As you can see, it was a perfect choice. She's just finished taking a Photoshop class. Her teacher told her that collage wasn't Art since you were using other people's material and besides, there were copyright issues. Well, my previous experience of techie teachers leads me to the conclusion that
1. They have very little knowledge of the art world or the history of art, but think they know everything and that you know nothing.
2. They are under the mistaken impression that they themselves are artists.
3. They have terrible taste that runs along the lines of Hallmark greeting cards and clashing color choices.
4. They think art means commercial art.
5. They think that being technically proficient is all that counts.
OK, I'm making gross generalizations and I apologize to all creative techies out there that I have offended, but this has been my experience with more than one Photoshop teacher. Some of them are perfectly nice people who are good at what they do, but they don't have an art background. This would be OK if they were properly humble about their ignorance, but they're not. Anyhow, the point is that I don't want anyone stifling my friend Deb's creativity! Besides, who the hell cares about copyright issues unless it's a case of direct plagiarism? Think Dada, my friends. But then you all do or you wouldn't be my friends.
Postscript for Kim: Deb loves your collage, the one I posted on my blog two weeks ago.
Postscript for Christina: Thanks for that drawing. I loved floating it over to Deb; then watching how it magically brought her piece together.
Postscript to Deb: Thanks for the day and for letting me use your collage on my blog.
I researched the copyright issue when I started making collages. The law stated that as long as the borrowed image had been altered in some way, like even removed from it's original context, it was not lawsuit fodder. As far as collages not being art, that is too stupid to offer comment. I did run into some issues from my local art co-op about selling collage prints created with a computer. They would only let me sell "originals", which is impossible if there isn't one, except digitally. I pointed out that photographs are not "originals". The negative or slide is the original and the print is always manipulated. Now with digital photography, I guess there are no originals at all, so prints can't be hung or sold in their gallery. Of course they are...It was collage that was the problem.
ReplyDeleteI like the point you made to the gallery about what actually constitutes an original. Your example of photo negatives is so right on.
ReplyDeleteI think there is a good deal of confusion at present about what qualifies as "fine art". I remember when photography was not really considered a legitimate art form by some (usually the painters). Don't you?
ur quite welcome!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Cath, for your lovely presence and helping me work when I sometimes despair. Thanks, Christina for the background drawing. I love your stuff! Thanks for the discussion of copyright issues to all.
ReplyDelete