Garage door street art, in an alley off Melrose
please stop reblogging without crediting the artist (can’t believe people manually delete the name of the creator) spread the word!
One, the burden is on the artist to properly watermark their work. The art of reblogging is imagery without context and you have to assume if you are posting to Tumblr that any commentary will be removed or altered. Two, use the content source feature. Few people go out of their way to remove that and if they do, I’ll help lead the campaign that they should stop.
And my last point, which is overtly subjective, is that as an artist you should become more comfortable with the ephemeral nature of your works. Attribution is great, and if this is your job the whole point is moot, but you should be in an endless cycle of creation, caring little of the consequences or fame.
Interesting comment about the nature of reblogging. I hadn’t seen that before. I respectfully, and strongly, disagree. To me, the art of reblogging is saying, “Here’s this worthwhile thing that I found. Here’s a link to the source, or at least the name of the creator, so if you want to, you can go find more of it.”
If you don’t like context in your Dashboard, you’re free to ignore it. But I like context; I like commentary; I like knowing the name of the artist. Before reblogging a photo that someone has posted without attribution, I run the photo through Google Images and, if I find it, include the photographer’s name and a link in my reblog. Seems like a good way to add value to a post.
As for the rest of your argument: You make a good point about watermarking. I don’t watermark my photos, but if photography were my job, I would. There are ways to do it so that’s it’s not a horrid visual distraction. Also, Tumblr’s content source feature is very useful.
And yes, even though you seem happier about this than I am, artists should get used to the idea that people will use their work without attribution. Anybody who thinks otherwise isn’t paying attention. The nature of the Internet — including people who reblog art and delete the name of its creator, which seems really low — means that’s just the way it goes.
Finally, attribution and fame are two different things. If you don’t want credit for your work, that’s fine, but you shouldn’t scold people who do.
Anyway, although we disagree, I’m glad you posted what you did. It helped me clarify my thoughts about this issue.
I kinda love these sketches of goats by Oumar Ball. I think it’s because his rough style and the fact that they’re on cardboard make them look like cave paintings.
(via Chèvres)
I like Rothko, but this is funny.
James Turrell’s light environments are to be experienced. He prefers us not describe them, but they’re so compelling they trigger all sorts of reactions. What is your first impression?
James Turrell, Stuck Red, 1970, construction materials and fluorescent lights. Museum purchase, Elizabeth W. Russell Foundation Funds. Copyright James Turrell. Photo by Pablo Mason.
These lights create quite the illusion. When I was in this room, I had to stick my head through the blue rectangle before I was sure the hole wasn’t covered with a piece of blue plexiglass. It wasn’t.
Neat little promo for art.com’s iPad app.
Frozen Assets, Diego Rivera
I love it when the worlds of painting and photography mix. It doesn’t happen often. We’ll see it once in awhile when someone will try to recreate the lighting in the portraits of the old masters, but the photographs by Pep Ventosa are explorations of techniques I have never seen done before. The way he combines multiple photographs (in some cases, hundreds) into one image is just beautiful. The color and the light become the subject, just as it was with the Impressionist painters. We can see the people, though barely visible, and we can make out the shape of the subject, but he just gives us an impression of it. He takes multiple shots of the subjects while circling around them so that we can see how the whole environment works together. His carousel photographs (as well as the lampposts and trees) look like something Monet or Pissarro might have done.Â
He has a couple of other sets that are done a bit differently and seem to be highly influenced by artists like Lyonel Feininger or David Hockney. Using the square angles of the photograph almost as puzzle pieces, the final photographs become something different than what the camera saw. They are no longer the typical postcard shots from a trip that was taken, but mere fragments of memories that we might have seen and put together in our minds. They become blocks of color rather than exact representations. His work brings photography to another level, from literal or documentary to a new form of photographic Impressionism. Rather than seeing what is obvious, the images become subject to our own interpretation. We can see it and enjoy it as we like.
These are fantastic.
I love linocuts, but I’m pretty sure I don’t have the patience to make one.
Anatomy of a Linocut by Bill Fick (by Jim Haverkamp)
