Can a photograph of someone else’s art be considered art in and of itself? For example I humbly submit photographs of graffiti considered art by many yet hated by some.



www.guaityfotografia.com



The root of the question may be… with interesting com<myspace>position</myspace>, can you create multidimensional art by photographing other art? Not simply journalistic snap shots but framing the photograph in an artistic manner so as to showcase the art being photographed in a new way.

I think that would be cheap art.

you can't pawn someone else's work off as your own. It's asshole behavoir. No matter what you're doing.

art can be cheap in somones opinion. it is still art.

I'm thinking no. It would be like being the copy machine person at Kinkos and just pushing a button, you didn't do jack. You made a copy and as we all know copies are never as good as the original.

Bill wrote:

Difficult question.



First let me say that anyone who takes a copy of someones work and passes it off as their own or diminishes the origional artists ability to profit from their hard work and creativity or reputation should have the artist get medieval on their heinie. That being said there are certain conventions to art. For example when a gardener takes years designing and sculpting a garden with a little brook and wooden bridge no one takes a second thought to setting up an easel and breaking out the paints but it was the art work of the gardener that the painter is trying to reproduce. Yet the gardener gets no credit. When someone spends years creating a masterpiece of a building no one even thinks twice at taking a photo of the skyline. Why? Is it because these are public? Is it because there is no confusion between the photo and the origional art, or because there is no loss in profit? My intuition says that some art is intended to be shared freely like clip art while other art is not. Years ago I created a moving gif from copy<myspace><myspace><myspace><myspace> right</myspace></myspace></myspace></myspac e> free materials of a flying dove with flapping wings flying over a spinning earth. Not long after creating it I was finding it everywhere. Since I created it with copy<myspace><myspace><myspace><myspace> right</myspace></myspace></myspace></myspac e> free materials and since I did not copy<myspace><myspace><myspace><myspace> right</myspace></myspace></myspace></myspac e> the end product and placed it in a public forum I had released control of the material and any possible profits.



Difficult question.

Bill!! Damn good points!

Hmmm its an interesting question.



Firstly there is the little issue of Copy<myspace><myspace>right</myspace></mysp ace>. If you are reproducing someone elses work without their permission, well im no law expert, but I think you would be getting yourself into very hot water. I Personnally wouldn't give another artist permission to take a photo of my work if they had the intention of saying that their photo is Art. And I wouldn't hessitate to seek legal advice if they used my work without my permission.



I don't know about Graffiti though, its not like many people will claim ownership, and you certainly don't ask permission from the builder or architect for photograph the wall/ building.



Its differcult, I can't think of an artist off the <myspace><myspace>top</myspace></myspace> of my head who does this, but I do know there are artists who appropriate other artists work into their own, usually by reproducing the original. So I'm sure how it is all that different.



I guess the ultimate question would be; What is the intent on the part of the photographer? And the context in which the Photographs are to be shown.



So to conclude... I dont know.

Since graffiti isn't copy writed I don't see the problem. Actually, some graffiti is beautiful and it should be recorded for posterity. Obviously, since the "artist" can't very well take a chunk of wall, train car or over pass and stick them in a gallery or museum its not a bad idea. As long as you don't pass it off as your work and state where the photograph was taken it shouldn't be a big deal.

Lisa wrote:

Since graffiti isn't copy writed I don't see the problem. Actually, some graffiti is beautiful and it should be recorded for posterity. Obviously, since the "artist" can't very well take a chunk of wall, train car or over pass and stick them in a gallery or museum its not a bad idea. As long as you don't pass it off as your work and state where the photograph was taken it shouldn't be a big deal.

I agree, there doesnt seem to me to be problem with graffiti, im sure that most artists would be just pleased someone else thought their work to be worthy.

I'm sorry to say but a chunk of wall with work by Banksy was pinched only recently. Oh and hes a graffiti artist who photographs his own work, when the local council paint over his handy work, the photos were the only evidence the work even existed... So in a manner of speaking the Photograph IS the work. Where does that fit in?

Bullshit.



I know many architectual photographers, and their work is amazing. The buildings they photograph are "someone elses work".

It would be your (re)interpretation of their art.

Lisa wrote:

Since graffiti isn't copy writed I don't see the problem. Actually, some graffiti is beautiful and it should be recorded for posterity. Obviously, since the "artist" can't very well take a chunk of wall, train car or over pass and stick them in a gallery or museum its not a bad idea. As long as you don't pass it off as your work and state where the photograph was taken it shouldn't be a big deal.

you can't copy<myspace><myspace>right</myspace></mysp ace> something that is considered vandalism.

RumRunner Photography wrote:

Bullshit.



I know many architectual photographers, and their work is amazing. The buildings they photograph are "someone elses work".

The guy was talking about walking into a museum or gallery and taking a photo of someone else's painting or sculpture and calling the photo art. Then not giving any credit to the orignal artist who created the work. Architectual photographers credit the architect who desinged the building. There are photographers who make good money photographing other people's work for magazines and books. But they always credit the artist and never claim the photo as art or display it as such.

Ahh, that's different then.

Under the law of copy<myspace><myspace>right</myspace></mysp ace>, you can’t reproduce art of somebody else. Only when that person is about 70 years dead, (in Europe at least) it’s free to do so.

Even if that artwork of somebody else is partially in your picture, as a part of your piece, you can’t say it’s your own piece. If it’s a bit recognisable in general as the art of somebody else, the real artist can sew. Buildings are public space, so that’s treated different I think.



Even a graffiti artist would have a strong case. His or her style would be personal enough, and if he can support his claim with own pictures of the work………. (I don’t think a graffiti artist will sew, because then he will probably win one case, and then be placed under arrest for violating some other law, for illegal vandalism.)







The eyes of a dead threesome Janus.