Rob Pruitt’s Copyright Infringement; Kennedy’s Dead Analysis
Paddy Johnson, over at Art Fag City, posted quite an interesting story today dealing with copyright and the increasing theft by some visual artists of other artists’ works. Johnson notes that not only did artist Rob Pruitt directly appropriate a unique image of a panda from artist AJ Dimarucot, but that Pruitt also accepts the fact that he did so. Shameless, unethical, illegal, or publicity stunt, you make the call.
Of interest in Johnson’s blog post is NY Times art critic Randy Kennedy’s use of art history as a legal defense. Read it, and keep this in mind: Kennedy’s argument is tantamount to a sculptor arguing that in order to fulfill the concept of human skulls as sculpture he had to go out, decapitate, and scalp human beings as part of his artistic process. Sure, one can certainly call that exercise art, but once can certainly also call that illegal. I’m interested to see what, if anything, Dimarucot does via legal means. Dimarucot’s anger over this theft here.
Tags: appropriation, art, contemporary art, Copyright, design, fair use, intellectual property, piracy, theft
Just to clarify, the post makes no claims on behalf of Rob Pruitt. Seeing as how Dimarucot himself appropriated the image Pruitt now uses — an act that created a bit of controversy when it occurred — I’m not sure I understand this outrage. Pruitt should have credited his source, but all the moralizing on Dimarucot’s behalf seems misplaced.
Thanks Paddy. My post deals with Pruitt’s confirmation to Kennedy (quoted in your blog post) that his panda image was taken from a t-shirt design. I’m not sure about “outrage,” as much as by Kennedy’s miscalculation and weak analysis of this situation (using art history as a legal argument).
[…] […]