When is your image, your art ?

knumbnutz · 01-18-2009, 09:42 PM

Hi All,

I would like to pose a question.

If you take a photo of something, in this case graffiti, should you consider it art ?

To clarify, not claim it is your graffiti but the image of the graffiti is yours as is the post processing to get the look you want.
Also this is not a photo of a picasso painting and claiming it is your either. Extra note is that Graffiti is not claimed either because generally it is illegal in the first place.

Your thoughts on this everyone ?

Cheers Neil

PS the photos are in the "post your photos" under richmond graffiti

HGMonaro · 01-18-2009, 10:36 PM

without some extra element that contributes to the image, I can't condone claiming a picture of someone elses graffiti as your own art. Is it any different than taking a picture of someones painting. It's someone elses art. IMO, YMMV! (I didn't look at the examples)

I have an image, that I think I might have posted here, of an oldish man examining graffiti, that scene is very different to just a picture of the graffiti he's looking at.

knumbnutz · 01-18-2009, 10:58 PM

From a discussion else where -

Originally Posted by knumbnutz
I am wondering at what point does it become yours ? I Certainly took the image, but then changed via photoshop.
Then another way, to look at it is that if you take a shot of say Ayers Rocks (Uluru) exactly the same as Ken Duncan took it, is it yours ? Especially if you directly took inspiration from his photo.
Cheers Neil
This gets into the sticky realm of plagiarism. On the one hand, direct copying is only fraud if you try to pass it off as someone else's work, for making money out of it (ie if you were to try to sell the photo as a Duncan). On the other hand, imitation of this sort in your own name would probably still be classed as plagiarism and you could be sued for it. It's a minefield. You might have to talk to a lawyer (gasp!).
__________________
"You won't need Horlicks or a hottie if you eat the fluff from a wombat's botty." Dame Edna Everidge

Hi Wombat,

I saw a photo in a calender which is as good a reproduction of a shot by a famous Oz photographer (steve parrish) as you could take without it being the same shot.
Which is why i ask.

The other considerations about taking a image of graffiti or whatever is that it is your rendition/interpretation (if its not the same as the original) , like cropping, colours, lighting etc etc.
What about taking a photo of a statue which is in effect an art form similar to graffiti ?

Hehe, please take this as good hearted discussion, please join in.

HGMonaro · 01-18-2009, 11:21 PM

I'll bet that Ken or Steve wasn't the 1st to take that same photo either. It's your photo.

wildman · 01-19-2009, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by knumbnutz

1.
If you take a photo of something, in this case graffiti, should you consider it art ?

2.
To clarify, not claim it is your graffiti but the image of the graffiti is yours as is the post processing to get the look you want.
Also this is not a photo of a picasso painting and claiming it is your either. Extra note is that Graffiti is not claimed either because generally it is illegal in the first place.

Your question(s) is muddled:

1 is a question of aesthetics
2 is a question of law (property rights)

which are you asking?

knumbnutz · 01-19-2009, 02:01 AM

Hi Wildman,

1. when does your photo of the graffiti become your art ?
ie if i took a photo of a painting or graffiti or statue etc and colour blended cropped rotated hdr etc etc does it become my art or does it still remain their art ?

2. also saying that, i am not claiming the original work is mine, just my interpretation

cheers Neil

wildman · 01-19-2009, 03:26 AM

Originally posted by knumbnutz

Hi Wildman,

1. when does your photo of the graffiti become your art ?
ie if i took a photo of a painting or graffiti or statue etc and colour blended cropped rotated hdr etc etc does it become my art or does it still remain their art ?

2. also saying that, i am not claiming the original work is mine, just my interpretation

cheers Neil

Ok.

In that case this is "my art" also:
"your art", modified by me, now becomes "my art" and you have no more claim to this image than to my house or car - "I am not claiming the original work is mine, just my interpretation". Fair enough?

Last edited by wildman; 01-29-2009 at 12:00 PM.

Wombat · 01-19-2009, 05:04 AM

Originally posted by knumbnutz

Hi Wildman,

1. when does your photo of the graffiti become your art ?
ie if i took a photo of a painting or graffiti or statue etc and colour blended cropped rotated hdr etc etc does it become my art or does it still remain their art ?

2. also saying that, i am not claiming the original work is mine, just my interpretation

cheers Neil

This is like Marcel Duchamp painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa. It's commonly regarded as a painting by Duchamp, a parody on the Renaissance style and a thumbing of the nose at the reverence for Leonardo. In your example I guess the photo would be recognized as your art, a comment on (but different from) the original statue or piece of graffiti. I'm not a lawyer, but I would suggest that even though graffiti is an illegal activity in many countries, you still can't hijack it and call it your own. You would have to change it in some way and present it on some other medium. I think. This is hard - I need a Bex and a lie-down.

wildman · 01-19-2009, 05:47 AM

"I would suggest that even though graffiti is an illegal activity in many countries, you still can't hijack it and call it your own."

I disagree.
If Leonardo was a graffiti artist and he had painted the Mona Lisa on the side of my house in the dark of the night I doubt that there is country in world that wouldn't recognize my right do with it what I please including painting over it if I considered it offensive. It happens all the time in fact.

I ask again: is the question one of "art" or one of property?

knumbnutz · 01-19-2009, 02:14 PM

Hi Wildman,

Wildman asks- I ask again: is the question one of "art" or one of property?

I guess at the end of the day, considering the base for the image, should i consider it mine to sell, if i wanted to that is ?

For me, I dont consider it my art work, more derived from....because it does not look the same as the original by a long way.

In that case this is "my art" also:
"your art", modified by me, now becomes "my art" and you have no more claim to this image than to my house or car - "I am not claiming the original work is mine, just my interpretation". Fair enough? -- yes, it consists of a fair margin of differentiation.

Cheers Neil

Blue · 01-19-2009, 05:49 PM

It is your photo graph.

Edit: Art students do Picasso reconstructions all the time and they are acknowledged as such.

01-18-2009, 09:42 PM	#1
knumbnutz Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 394	When is your image, your art ? Hi All, I would like to pose a question. If you take a photo of something, in this case graffiti, should you consider it art ? To clarify, not claim it is your graffiti but the image of the graffiti is yours as is the post processing to get the look you want. Also this is not a photo of a picasso painting and claiming it is your either. Extra note is that Graffiti is not claimed either because generally it is illegal in the first place. Your thoughts on this everyone ? Cheers Neil PS the photos are in the "post your photos" under richmond graffiti

01-19-2009, 12:59 AM	#5
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Originally posted by knumbnutz 1. If you take a photo of something, in this case graffiti, should you consider it art ? 2. To clarify, not claim it is your graffiti but the image of the graffiti is yours as is the post processing to get the look you want. Also this is not a photo of a picasso painting and claiming it is your either. Extra note is that Graffiti is not claimed either because generally it is illegal in the first place. Your question(s) is muddled: 1 is a question of aesthetics 2 is a question of law (property rights) which are you asking? Last edited by wildman; 01-19-2009 at 01:06 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Thematic I Object-Art Objects,Folk Art,Classical,Modern	bbluesman	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	152	02-11-2016 08:16 AM
Art or not? :)	rmtagg	Post Your Photos!	15	03-26-2008 11:36 PM
Art?	Tom Lusk	Post Your Photos!	25	02-03-2008 01:11 AM
image comparison using 'neat image' noise reduction programme.	distorted_vision	Post Your Photos!	18	12-28-2007 04:44 AM
Blanton Museum of Art - Modern Art	Matthew Roberts	Post Your Photos!	8	03-26-2007 04:48 PM

01-18-2009, 10:36 PM	#2
HGMonaro Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Melb. Aust Posts: 840	without some extra element that contributes to the image, I can't condone claiming a picture of someone elses graffiti as your own art. Is it any different than taking a picture of someones painting. It's someone elses art. IMO, YMMV! (I didn't look at the examples) I have an image, that I think I might have posted here, of an oldish man examining graffiti, that scene is very different to just a picture of the graffiti he's looking at.

01-18-2009, 10:58 PM	#3
knumbnutz Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 394 Original Poster	From a discussion else where - Originally Posted by knumbnutz I am wondering at what point does it become yours ? I Certainly took the image, but then changed via photoshop. Then another way, to look at it is that if you take a shot of say Ayers Rocks (Uluru) exactly the same as Ken Duncan took it, is it yours ? Especially if you directly took inspiration from his photo. Cheers Neil This gets into the sticky realm of plagiarism. On the one hand, direct copying is only fraud if you try to pass it off as someone else's work, for making money out of it (ie if you were to try to sell the photo as a Duncan). On the other hand, imitation of this sort in your own name would probably still be classed as plagiarism and you could be sued for it. It's a minefield. You might have to talk to a lawyer (gasp!). __________________ "You won't need Horlicks or a hottie if you eat the fluff from a wombat's botty." Dame Edna Everidge Hi Wombat, I saw a photo in a calender which is as good a reproduction of a shot by a famous Oz photographer (steve parrish) as you could take without it being the same shot. Which is why i ask. The other considerations about taking a image of graffiti or whatever is that it is your rendition/interpretation (if its not the same as the original) , like cropping, colours, lighting etc etc. What about taking a photo of a statue which is in effect an art form similar to graffiti ? Hehe, please take this as good hearted discussion, please join in.

01-18-2009, 11:21 PM	#4
HGMonaro Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Melb. Aust Posts: 840	I'll bet that Ken or Steve wasn't the 1st to take that same photo either. It's your photo.

01-19-2009, 02:01 AM	#6
knumbnutz Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 394 Original Poster	Hi Wildman, 1. when does your photo of the graffiti become your art ? ie if i took a photo of a painting or graffiti or statue etc and colour blended cropped rotated hdr etc etc does it become my art or does it still remain their art ? 2. also saying that, i am not claiming the original work is mine, just my interpretation cheers Neil

01-19-2009, 03:26 AM	#7
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Originally posted by knumbnutz Hi Wildman, 1. when does your photo of the graffiti become your art ? ie if i took a photo of a painting or graffiti or statue etc and colour blended cropped rotated hdr etc etc does it become my art or does it still remain their art ? 2. also saying that, i am not claiming the original work is mine, just my interpretation cheers Neil Ok. In that case this is "my art" also: "your art", modified by me, now becomes "my art" and you have no more claim to this image than to my house or car - "I am not claiming the original work is mine, just my interpretation". Fair enough? Last edited by wildman; 01-29-2009 at 12:00 PM.

01-19-2009, 05:04 AM	#8
Wombat Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 901	Originally posted by knumbnutz Hi Wildman, 1. when does your photo of the graffiti become your art ? ie if i took a photo of a painting or graffiti or statue etc and colour blended cropped rotated hdr etc etc does it become my art or does it still remain their art ? 2. also saying that, i am not claiming the original work is mine, just my interpretation cheers Neil This is like Marcel Duchamp painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa. It's commonly regarded as a painting by Duchamp, a parody on the Renaissance style and a thumbing of the nose at the reverence for Leonardo. In your example I guess the photo would be recognized as your art, a comment on (but different from) the original statue or piece of graffiti. I'm not a lawyer, but I would suggest that even though graffiti is an illegal activity in many countries, you still can't hijack it and call it your own. You would have to change it in some way and present it on some other medium. I think. This is hard - I need a Bex and a lie-down.

01-19-2009, 05:47 AM	#9
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	"I would suggest that even though graffiti is an illegal activity in many countries, you still can't hijack it and call it your own." I disagree. If Leonardo was a graffiti artist and he had painted the Mona Lisa on the side of my house in the dark of the night I doubt that there is country in world that wouldn't recognize my right do with it what I please including painting over it if I considered it offensive. It happens all the time in fact. I ask again: is the question one of "art" or one of property?

01-19-2009, 02:14 PM	#10
knumbnutz Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 394 Original Poster	Hi Wildman, Wildman asks- I ask again: is the question one of "art" or one of property? I guess at the end of the day, considering the base for the image, should i consider it mine to sell, if i wanted to that is ? For me, I dont consider it my art work, more derived from....because it does not look the same as the original by a long way. In that case this is "my art" also: "your art", modified by me, now becomes "my art" and you have no more claim to this image than to my house or car - "I am not claiming the original work is mine, just my interpretation". Fair enough? -- yes, it consists of a fair margin of differentiation. Cheers Neil

01-19-2009, 05:49 PM	#11
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	It is your photo graph. Edit: Art students do Picasso reconstructions all the time and they are acknowledged as such.