At 02:21 AM 4/10/2002 +0000, you wrote:
quoted 9 lines i always thought collage work began in the dada movement but then again i>i always thought collage work began in the dada movement but then again i
>dont really follow art history that much. couldnt we also apply this
>whole sampling issue to photography? lets say i decide to take a picture
>of some building and i call that picture my own and i sell it for lots of
>money. shouldn't i pay the architect royalties if well all played by the
>same rules? the architect designed and built the building on which i based
>my photograph. thats more or less the same argument against sampling. (i
>support of sampling - im just sort of posing this question as something to
>think about.)
I know there's been at least one case of something similar to this. The
Mona Lisa is, of course, artwork within the public domain, so anyone can
copy it, take a picture, etc. But what about that picture? There was
someone, I think it was an AP photographer, who took a picture of the Mona
Lisa and said that it was an original photograph, since he staged it, set
up the lighting, etc. Similar to collage work.
Whether or not this is valid art is, of course, up to the critical eye of
each individual. But it's definitely interesting. Lends an amount of
weight to arguments against copyright, too...
derek
-------
eggytoast.com
-------
with lather thingy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org