The very nature of performing arts means that works are often interpreted by someone other than the writer/composer. The performers are artists in their own rights. Works are interpreted and presented from the unique perspective of the performer(s).
The visual arts are such that a finished work is presented to the viewer. Yes, that work can be later modified or re-interpreted by the artist but that (in my eyes) is a new work. So she takes the work of others and re-interprets them. She is very skillful at what she does. That's about all I get from this. I don't know whether it's art or not; I guess that's not even a pertinent question. Is it wrong? Assuming all copyright laws are complied with, I don't think so. However I still don't feel good about it. It's kind of like drawing a moustache on the Mona Lisa: It may be art but I don't have to like it. Cheers, frank --- Original Message --- From: Joseph McAllister <[email protected]> Sent: January 20, 2012 1/20/12 To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: So wrong On Jan 20, 2012, at 07:55 , Paul Stenquist wrote: > > On Jan 20, 2012, at 10:35 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote: > >> I don't know, but it would seem there are copyright issues in what she's >> doing. > > I doubt it. I would assume either she has permission or the copyrights have > expired. She's doing it very publicly. And very well IMO. Quite Obviously, a > lot of skill and artistic ability is required to achieve the results she's > accomplished. I applaud that. On "Shorpy.com" there are a few members who regularly colorize the presented B&W images that are culled from the Library of Congress's publicly available collections. Some even compete for best rendering. I have no problem with that at all. They are no longer hunched over a pinned down print with their tubes of Marshall Transparent Oils and a selection of fine sable brushes for the detail work. The colorized versions that are posted bring to life the rather ho-hum images that display life in the late 19th century through the mid-20th century when color film rose to consumer usage. I find some of the works delightful. Most of the images are from collections donated to the Library, or shot for the WPA and other government projects. As such they are in the public domain. Once available only by entering the LOC and perusing their catalog, they are now available to all in super sized HD scans from 4x5 to (commonly early images) 8 x 10 glass negatives. You ain't seen a pano until you've seen beautifully stitched images from 8 x 10 glass negs. Getting these images digitized and "out there" to nuts like me who save some or all of the Shorpy presented images builds multi backed up records of days long gone. A percentage of the negatives are being eaten by mold, and could not be preserved if it weren't for scanning and public display. > I think we sometimes get caught up in a contemporary pretension that applies > some kind of arbitrary judgement to creative endeavors. Whether the lady's > work is fine art or not is not for me to judge. But it's certainly artful, > and it's most certainly not "wrong." My feelings exactly Paul. Joseph McAllister [email protected] http://gallery.me.com/jomac -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
