wow Sara...is anyone else reading this? i have said nothing negative about academia!
i understand your points. theyre GOOD points. and trust me, i have very strong feelings about art-stealing: ive been ripped off myself a whole bunch. trust me. im just saying that i do not believe that, in this case, the artists are ethically bound to give credit to the original photo. in my opinion, the act of beautifully re-drawing this has systematically altered it's original presentation. Its also noteworthy to remember that 'parody' not only involves the technical aspects of re-appropriating, but also the aesthetics involved. the image is being used in a way that is blatantly different from the purpose for which it was originally intended/crafted.
im curious: how do you feel about the Shep Fairey 'Obama' poster? was he wrong/liable/guilty...or is it 'fair use'?
i wasnt belittling your credentials: as you said, i dont know what they are. i only mentioned that i wanted to know what you really thought about it...your 'laymans' opinion, so to speak.
and my potter stewart reference was mentioned as an aside: my question to you reminded me of his remarks.
slow down, fella: im not trying to pick a fight. honest.
i do think there was something telling in your response though. you began with, 'I think'...it's your opinion. and thats great: its the very essence of these artistic debates. EVERYTHING in art (aside from some concrete physical technical aspects) is subjective. the original argument here was whether there was some categorical ethic that dictates that the firehouse guys needed to give a credit for this. i think you make very good points, and yet you wander into deep waters when you address the 'ethics' of an artists decision in a circumstance like this.
and again, who determines what is 'generally famous'? i mentioned basil gogos in another poster comment today. do you know who he is? you might. i can introduce you to several professional artists who have no idea who he is. who determines whether an image is famous enough to be fair game. thats my question.
'Acceptable' to whom?
And at what point is the image altered 'enough'?
Reminds me of Potter Stewart's definition of pornography: 'hard to describe, but I know it when I see it'.
And just how famous does an image have to be for it to be 'fair game' for re-appropriation in this manner. Forget the art-theory that you're learning from your school books and professors: tell me what YOU think.
Blonde, it is interesting. the difference with Peveto, imo, is that im guessing he wasn't 'illustrating' the image. i think many designers use photographs in a much more explicit way...leaving much of the core elements of an image intact but then manipulating elements to produce an entirely different atmosphere...which takes real smarts. these designer people on this site consistently blow me away and ive come to respect them more and more over the years for the sheer grey-matter that they possess to reinterpret given visual language into something new.
for an illustrator tho...im not sure the credit is necessary. as i said, the act of illustrating imagery from a photo...adding technical line-style to it...screwing with the colors, etc. is, in itself, very adoptive. i think its up to an illustrator as to whether he wants to give cred to a photo inspiration...but it's not something that he is ethically obliged to do.
btw, 'parody' is an encompassing term...and doesn't have to be poking fun or trivializing the original image. One literary essay says that parody 'is imitation, not always at the expense of the parodied text'.
Some have claimed 'parody' in shepard's Obama print that he built off of that photo. the question is did Shepard literally change the original product ENOUGH to really call it that.
Here, to me its very clear that enough 'changing' occurred. The very act of re-drawing an image is very intensive in an argument of 're-appropriation'.
Yea, looked at the photo again...paterns in the sheets and stuff is even different. the entire mood of the imagery is changed in the illo.
do you know the technical talent it takes to render the line work just in those legs?