[caption id="attachment_7495" align="alignleft" width="114"] Werner Herzog. Credit via scalisto.blogspot.com[/caption] "The best advice I can offer to those heading into the world of film is not to wait for the system to finance your projects and for others to decide your fate. If you can’t afford to make a million-dollar film, raise $10,000 and produce it yourself. That’s all you need to make a feature film these days. Beware of useless, bottom-rung secretarial jobs in film-production companies. Instead, so long as you are able-bodied, head out to where the real world is. Roll up your sleeves and work as a bouncer in ...
Sharing two pics of the Diego Rivera mural at the Detroit Institute of Art. If you're ever in Motown, don't miss it!
[caption id="attachment_7451" align="alignleft" width="185"] The infamous Macaca Nigra selfie (via Wikimedia)[/caption] Earlier this month I wrote in Hyperallergic that it would be very difficult to argue that a monkey could create a copyrightable work. Seems I was right. The U.S. Copyright Office just released a draft of its compendium of office practices. Although not official until this December, The Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition, (“Compendium”) now clearly states that the U.S. Copyright office will register an original work of authorship (e.g.- a photograph) “provided that the work was created by a human being.” The Compendium goes on to add, ...
Remember Maximo Caminero, the Florida artist that walked into the Perez Art Museum Miami and proceeded to smash a sculptural vase by artist, Ai Weiwei? He just pleaded guilty to a criminal mischief charge. According to the AP, Caminero "agreed to 18 months' probation, payment of $10,000 restitution to an insurance company for the destroyed vase and 100 hours of community service at local art programs." He also issued a letter of apology stating that his initial protest was wrong. Interesting. I wrote a brief essay, Damage Inc., about this situation for the latest issue of Art Asia Pacific.
Here's another new law review article on Cariou v. Prince, and this time it's from yours truly in collaboration with art historian and curator, Lauren van Haaften-Schick. The article is the product of a paper I presented at Texas A&M last year, and which dealt with appropriation art, copyright, and Cariou v. Prince. Rather than provide another article on how the Second Circuit's opinion went awry, I opted instead to take this writing opportunity to memorialize the numerous conversations I had with Lauren van Haaften-Schick on what this seminal appropriation art case meant for contemporary art, art history, and the current ...
I’m on vacation, but found some spare time to pen a few words for Hyperallergic on the Marina Abramovic Institute and their search for “interns.” Enjoy!
Here’s another new law review article on Cariou v. Prince, and this time it’s from yours truly in collaboration with art historian and curator, Lauren van Haaften-Schick.
The article is the product of a paper I presented at Texas A&M last year, and which dealt with appropriation art, copyright, and Cariou v. Prince. Rather than provide another article on how the Second Circuit’s opinion went awry, I opted instead to take this writing opportunity to memorialize the numerous conversations I had with Lauren van Haaften-Schick on what this seminal appropriation art case meant for contemporary art, art history, and the current state of artistic production and reception. In essence, what this legal opinion means for those who think art is an intellectual pursuit. I asked van Haaften-Schick if she would co-write this article with me in hopes of putting our thoughts and concerns together in one document.
Thus, this theoretical article is written with the intent of impacting the mindset of those in the arts, particularly those that uncritically align themselves with what I call the “appropriation per se is fair use” movement. Not that those in the law cannot gain from our article. Quite the contrary. We imagine the article as providing another glimpse to those in the law other than the spectacle portrayed on a daily basis by glossy magazines, art journals, and sensationalist blogs.
The article is also not intended to rewrite or much less rehash all that has been written about medium specificity, aesthetic judgment, and labor in art. Instead, the article pinpoints these three main areas so as to highlight how law — when misapplied and leveraged by those with nefarious agendas — can have dire consequences for artists, curators, and writers beyond the walls of a court and auction house.
“In June 2012, Sesame Street introduced Alex, a new character on its online interactive program Little Children, Big Challenges. In the short educational video, Alex admits his father is in prison after skirting questions from his friends on his dad’s whereabouts. What does it say about the United States when one of its most popular early-childhood education programs finds the issue of incarceration widespread enough to incorporate it into its curriculum? Alex is one of approximately 2.7 million American children who have a parent currently incarcerated (one in every 28 children), two-thirds of whom are in for nonviolent crimes.”
Don’t miss this exhibition, To Shoot a Kite, now on view at the CUE Art Foundation in NY City until August 2nd. The exhibition was curated by Yaelle Amir.
Creative Capital interviews Amir on her exhibition and its subject matter.
A quick note on The Guardian article. The Walter Benjamin reference is a bit superficial. For Benjamin the aura did rest in the singular object, but it was much more complicated in that the auratic experience rested and relied heavily on space and time. So in effect, I’m sure Benjamin would agree that the aura could also reside in a “copy” or a “fake.”
Switch to our mobile site