog are purely my own, and in no way are they sponsored or solicited by paying causes.

Fuck 'em.

If a Rip - Off Rips Off a Rip - Off, is it a Rip - Off, or a valid Statement ?

Bricks are not works of art. Bricks are Bricks. You can build walls with them or chuck them through jeweller's windows, but you cannot stack them two deep and call it sculpture.
Keith Waterhouse, Daily Mirror, 19 Feb 1976.

Controversy in 1976...

The debate on the worthiness of the art of Mr Richard Prince continues, gathering media momentum, much like a snowball rolling down a hill.
The debate is polarising opinion, with many feeling that whilst he is indeed re-appropriating (without requesting permission ) the art of others, he is doing just enough transformative stuff to claim 'fair use'.

Andy Warhol controversy in 1962...

Some are pointing out the similarities with the Warhol soup cans , whilst others are bemoaning the misappropriation of Intellectual Properties (the original photographic images on Instagram.)
Meanwhile, images are being sold for around $ 90,000 and Mr Prince is no doubt weeping at his appalling lack of originality all the way to the bank.

It has been pointed out that on a purely technical basis, the reprinting of such images on a large scale would require some serious technical ability (think of the pixellation !).
Is it a post modern comment on the state of the Art world itself ?
If so, then technically Gagossian Galleries are to blame for first mounting the exhibition, having deemed it worthy of attention .
Then the issue falls to the first person who decided that $ 90,000 was a worthy price for an 'original'.

The issue is further clouded by the modern desire for visual affirmation - the online seflie thing that says hey, world, I'm here! 
I'm sure that many of those whose Instagram pics have been appropriated are not too upset - after all, the images were made public on social media, so another way to look at it is to question the strange invocation of privacy laws in such a global public location.

Pic by Doe Deere...controversial, too

My personal feelings are that it is further evidence of the commodification of Art, in which artificially inflated prices are achieved by media controversy - the very value of the art is directly proportional to the shock horror outrage , which is usually expressed in emotive tabloid terms- 'Children are dying of hunger, but some tosser just paid silly money for a Xerox of a Polaroid !'*


From the exhibitions of bricks in the Tate, to Tracey Emins unmade bed, the level of media hysteria seems to influence the perceived monetary value of the work.
I've put the word 'perceived' in italics because it really is about perception as opposed to nuts and bolts reality (ie cost of the materials used, time taken by the artist,etc.)

The artist Carl Andre whose piece 'Equivalent VIII' caused the British tabloids to explode with indignation way back in 1976 (see the opening quote), later denounced Conceptualism as 'humbug'.

STOP PRESS : in news just in , no less than the 'Suicide girls' are joining in, moving from victim status to 'Yes, please' - they are selling their own prints for $90,  as opposed to $90,000...so the whole thing seems to be descending into a post - modern free for all...can't beat 'em ?
Join 'em !

 I have spent more than enough time on the (non) - issue, but I hope you've enjoyed the pieces...

Equivalent VIII  pic from D. Telegraph

* Obviously both Xerox and Polaroid are brand names, so I should have said:
 '...a photocopy of an instant photograph'...

Bitch - Fest : or, When is a Rip-Off Not a Rip-Off ?

I recently wrote about  modern self referential pop-culture which seems to be obsessing with its own past whilst producing nothing genuinely 'new', and was therefore like a snake eating its own tail.
This analogy popped up in my news feed with the fact that a man called Richard Prince had mounted an exhibition of other peoples Instagram images which he then claimed as his own 'Art' through fair use or suchlike. A swift internet search revealed that Mr Prince has indeed procured the work of others and thereby incurred the wrath of the internet and its vocal denizens (never knowingly backwards in coming forwards).

Self-portrait of Mr Prince

I was shocked and (ahem) amused by the outpouring of vitriol ('... has redefined the concept of authorship') aimed in his general direction. No doubt he has ruffled many feathers, and it seems typical of our 21st century world that many attempt to ride the coat-tails of fame by seconding the talents and creations of others.

I have old college friends who have been royally ripped off by fellow students with no scruples , at least two big names (in the fields of fashion and photography, oddly enough) who were accused of plagiarism on an industrial scale - but this is not the place to air such grievances - as I said it's a cultural thing, and always has been, certainly in the creative field.
It's only now that the Internet allows for a full and utterly explicit discourse in real time on such matters.
The voyeuristic thrill from these dramas is like a little fly - on -the - wall peek into another life - a virtual reality show where dirty laundry is aired openly and with much vitriol on both sides.

I'm in two minds about providing links here, as the pages seem to be getting a fair amount of malicious spam, which may sadly interfere with any viewers attempts to examine and consider whether Mr Prince really is a shifty character deserving of such flaming, or whether he is innocent, a special artistic 'snowflake' whose gentle sensibilities have been grossly maligned by online trolls - or whether he is somewhere between the two , and loves the publicity...
The reason I'm dwelling on this is because of the punchline:

This is probably defamation

One of the 'unfortunates' featured in his exhibition of appropriated Instagram images is Doe Deere , (alias Xenia, alias Thunderwear, alias numerous online identities), who seems to have forged a career of her own from plagiarism in the field of fashion and accessories.
Her story is splashed across numerous web pages and is subject to a thorough trashing.
She is quite vocal in her own defence, to the point of name - calling and denouncing her own customer / fan base - at least, she appears to be - or are duplicitous agents of chaos attempting to undermine her integrity ?

It's all very confusing, and mired in the fog of an online war, it's difficult to separate fact from fiction.

Mr Prince has ripped off unwitting users of Instagram, and one of the victims is allegedly ripping off unwitting fashionistas .

So there we have it - the online world of self-serving media is indeed devouring its own tail.
The cycle continues, and in the race to the bottom, these two seem to be streets ahead.
Excepting one thing:
Their plight has spilled over from the world of U.S. Art/Fashion, and is now global, thereby guaranteeing continued interest and the fame associated with the exposure of their names.
So regardless of the validity of their artistic enterprises, they both win by default.

At least they get their 'fifteen minutes of fame' as described by Andy Warhol.



STOP PRESS : Latest news is that one of the instagram photos has sold for $90,000.