リチャード・プリンス と著作権の問題：「元ソニック・ユースのキム・ゴードン」作 @ Blum & Poe 東京 Richard Prince and copyright issues: 'ex Sonic Youth Kim Gordon' @ Blum & Poe, Tokyo
1 hour ago, The Art Newspaper reported that Richard Prince is defending the reuse of others’ photographs. One of the two photographs in question is the above picture, which I took at the gallery Blum & Poe, Tokyo in 2015.
As myself experienced many times in my artistic career, that my pictures had been re-used with slight modification or just re-appropriated, I know how it feels as the original creator. However, in this regard, I’m relaxed and don’t mind. Art itself is always in motion, copyright infringements in the age of the internet and digital data should not be seen in a narrow view. A ‘common sense’-attitude via the re-use of pics should be applied, iPhone snapshots with high resolution rule the world now. Almost every museum allows to take pictures.
In the case of Richard Prince vs. Eric McNatt we’ll follow the next steps.
最近、キュレーター達の間で話題になっている「curatorial ethics」や、アーティストの名声の追求は、「関係性の美学」に対して、疑問が見えつつあります。 何十年も、プリンスはアートの独創性を再コンテキストし、原作者や原所有者といった 社会理念を覆させ、アート作品の視点を変えて考えさせる事をテーマにしていました。 そしてついに、新作品群を巡る「インスタグラム・オン・キャンバス」(一枚= 約 100.000 US$ / 約1200万円)では、最先端なウォーホル風の、マネー・プリンターの過程をたどっています。
この作品は、アーティスト実践における疑念を抱かざるを得ない「when art is over」 と解釈できます。 しかしある意味、sardonic perspective趣味における、作家自身とオーディエンス(=インスタグラム・ユーザー)の物語体を読み取ることもできます。 ポスト・関係性の美学の概念を巡って、相互に関係のあるフェイスブックやツイッタ ー、インスタグラム、ユーチューブは、アーティスト達の発表媒体として利用され、正に、プリンスが現代アート実践の行き詰まった状態を崇高な精神で見せていると言える でしょう。
Richard Prince defends reuse of others’ photographs
In court motions, he argues that his appropriation explores the virtual world of social media
The Art Newspaper, LAURA GILBERT, 10th October 2018
“Prince argues that he had to use as much of the photograph as appeared in the Instagram post to accomplish his purpose. In a 15-page statement calling his iPhone a paintbrush, Prince explains that he wanted “to reimagine traditional portraiture and bring to a canvas and art gallery a physical representation of the virtual world of social media”. Had he altered the photographs, he says, that intent would go unseen.”
Sonic Youth – I Wanna Be Your Dog (1989)
“I never really thought of myself as a musician. I’m not saying Sonic Youth was a conceptual-art project for me, but in a way, it was an extension of Warhol. Instead of making criticism about popular culture, as a lot of artists do, I worked within it to do something.”
— Kim Gordon via Elle.com
Lynn Goldsmith against Andy Warhol
Fair use or foul? An appropriation case involving Warhol raises an artistic debate in New York court
A legal battle over the Pop artist’s portraits of Prince is heating up
The Art Newspaper, LAURA GILBERT
15th October 2018
When is appropriation fair use and when is it foul? In a heated lawsuit, the Andy Warhol Foundation is asking a Manhattan federal court to “stay on the right side of history” and “reject” what it calls a photographer’s “effort to trample on the First Amendment and stifle artistic creativity”. For her part, Lynn Goldsmith, a celebrity and fine-art photographer, warns that a ruling in the Foundation’s favour “would give a free pass to appropriation artists” and destroy licensing markets for commercial photographers. Both combatants’ made their pleas in cross-motions for summary judgment filed Friday (12 October).
In 1984, Goldsmith granted Vanity Fair a one-time license to use her photograph of pop musician Prince as source material for an artist’s illustration. The artist was Warhol, who created not just the illustration for Vanity Fair but 15 other portraits of Prince. In 2016, the Foundation licensed one of those portraits to Condé Nast for $10,000 for the cover of a magazine devoted to Prince published shortly after the musician’s death. The portraits have been exhibited in museums, 12 were sold, and four are in the Andy Warhol Museum. Goldsmith says she learned of Warhol’s series from online images posted after Prince died.
The one licensed use she granted Vanity Fair “did not give Warhol free reign to then create 15 other versions” or the Foundation the right to license all 16, Goldsmith says. She contends the Foundation violated her exclusive rights under copyright law to reproduce, display, license and distribute works derived from her photograph.
The Foundation first questions whether Warhol used Goldsmith’s image. “There is no evidence that he was given the photograph”, its papers say, but “somehow” he created the works. In any event, the Foundation continues, Warhol’s images fall under fair use in copyright law because they have a different aesthetic and meaning and do not usurp Goldsmith’s market. In cropping and flattening the image, he made it “disembodied and mask-like”. Whereas the photograph depicts Prince the person, Warhol’s Prince is an “icon or totem” commenting on celebrity and “defining the contemporary conditions of life”, the Foundation argues.
Warhol’s works do not compete with Goldsmith’s market, the Foundation contends: Warhols sell through high-end galleries and auction houses to wealthy buyers, Goldsmith through photography galleries targeting buyers interested in photographs of musicians.
According to Goldsmith, though, the aesthetic changes in Warhol’s images are “relatively minimal” and the series retains her photograph’s essence, composition, and such elements as Prince’s intense stare and the sheen from the lip gloss she applied. And, she argues, their licensing markets for commercial uses, including magazines, overlap. Her works are also in museums, and one wealthy collector owns one of her Prince photographs as well as Warhol’s works, she notes.
Goldsmith says the singular expression of Prince in her photograph “cannot be replicated by any other photo of Prince, but it can be substituted by the Warhol images that reflect the essence of that photo”. But to the Foundation, the lawsuit is really about “Andy Warhol’s legacy and protecting his transformative and innovative artistic works”.