Comments on: The first ever Douchebag Award goes to… http://c-monster.net/blog1/2008/05/08/the-first-ever-douchebag-award-goes-to/ Where High Gets Low. Fri, 16 May 2008 22:19:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: km http://c-monster.net/blog1/2008/05/08/the-first-ever-douchebag-award-goes-to/#comment-6274 Sat, 10 May 2008 14:20:30 +0000 http://c-monster.net/blog1/2008/05/08/the-first-ever-douchebag-award-goes-to/#comment-6274 Here's an interesting twist for you all. Since this discusssion is about copyright, consider that a photographer is also the copyright holder of his or her works- the photographs. It's the same mechanism that applies to pop art like the Soup Can painting. Eric F, you are comparing apples to oranges here. Videotaping a film is copying the work and is considered piracy when it's done for profit, as it generally is. Photographing a piece of fine art is depicting that piece in another medium, as well as having an entirely different purpose. Plus, you have the additional wrinkle of the fact that film is a collaborative process, so not only is the film itself a protected work, but the actors also have a right to control their images, as per union rules. Since there is no profit motive, it could be argued that posting a picture of an artwork on a blog is Fair Use, since technically it is personal use. Here’s an interesting twist for you all. Since this discusssion is about copyright, consider that a photographer is also the copyright holder of his or her works- the photographs. It’s the same mechanism that applies to pop art like the Soup Can painting.

Eric F, you are comparing apples to oranges here. Videotaping a film is copying the work and is considered piracy when it’s done for profit, as it generally is. Photographing a piece of fine art is depicting that piece in another medium, as well as having an entirely different purpose. Plus, you have the additional wrinkle of the fact that film is a collaborative process, so not only is the film itself a protected work, but the actors also have a right to control their images, as per union rules. Since there is no profit motive, it could be argued that posting a picture of an artwork on a blog is Fair Use, since technically it is personal use.

]]>
by: SanSuzie http://c-monster.net/blog1/2008/05/08/the-first-ever-douchebag-award-goes-to/#comment-6227 Sat, 10 May 2008 03:18:52 +0000 http://c-monster.net/blog1/2008/05/08/the-first-ever-douchebag-award-goes-to/#comment-6227 Germaine dialogue of a nature that explores symbiosis between viewer, viewed and the stewardship of viewerism necessitates immediate and visceral collaboration between blogged and blogger. The photograph is nothing more than a hyper-relational extension of the creative process. Germaine dialogue of a nature that explores symbiosis between viewer, viewed and the stewardship of viewerism necessitates immediate and visceral collaboration between blogged and blogger. The photograph is nothing more than a hyper-relational extension of the creative process.

]]>
by: Juana B. Riquena http://c-monster.net/blog1/2008/05/08/the-first-ever-douchebag-award-goes-to/#comment-6214 Sat, 10 May 2008 01:09:58 +0000 http://c-monster.net/blog1/2008/05/08/the-first-ever-douchebag-award-goes-to/#comment-6214 Ruth, Ruth, Ruth-- We're visual people who use words in a visual medium. So in our blogs--as opposed to the pictureless comments section such as this--words actually are not enough. J.B.R. Ruth, Ruth, Ruth–

We’re visual people who use words in a visual medium. So in our blogs–as opposed to the pictureless comments section such as this–words actually are not enough.

J.B.R.

]]>
by: ruthk http://c-monster.net/blog1/2008/05/08/the-first-ever-douchebag-award-goes-to/#comment-6194 Fri, 09 May 2008 21:41:46 +0000 http://c-monster.net/blog1/2008/05/08/the-first-ever-douchebag-award-goes-to/#comment-6194 I guess I don’t understand what it is that you’re covering. The gallery or the art? If it’s the art, then any decent reproduction will do, even – god forbid – a gallery’s press image. “State-sanctioned photos” makes it sound like you think the gallery by definition is hiding something or misrepresenting something. You’re not covering Vietnam or Watergate, it’s the art world! Ambush journalism is not called for. And it just brings more attention to you and your carefully cultivated outsider/adversarial status, which frankly doesn’t interest me as a reader. I am interested in your response to the work, but you know what? Try using words. I guess I don’t understand what it is that you’re covering. The gallery or the art? If it’s the art, then any decent reproduction will do, even – god forbid – a gallery’s press image. “State-sanctioned photos” makes it sound like you think the gallery by definition is hiding something or misrepresenting something. You’re not covering Vietnam or Watergate, it’s the art world! Ambush journalism is not called for. And it just brings more attention to you and your carefully cultivated outsider/adversarial status, which frankly doesn’t interest me as a reader. I am interested in your response to the work, but you know what? Try using words.

]]>
by: Rita http://c-monster.net/blog1/2008/05/08/the-first-ever-douchebag-award-goes-to/#comment-6181 Fri, 09 May 2008 19:08:00 +0000 http://c-monster.net/blog1/2008/05/08/the-first-ever-douchebag-award-goes-to/#comment-6181 C, I just want to get this straight: You're calling 303 Gallery a douvhe because they protest the posting some very crappy photos that could misrepresent the work one of their artists? C, I just want to get this straight: You’re calling 303 Gallery a douvhe because they protest the posting some very crappy photos that could misrepresent the work one of their artists?

]]>
by: Get Cleased With C-Monster | marshallastor.com http://c-monster.net/blog1/2008/05/08/the-first-ever-douchebag-award-goes-to/#comment-6171 Fri, 09 May 2008 17:57:40 +0000 http://c-monster.net/blog1/2008/05/08/the-first-ever-douchebag-award-goes-to/#comment-6171 [...] In which C-Monster declares New York’s 303 Gallery to win the Douchebag of the Year award, triggering an interesting discussion amongst bloggers with a little spice of accusations of misogyny in the comments for your trollish pleasure. Find out why in the post. [...] […] In which C-Monster declares New York’s 303 Gallery to win the Douchebag of the Year award, triggering an interesting discussion amongst bloggers with a little spice of accusations of misogyny in the comments for your trollish pleasure. Find out why in the post. […]

]]>
by: C-Monster http://c-monster.net/blog1/2008/05/08/the-first-ever-douchebag-award-goes-to/#comment-6162 Fri, 09 May 2008 16:50:06 +0000 http://c-monster.net/blog1/2008/05/08/the-first-ever-douchebag-award-goes-to/#comment-6162 couldn't agree more with juana and marshall. i'm not here to serve as some gallery's marketing outlet. i'm here to show readers what i see -- and what i see doesn't always jibe with the state-sanctioned photos. besides, in an industry that celebrates appropriation as unheralded artistic genius, you'd think this would be easier to understand. ex: richard prince can take a photo of a marlboro ad and it's high art. but if i take a photo of that richard prince, i'm violating copyright. do people really believe that artists are allowed to talk to their viewers but that we're not allowed to talk back? as for your hat, marshall, it's safe for now. if anyone's gonna play the oppressed-constituency card on this blog, it's gonna be <a target="_blank" href="http://www.costumesofnashua.com/CNWebSite105/Active905/Pages/CostumeRental/Ethnic/Pics%20Ethnic/EthnicR90203.jpg">me</a>!!! ;-D couldn’t agree more with juana and marshall. i’m not here to serve as some gallery’s marketing outlet. i’m here to show readers what i see — and what i see doesn’t always jibe with the state-sanctioned photos. besides, in an industry that celebrates appropriation as unheralded artistic genius, you’d think this would be easier to understand. ex: richard prince can take a photo of a marlboro ad and it’s high art. but if i take a photo of that richard prince, i’m violating copyright. do people really believe that artists are allowed to talk to their viewers but that we’re not allowed to talk back?

as for your hat, marshall, it’s safe for now. if anyone’s gonna play the oppressed-constituency card on this blog, it’s gonna be me!!!

;-D

]]>
by: Marshall http://c-monster.net/blog1/2008/05/08/the-first-ever-douchebag-award-goes-to/#comment-6157 Fri, 09 May 2008 15:51:42 +0000 http://c-monster.net/blog1/2008/05/08/the-first-ever-douchebag-award-goes-to/#comment-6157 Juana has it spot on. By presenting my photos, rather than a gallery's stock ones, I'm trying to translate my own experience of the art to the viewer, not simply parrot the gallery's presentation of the work. And shooting work is certainly part of my own thought process, and gives me a personal library of reference works that benefit my writing and my own art experience. There are times when you have to respect a venue's wishes or an artist's (or their estate's) rights in the service of writing a good blog post, and smart bloggers know how to handle themselves. It's worth noting that venues and artists that try and wall themselves off from loose internet coverage are really just reducing the potential profile of their artists, especially emerging ones. SErges - you're ridiculous. And your poorly reasoned accusation contains its own revealing bigotry - people of either gender can and do make use of douchebags. If gender had anything to do with C-Monster's post, I'll eat my hat. Juana has it spot on. By presenting my photos, rather than a gallery’s stock ones, I’m trying to translate my own experience of the art to the viewer, not simply parrot the gallery’s presentation of the work. And shooting work is certainly part of my own thought process, and gives me a personal library of reference works that benefit my writing and my own art experience.

There are times when you have to respect a venue’s wishes or an artist’s (or their estate’s) rights in the service of writing a good blog post, and smart bloggers know how to handle themselves. It’s worth noting that venues and artists that try and wall themselves off from loose internet coverage are really just reducing the potential profile of their artists, especially emerging ones.

SErges - you’re ridiculous. And your poorly reasoned accusation contains its own revealing bigotry - people of either gender can and do make use of douchebags. If gender had anything to do with C-Monster’s post, I’ll eat my hat.

]]>
by: C-Monster http://c-monster.net/blog1/2008/05/08/the-first-ever-douchebag-award-goes-to/#comment-6155 Fri, 09 May 2008 15:17:19 +0000 http://c-monster.net/blog1/2008/05/08/the-first-ever-douchebag-award-goes-to/#comment-6155 my visual puns are being read all too literally: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=douchebag">the meaning of douchebag</a>. my visual puns are being read all too literally: the meaning of douchebag.

]]>
by: Juana B. Riquena http://c-monster.net/blog1/2008/05/08/the-first-ever-douchebag-award-goes-to/#comment-6153 Fri, 09 May 2008 14:47:13 +0000 http://c-monster.net/blog1/2008/05/08/the-first-ever-douchebag-award-goes-to/#comment-6153 When I go into a gallery, I want my readers to see what I see. That's why I'm writing my blog. If it were just a matter of J-pegs, I could write "Thomas Nozkowski, Pace Wildenstein Gallery," and provide a link. Also, shooting a show is part of the thinking process. I'm connecting the dots visually and verbally. I want to be able to get up close for a detail or shoot two paintings that are in a particularly interesting visual conversation. Journalists and bloggers work in different ways. When I worked as a paid journalist, I had the luxury of planning a day's worth of gallery visits, calling from my office, and then going to the galleries. As an unpaid (but no less serious) blogger, I don't have that luxury. I'm a working artist who fits in visits to the galleries. I don't have an assistant or a secretary. I do it all myself. I do understand and appreciate a gallery's need to protect its artists and images, but bloggers--whose reach is far greater than the average print journalist, if only because the posts remain viable in the blogosphere pretty much forever--offer far greater long-term coverage. The art fairs recognize this and issue press passes to bloggers. Some of the galleries understand and permit pictures. I'm at the point where if I can't get permission to shoot, I'm not reporting on the event. When I go into a gallery, I want my readers to see what I see. That’s why I’m writing my blog. If it were just a matter of J-pegs, I could write “Thomas Nozkowski, Pace Wildenstein Gallery,” and provide a link.

Also, shooting a show is part of the thinking process. I’m connecting the dots visually and verbally. I want to be able to get up close for a detail or shoot two paintings that are in a particularly interesting visual conversation.

Journalists and bloggers work in different ways. When I worked as a paid journalist, I had the luxury of planning a day’s worth of gallery visits, calling from my office, and then going to the galleries. As an unpaid (but no less serious) blogger, I don’t have that luxury. I’m a working artist who fits in visits to the galleries. I don’t have an assistant or a secretary. I do it all myself.

I do understand and appreciate a gallery’s need to protect its artists and images, but bloggers–whose reach is far greater than the average print journalist, if only because the posts remain viable in the blogosphere pretty much forever–offer far greater long-term coverage. The art fairs recognize this and issue press passes to bloggers. Some of the galleries understand and permit pictures. I’m at the point where if I can’t get permission to shoot, I’m not reporting on the event.

]]>