DAMage Research - Plagarism or Tribute?

http://flavorwire.com/48319/alma-thomas-watusi-gets-the-white-house-kibosh

The 1963 painting by Alma Thomas (to the right) is extremely similar to a 1953 piece by Matisse (below).

it would be interesting to find out what the Hirshhorn Museum paid for Watusi.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/04/AR2009110405053.html

Thomas's painting was first exhibited in the '60s. At that time, you could no more plagiarize a Matisse collage such as "The Snail" than you could pass off the "Mona Lisa" as your own.

Elaborations on earlier artists' work, even full appropriation, have been common practice in art for hundreds of years. Artists long learned their craft by copying the works of older masters; even among high artists, it was standard.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/is_1_90/ai_82012872/

the 73-year-old artist found herself staring at the hollyhock shadows she had known her entire life and calculating

how to use them in her paintings. A year earlier, she had seen the late Matisse cutouts at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Matisse's work had prompted her to paint an acrylic-on-canvas version of his collage The Snail (1953), in which nearly all the original colors were reversed. Thomas named her painting Watusi (Hard Edge), after Chubby Checker's dance hit "The Watusi." As well as marrying high modernism with the popular culture of black America--then entering the American mainstream--the title she chose noted Matisse's debt to African art.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/Decorating-the-White-House-with-Smithsonian-Art.html?c=y&page=9

Pablo Picasso that, "the bad artists imitate, the great artists steal." Thomas' work here is a transformation of the Matisse painting. There is power in the decision to reverse colors and to change perspective from "L'escargot,"giving "Watusi" integrity to stand on its own as a distinctive piece.

**************************

http://venetianred.net/2009/10/27/alma-thomas-on-the-shoulders-of-giants/

illegitimate copying is real. Both Richard Prince (See VR’s “Prince of Pilfer”) and Jeff Koons have been sued by photographers for incorporating copyrighted work into their own. Koons lost the Rogers v. Koons case, but won a more recent suit under the “fair use” doctrine. Readers will remember that earlier this year Damien Hirst threatened to sue a 16-year-old over his use of an image of Hirst’s diamond-incrusted skull, in the process demanding royalties.

Thomas always credited Matisse for the inspiration that produced Watusi. It is obvious that the work launched her on a journey of artistic discovery that produced her unique and forward-looking (if not radical) mosaic style.

To assert that Thomas was “simply copying” Matisse would be to deny the rich and varied underpinnings of her work. Thomas was deeply impressed by the colors and patterns of the natural world around her.

**Credit to Venetian Red Contributors Christine Cariati and Liz Hager for excellent arguments and research

DAMage Report - All that Glitters Might Be Crap

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/state-of-the-arts/archive/2009/11/what-is-obamas-policy-on-the-arts.shtml

President Obama's Committee on the Arts and Humanities has selected some shiny, Hollywood Stars to be on the PCAH committee including top-tier actors such as Forest Whitaker, Sarah Jessica Parker, Alfre Woodard, and Edward Norton. Other high profile personalities include cellist Yo-Yo Ma, Teresa Heinz (wife of John Kerry), Senator Dick Cohen and of course First Lady Michelle Obama, as the committees chair.

It looks good, smells good... but really - how effective is a star-studded committee going to be. If this were simply a matter of finding some recognizable faces to endorse the arts and put a little P.R. spotlight on awareness, that would be one thing. However, the President's Committee for Arts and Humanities is SUPPOSED to be a functioning committee with goals and a definative impact on the weakening state of the arts in our country.

Right now, at this very moment - city, county and state funding to the arts is being ruthlessly slashed. The blows are coming down hard and will definitely cripple, as well as outright kill, many arts organizations. This includes the few struggling arts education programs. The Georgia Council for the Arts has eliminated all funding for arts education, I was told last week by an after-school program. Certainly this is reflected in other states. In our local government, an additional 25%-50% cut in arts budgets are occurring. This impacts not only arts organizations but local after-school arts programs. For some, the death knell has begun to toll. Because the only other avenue of funding - corporate sponsorships - have dropped as much as 50-75% this past year.

People, we don't need a pretty committee of Hollywood A-listers posing for the media. We need a committee compromised of dedicated individuals, with experience in arts education and arts support, who are willing to work their asses off to save the arts in this country. We need people who are in the trenches, who are going to follow through with the campaign promises the President made to the arts. Pretty words and pretty faces and glitzy photo-ops just aren't going to make one damn bit of difference as our country's arts, artists, and cultural richness dies away.

A quote from a speech made yesterday has Mr. Obama saying, "When I was running for President, no one knew exactly what 'Change You Can Believe In' meant. One year later, I am proud to say that that is still the case." (Reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/obama-says-he-has-fulfill_b_344259.html)

Is it just me, or is this all kinds of wacked? The President is PROUD that no one can define changes made? Changes that could be embraced, celebrated, and believed in? In other words, pride in remaining undefined, particularly in relationship to what the citizens assumed were positive changes to "be believed in" seems somewhat contrary. It doesn't indicate strong leadership. Rather, leadership that attempts to get away with the least amount of feather-ruffling. That is not a circumstance that lends itself to change and certainly doesn't bode well for support of the arts.

I may be doing the new PCAH committee super stars a disservice - they may be determined to really provide solutions and save arts and arts education before it is too late. But I have a sinking feeling...

DAMage Research - tomorrow's topic - PCAH

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/state-of-the-arts/archive/2009/11/what-is-obamas-policy-on-the-arts.shtml

President Obama has named his appointees to his Committee on the Arts and Humanities. The names include actors such as Forest Whitaker, Sarah Jessica Parker, Alfre Woodard, and Edward Norton, as well as the Editor-in-Chief of Vogue magazine, cellist Yo-Yo Ma, philanthropist (and wife of John Kerry) Teresa Heinz, and our own Senator Dick Cohen. Firlst Lady Michelle Obama serves as the committee's honorary chair.

PCAH - Coming Up Taller http://www.pcah.gov/cut.htm

Artists Corp http://www.americanprogress.org/events/2009/04/musiced.html

The President has promised America the following:

- To reinvest in arts education, by expanding public/private partnerships between schools and arts organizations. He also, based on his work in Chicago, promised to create an "artist corps" consisting of of young artists trained to work in low-income schools and their communities. And he promised to be publicly champion the importance of an arts education.

- To support increased funding for the NEA. (Did that - restored NEA funding to its highest level since 1992 when he signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February)

- To promote cultural diplomacy. By that he means put more money into U.S. embassy programs that send American artists on tour around the world.

- To attract foreign talent. Since 9/11 it's been difficult, if not impossible to get a visa to perform in the United States. President Obama has promised to streamline the visa process so artists and art students can make their way here more easily.

- To provide affordable health care to artists. (Because if you provide affordable health care to everybody, that includes artists. Two birds, one stone.)

- To ensure "tax fairness" for artists. Candidate Obama said he supports legislation that would allow artists to deduct the fair-market value of their work, rather than just the costs of the materials, when they make charitable contributions.

DAMage Report - Two-Faced Standards

http://www.examiner.com/x-14783-Law-and-Politics-Examiner~y2009m8d9-Are-the-media-and-art-communities-revealing-a-double-standard-with-the-Obama-as-The-Joker-poster

A piece of art depicting Obama in Joker-face has people foaming at the mouth, some in outraged opposition to it and others in heated defense. Accusations of racism, double standards, hypocrisy and plain old fashioned bad taste are flying all over the place. Christian Moore says in his article in the Examiner, "Many media and cultural elites have suggested the image is rooted in “hate.” I find this interesting given that a similar image of President Bush as The Joker ran in Vanity Fair. ...There is an unwritten understanding that artists are free to comment, critique and sometimes be harsh in their assessments, but the public expects artists to be fair in their targeting of this criticism."


The First Amendment is critical to artists. Without the ability to " creatively voice" their views, ideas, thoughts - they are left without a vehicle for that creativity. Of course there are lines that shouldn't be crossed. But slamming down the race card everytime someone looks cross-eyed at the president is idiotic. If Hillary had made it to the Presidency, no doubt there would have been a piece created with her face under the Joker makeup. I would have drawn worse myself. And that is my RIGHT.


An article in the LA Times states "At one extreme, the poster suggests that Obama is a psychopath who is completely out of control and running afoul of the law -- which he clearly is not. For a cartoon or parody to work, it must have at least one toe placed firmly in the realm of reality -- a credible starting point from which to launch into the free-for-all ether of comedy. ...The image of President Obama in Heath Ledger Joker-face is especially disturbing because it is completely devoid of context -- literary, political or otherwise."


I hate to state the obvious, but not every likes Obama. Oh, stop your gasping. It's true.

I'm pretty sure there is an entire political party that visualizes him as the bad guy on a daily basis. They may even draw devil horns and a villain moustache on his picture and throw darts at it. On top of that, a number of former Obama advocates have found themselves more than a little disappointed in several of his actions since he took office. No doubt some of those unhappy people are artists. Some might even be political satirists - you know - those artists that LOOK for political controversy so they can poke fun at it. Can political satire and art cross the line and tread on PC toes - of course and on a regular basis. Does that make it bad or intolerable? Of course not.


Art can be offensive. Different people will find different things offensive. Personally, I find paintings of golf courses extremely offensive, tacky, and unendurable... but that's just me.


Additional References:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/08/reading-into-the-obamaasjoker-poster-or-not.html