[Aquanet] Re New Subject

Sun Feb 15 16:14:53 EST 2009

Hi All
That leads me to query the legitimacy of taking pieces of good quality magazines to use in collage?  I have not been able to track down the pros and cons of this. I even wrote to National Geographic which did not respond to my questions.  Perhaps they did not receive it? 
Even the design on found papers such as pieces of wall paper, posters, wrappers of various items, pieces of boxes, all of which make excellent bits for collages.  Some of these are photographs, some even pieces of paintings.  I would really like to get a reading on this because many of these collages might end up as for sale items.  I teach a lot of collage and it is important to know what to say to participants of my workshops.  Many thanks.  Valerie Kent

http://valeriekent.com

--- On Sun, 2/15/09, patchapin at mindspring.com <patchapin at mindspring.com> wrote:

From: patchapin at mindspring.com <patchapin at mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: [Aquanet] AWS
To: "Aquanet at Cleverwhiz. Com" <aquanet at cleverwhiz.com>
Received: Sunday, February 15, 2009, 12:42 PM

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <patchapin at mindspring.com>
To: "Mary E Whitehill" <wtrclr at juno.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Aquanet] AWS

> Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, Mary.  But no, I 
> don't think I'm "harsh"; my opinion of the AWS was
simply capped by this 
> last display.
>
> In my speckled career, I worked as a licensed paralegal for some years, 
> and am more than a little familiar with what happens once everyone gets a 
> lawyer.  I've been an artist for much longer than that, and have been
up 
> close and personal with the "Duh?" (act ignorant, no matter
what) method 
> of defense for copyright infringement.   The way this matter was handled 
> by the AWS  -- from the appearance, simply to avoid further publicity --  
> is a smack in the face to all artists who make original designs instead of

> stealing them.
>
> Example: if someone uses a copyrighted design of mine, I must first call 
> it to their attention via letter and tell them to stop (never mind the 
> amount of money they may have made off of it before I caught them out). 
> If they do not, I can retain an attorney, and sue them; I will, of course,

> ask for a judgment as well because they have been making money with my 
> image.  When I get the judgment, I can collect it using my attorney again,

> my cost, and the whole process can take years, and that's if the
defendant 
> has anything of value to collect and doesn't go Chapter 7 on me (guess
how 
> I know these things?).  I might add you do not expect a matter involving 
> any large sum of money to get to trial the same year suit is mounted. 
> Both sides usually get attorneys to sabre-rattle while the matter is 
> settled out of court if at all possible.
>
> Here is a situation wherein the "winning" painting sat on line
marked 
> 'grand prize winner' after accusations went up with absolutely no 
> statement from the AWS long after one should have been made; finally it 
> announced the matter would be looked at; after assessing the situation 
> (just how long does it take someone to check out her other work, 
> references, etc.?, not to mention any question of an 'electronic 
> submission'?).  Then, the AWS had a chance to make sure any artist
wannabe 
> would see what could happen, and the copyist herself would be exposed 
> hopefully as an example to others who might seek to do the same thing.
>
> The fact that an artist is a photographic realist in style doesn't
mean 
> that any painting might not be deframed and subjected to testing.  One 
> would think if you claim to be a realist you would almost get used to your

> level of skill being subject to test, especially in a medium like 
> watercolour.
>
> The idea that the "painter" was not aware of what she was doing
requires 
> that she was unable to read and totally innocent of any ethics concept, 
> but otherwise technically proficient.  Surely you don't buy that one?
>
> And let's clarify the issue on "copying":  any fine art
school worth it's 
> salt will encourage if not require a student to copy from a master.  The 
> student must not sell the resulting work nor profit from it, certainly not

> represent it as the student's own; some schools require a certain
signing 
> of a piece ("After the Work of........") and some require
destruction of 
> the student piece.  I'm not agreeing with this, I'm just saying it

> happens. At the same time, you are receiving lessons on perspective, 
> colour, etc.
>
> Of course you are going to copy work you admire, you want to know how to 
> replicate an effect or whatever. You are maybe throughout your artistic 
> life going to go for some effect reminiscent of an artist or a 
> school/group.  But you do not snatch and plaster the work of others, 
> present it as your own, and then profit from it as well.
>
> And shame on a body so intent on trying to save face for itself that it 
> lets a thing like this go by with no fanfare, just a message to their 
> membership. What does this say to art students, and think about this, 
> because most of them intend a career, and will not pay attention to 
> painting for themselves again except as an offshoot.   Insofar as
"all the 
> best " watercolourists being members of the AWS, I suggest you must
be 
> confining your assessment narrowly. There is a huge body of illustrators 
> and artists who work for a living at it and don't belong, many of them
for 
> precisely reasons like these.
>
> pat chapin
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Mary E Whitehill" <wtrclr at juno.com>
> To: <aquanet at cleverwhiz.com>
> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 9:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [Aquanet] AWS
>
>
>> Aren't you are being a bit harsh on AWS, Pat?   Even though even
one of
>> the three jurors were suspicious that the photograph copied was not
one
>> that the artist had taken herself they had no actual proof until
someone
>> found the original on the internet and notified the photographer who
had
>> taken it.  They then had to contact Sheryl Luxenburg who tried to deny
>> any wrongdoing and then it had to go before a judge or jury.  It was a
>> legal question that could not be settled just from public opinion or
>> hearsay.  I saw the painting and thought it remarkable and never
>> questioned who took the photos. There were a great many photorealist
>> paintings in the show as well as abstracts, portraits from life,
street
>> scenes, florals etc.  I wrote to Janet Walsh,  who had just resigned
as
>> President, and she gave me a very good explanation of the procedures
the
>> AWS was following.  Eight months seems a long time but not when you
are
>> dealing with lawyers and also dealing with a Canadian, not an American
>> Artist. It is tragic for Luxenburg who apparently was not aware of how
>> serious her copying was.  I have found it extremely difficult to
convince
>> students of the importance of using only their own reference material.
 I
>> even know studios where they allow the students to copy greeting cards
or
>> calendar art of others. There is a great deal of this plagiarism going
>> on, especially when they cut out photos from magazines to use as
collage.
>> Unfortunately I deleted the reply from Janet Walsh but I am glad AWS
made
>> the tough decision.  All the very best Watercolorists I have ever
studied
>> with or read about are AWS members and I  think they are doing their
best
>> to promote all watermedea in spite of the popular trend toward oils.
>> M. E Whitehill - Watercolors
>> wtrclr at juno.com
>> Fine art paintings of flowers, landscapes, historic sites of the
Hudson
>> Valley
>>
>> Check "What's New" on my Web Site  www.mewhitehill.com
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> FTD.com
>> Shop now and save $15 on Flowers and Gifts from FTD!
>>
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/u4MuScM2CQ1zguYnf6Bt3GAMFKajZSW4BUGktvlOmx4t7hibhH113/
>> Aquanet mailing list
>> Aquanet at thedigitalbraintrust.net
>> http://lists.thedigitalbraintrust.net/mailman/listinfo/aquanet
>>
>> Check out the Aquanet web site:
>> http://www.aquanetart.com
> 

Aquanet mailing list
Aquanet at thedigitalbraintrust.net
http://lists.thedigitalbraintrust.net/mailman/listinfo/aquanet

Check out the Aquanet web site:
http://www.aquanetart.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.thedigitalbraintrust.net/pipermail/aquanet/attachments/20090215/e82abff4/attachment.html 