*** Mod Alteration ***

https://www.apnews.com/d1...6e0e036fc2

Andy Warhol transcended a photographer's copyright by transforming a picture of a vulnerable and uncomfortable Prince into an artwork that made the singer an "iconic, larger-than-life figure," a judge ruled Monday. U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl in Manhattan sided with the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts over renowned photographer Lynn Goldsmith. The case tested whether the legendary artist who died in 1987 made fair use of a 1981 picture of the famed late singer when he created a series of 16 artworks that became known as the "Prince Series." The series contained 12 silkscreen paintings, two screen prints on paper and two drawings.

This article shows a comparison of the photograph and one of the prints: https://www.artforum.com/...tion-77092

[Edited 7/2/19 2:02am]

Ugh Warhol is so overrated, all he did is copy things and add colours, do not understand all the hype around him at all! Anyone can do that. To me this is disrespectful to the photographer and theft! He should have been forced to give her some of the royalties for that photo as without it he wouldn't have had a basis for an artwork at all.

[Edited 7/2/19 2:23am]

Why did you copy-paste an entire article without a source link? https://www.apnews.com/d1...6e0e036fc2

I saw the 'art' I totally assumed it was just some app that did that... I was not inpressed. But that is how this kind of art is... if too many get it... it is not art. (like comedy if no one is offended or if too many people get the joke...it is not comedy)

BartVanHemelen said:

Why did you copy-paste an entire article without a source link? https://www.apnews.com/d1...6e0e036fc2

snip -of4$

mattj said:

BartVanHemelen said:

Why did you copy-paste an entire article without a source link? https://www.apnews.com/d1...6e0e036fc2

snip - of4$

Well, it does seem a particularly interesting choice for a copyright-related case.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

P should have Gangsta Glammed that bitch with his body guards

The photographer's view from 2017: https://www.facebook.com/...8104516758

TheFreakerFantastic said:

TheFreakerFantastic said:

Ugh Warhol is so overrated, all he did is copy things and add colours, do not understand all the hype around him at all! Anyone can do that. To me this is disrespectful to the photographer and theft! He should have been forced to give her some of the royalties for that photo as without it he wouldn't have had a basis for an artwork at all.

[Edited 7/2/19 2:23am]

I agree

ThatWhiteDude said:

I agree

Is that a banksy avatar?

thedoorkeeper said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

But that is how this kind of art is... if too many get it... it is not art.

No that's not how you should be viewing Andy Warhol's work. Its a modern take on portraiture. Not really different from viewing the Mona Lisa.

you seem to have missed the point of what I said... but that is okay. I do not get the appeal of Warhol's art... but if you do...that is cool. I do not belive it is even close to the Mona Lisa...but whatever.

Yeah, Warhol is a fraud and a phony. A poser.

In a way you have to hand it to him for conning people into thinking he was a brilliant genius though so little actual work (reminds me of someone). I equate the stuff Warhol does with "samplers" like Vanilla Ice, MC Hammer and Mariah Carey who don't even bother to rewrite the song.

Just about anyone, with enough free time and a modicum of training, clould replicate anytihing he does.

I have a BFA degree so I'm not just talking out of my ass.

herb4 said:

herb4 said:

Yeah, Warhol is a fraud and a phony. A poser.

In a way you have to hand it to him for conning people into thinking he was a brilliant genius though so little actual work (reminds me of someone). I equate the stuff Warhol does with "samplers" like Vanilla Ice, MC Hammer and Mariah Carey who don't even bother to rewrite the song.

Just about anyone, with enough free time and a modicum of training, clould replicate anytihing he does.

I have a BFA degree so I'm not just talking out of my ass.

Ever look at Warhols early work?
Of course not...

ufoclub said:

herb4 said:

Yeah, Warhol is a fraud and a phony. A poser.

In a way you have to hand it to him for conning people into thinking he was a brilliant genius though so little actual work (reminds me of someone). I equate the stuff Warhol does with "samplers" like Vanilla Ice, MC Hammer and Mariah Carey who don't even bother to rewrite the song.

Just about anyone, with enough free time and a modicum of training, clould replicate anytihing he does.

I have a BFA degree so I'm not just talking out of my ass.

Really? Where’d you go to school?

UNiversity of the Arts in Philadelphia

herb4 said:

Just about anyone, with enough free time and a modicum of training, clould replicate anytihing he does.

Wasn't this kind of the point?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I saw the 'art' I totally assumed it was just some app that did that... I was not inpressed. But that is how this kind of art is... if too many get it... it is not art. (like comedy if no one is offended or if too many people get the joke...it is not comedy)

That's a clever insight.

I mean...anyone who knows Warhol knows his entire m.o. was using photos from popular culture. Yeah, anyone *could* do it, but no one did, before Andy. That's how the cookie crumbles in art sometimes -- the act or idea of doing it (especialy post M. Duchamp) is just as important as the finished product.

[Warhol's Tunafish Disaster is my personal favorite.]

NouveauDance said:

herb4 said:

Just about anyone, with enough free time and a modicum of training, clould replicate anytihing he does.

Wasn't this kind of the point?

Yes.

Y'all can't judge an artist's work based on today's standards. Warhol's coloring of B&W photographs can be done on a cellphone today, but in the 60s it was made exactly to show the main philosophy of pop-art: in this day and age (the 60s), a celebrity's/artist's face is as much an artwork as their work. Their face becomes an icon more recognizable than their acting/music/whatever. That's why a musicians's record has a photo of the musician and not some abstract painting meaning to portray the albums' songs' mood (like many Miles Davis album covers).

.

I wouldn't put an art degree above recognizing this, as most art school curriculums are still quite conservative, with only interest in studying and duplicating very very classical art movements and leaving out a lot of modernist and avant-garde stuff, which leads to this thinking that some things "are" art and some things are not.

[Edited 7/12/19 9:21am]

I know what Warhol's angle was and as a pop culture messiah, he was rather prescient in many ways. I've just never been much impressed what i consider to be "gimmicky" art and stuff that's too cool for the room. Where, unless you have an art degree, you're too scared to suggest that "isn't it just a bunch of scribbles" or "that's just 2 red and green squares".

My art education covered modern art - I even took entire classes dedicated to it - and we studied all the "orange bowling balls in a fish tank" and "steel urns full of body fluids" sorts or stuff. So it wasn't all DaVinci, Michelangelo and what have you. I like a lot of modern art and, in fact, generally prefer it to the "classic" and traditional stuff.

I just tend to dislike when critics, collectors and star makers cram their heads too far up their collective asses and tell the rest of us we're wrong for not getting it. The art world can be incredibly pretentious and off putting, usually to its detriment.

herb4 said:

I know what Warhol's angle was and as a pop culture messiah, he was rather prescient in many ways. I've just never been much impressed what i consider to be "gimmicky" art and stuff that's too cool for the room. Where, unless you have an art degree, you're too scared to suggest that "isn't it just a bunch of scribbles" or "that's just 2 red and green squares".

My art education covered modern art - I even took entire classes dedicated to it - and we studied all the "orange bowling balls in a fish tank" and "steel urns full of body fluids" sorts or stuff. So it wasn't all DaVinci, Michelangelo and what have you. I like a lot of modern art and, in fact, generally prefer it to the "classic" and traditional stuff.

I just tend to dislike when critics, collectors and star makers cram their heads too far up their collective asses and tell the rest of us we're wrong for not getting it. The art world can be incredibly pretentious and off putting, usually to its detriment.

I think it's called contemporary art. Modern period refers to an specific time period now.