Sam Abell on "The life of a photograph"

http://tinyurl.com/4ms32h

Wow, Ellis, great link. Total plargarism, indeed. What I found more interesting was the issue he raised at the end about the worthiness of editoral photography as "art" vis-a-vis the attitudes of galleries.

 

Cheers,

Aaron

Interesting response. I like Sam Abell and his work (even try to follow his advice to less professional photographers, or like

me, ordinary ones). I'm curious though that while Prince's photograph is obvious plagarism for profit, what does it say about

all the other photographers who copy someone's image? How many people followed in Ansel's footsteps to the spots he

captured and produced his images? What about the photographers who photograph a view from the same spot in a city

taken decades before? Plagarism is common in photography, even profiting from it, but being so blatant about it is another

matter. As Sam said, Prince, The Guggenheim and DAP have some questions to answer about the image.

"How many people followed in Ansel's footsteps to the spots he captured and produced his images? "

 

But that to me is a bit different: different times, different materials, different intent. Since Ansel Adams' wife, Virginai Best inherented the Yosemite photography franchise from her father, I wonder how many of Adam's Yosemite locations were found by using Mr. Best's work as preliminary scouting photos?

 

All Prince did was physically copy and enlarge Abell's and other's work. His artistic claim is that he "decontextualized and appropriated" the work and made his own by the mere act of doing copywork and enlarging.

 

I also found it interesting that Abell didn't own the copyright to the iamge. I assume Marlboro's corporate parent does. Still I think it would be grand for photographers to daily go to the Guggenheim and ask where Sam Abell's picture is -- the one of the cowboy and the lariat.

Ellis, what am I missing here?

 

I thought the copyright laws were pretty much settled on this issue. Isn't this a straight forward case of plagiarism? He took a photo that he did originate and published it. If this isn't plagiarism, how can anything be plagiarism?

As Sam Abell says it is plagarism but what Prince did --and I think these works were created backi nthe late 1970s or early 1980s is covered , somehow, by the Fair Use exception of the Copyright act. Beyond that Abell says he doesn't own the copyright so it would have been up to the copyright owner t ogo after prince.

 

I know that other "photographic artists" have tried to do what Prince did but failed because a.) they were seen as copycats ( of what Prince had done -- so ironically the art world didn't see it as original) and b.) The copyright holders (usually a photographer's estate or the photographers themselves ) went after them in court.

"How many people followed in Ansel's footsteps to the spots he captured and produced his images? What about the photographers who photograph a view from the same spot in a city taken decades before? Plagarism is common in photography..."

 

Everything changes, including rocks. Then there's Ansel's negative and there is mine. Two different material objects, neither copied from the other.

The Guggenheim would equate Paris Hilton with Paul Gauguin... they have worked for decades to cause "art" to

mean "bogus" and this Prince/Abell matter is their ultimate triumph.

 

Some will recall that "art critics" once denounced Andy Warhol as a virtual terrorist, out to destroy the concept of

art. They were right. Andy was a great man, bringing truth. "Artist" has had no positive meaning since his wonderful

soup cans.

<i>Two different material objects, neither copied from the other.</i>

<p>

Legally irrelevant. Reproducing a photo by revisiting or reconstructing a scene with the effect of copying the original is still copying.

A pnet member on his site has a photo of Delicate Arch. It is taken from the same spot that a friend of mine got his snap when I lent him a camera. In fact, I'd guess nearly everyone who makes the trek gets a snap from that spot, and probably all the pros, too, not just tourists. So, who is reproducing whose photo?

 

"...with the effect of copying the original is still copying".

 

What does "with the effect of copying" mean? What is the "original"? All the Delicate Arch photos give the "effect of copying", right? You may want to consult a lawyer.

The walk to Delicate Arch is a piece of cake... there's lots of company in flip flop sandals. What's tough is to catch the officially-desired postcard light (ie Velvia look) without being obstructed by the inevitable view camera crowd. I blew it recently through fabulously careless metering. It's a nice walk, with or without camera.

 

Ansel's photos were mostly shot from easy vantages. He he did many of them more or less first... and over time his subject became more the light than the geology. And his technique became a subject in itself, rarely closely approximated by anybody else. Everybody photographs Half Dome and virtually everybody, like Ansel, drives there. Actually, he may have taken donkeys in the beginning. Must have been fun back then.

 

The photo isn't the subject.

Plagiarism .. the act of appropriating the literary composition of another or parts or passages of his writing, or the ideas or language of the same and passing them off as the product of one's own mind. If the material is protected by copyright such an act may constitute an offense of copyright infringement.

 

To be liable for plagiarism is not necessary to exactly duplicate another's literary work, it being sufficient if unfair use of such work is made by lifting of substantial portion tehreof, but even an exact counterpart of another's work does not constitute plagiarism if such counterpart was arrived at independently.

 

That's it according to Black's Law Dictionary. The photograph was not a literary work .. plagarism it is not. We are all safe in creating our own originals of half dome. A million pictures taken of half dome would be just that as long as they were not marketed as Ansel Adam's half dome .. and one can safely say Ansel did not create the wonderful scenery he photographed, he merely created the image on paper.

 

Something tells me there is more to this story yet to be revealed. And I agree that taking another's photograph and copying it and concurrently passing it off as your own is copyright infringement. Perhaps this image Sam took falls under somthing else in the law, I don't know. But copyright protection does not extend to an idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principal or discovery .. (again Black's Law Dictionary) ..

 

Perhaps we have some legal minds out there to explain it. When I visited the Ansel Adams museum in Yosemite, they have photographs on the wall for sale by other photographers of the same things Adams photographed, both digital and film .. some I consider better than Ansel's work .. others just different.

This wasn't a legal issue, as Abell made clear. It had nothing to do with copyright.

 

It has more to do with concepts that once had to do with art (Guggenheim drones don't understand) and personal ethics (lawyers and art critics wouldn't understand).

 

The flip side is something like this: "does a photographer do anything whatsoever of value when s/he cruises up to Half Dome and photographs it, yet again, whether or not it's "better" than Ansel's work. This question relates more to personal sense of worth than with ethics OR law.

 

If one imagines he or she is an individual, PERHAPS one leaves The Official Ansel Adams Waiting Room and strikes off on his/her own. I've snapped a few of Ansel's sites (some of which are marked on the roadside for "artist" convenience), and I've never considered them more than reminders. Thinking of his work, I've struggled to make distinctive images of my own: it's genuinely tough.

I was impressed by the graciousness of Sam Abel in the video. In a planet where whole countries are enablers of

"piracy," I am not boggled that this is going on. Shame on the publishers and museums that are co conspirators.

 

Response:Write a letter to them. Respond to gift solicitations with reminders of why you have distaste . Public

sanction of disapproval sometimes gets attention.

"It has more to do with concepts that once had to do with art (Guggenheim drones don't understand) and personal ethics (lawyers

and art critics wouldn't understand)."

John- Once again you show your distaste for artists and that particular world. You are correct though that this was about concepts

within art at one time- back in the 70's. The thing is, it was never about the acceptance of the image as Prince's- it was always

about appropriation- not plagiarism- plagiarism is when someone intentionally tries to pass of someone else's work for their own.

Prince brought forth something, no matter how much you like or dislike it- the concept of using someone else's work to illustrate an

idea. His grand idea had nothing to do with the aesthetic of the images either- he appropriated all kinds of stuff. It was really a

commentary on the commercial world- and don't tell me advertising and the world of image making is pure as snow- its just as

back stabbing, cheating, lying and devious as any business that is all about MONEY. At least Prince had the balls to put it in front

of our faces and say straight up "this isn't mine". And he still got away with it. It really has to do with many of the post-modern

concepts which still drive art- it is a completely convoluted and difficult realm to even try to understand, especially if your

comparing it with Ansel Adams- Hasn't he been dead for twenty years? Can't we bring a photographer to the table with some

relevance on the world today? By the way, yes I saw the Richard Prince show, the museum was 3 blocks from my apartment, and

yes I'm a member- I think more drones could understand the show than the people in cyberspace- at least they were there. Tell

you the truth, I wasn't really a big fan, and as a photographer I would be less gracious than Abell about my images being used. But

at least I read about it, I learned about the artist and the community at the time. I don't just go off spouting about something I

really don't have a concept about- i.e. most of you on PN.

Gerry- when was the last time you went to a museum? And don't you think writing a letter in response only heightens the

mythology around the work?

My letter, or e mail would not be a scold, but a reminder that attribution is a professional way to approach the

arts. ( I remind you of Rachmaninov's " Variations on a Theme by Paganini." as an example, if not a perfect

analogy..) If Prince gave attribution -did he-, and that is not clear to me for now-I remain open to learn more

thanks, it is a more "forgivable' but still iffy act. The links don't tell the whole story,never do. Still. As a

photographer and occasional museum goer once and a while, I perceive a standard of conduct has been breached. No?

 

If not, what the bejeeps are we discussing that is relevant to Pof P...(Hey,what? harumph, harumph.,cough, old

chap..:-) gs

This theme brings me a new thought about photography. It was very interesting to find out what is happening in the U.S. I hope that someone will not take my concepts, although I've seen similarities already with my concepts. And I can only say that someone lacks the ideas. We are all circling in the same space.

 

"The life of a photograph" is a great concept. I begin to analyze more my own work, asking myself how much life and liveliness can one see in my work. It never occurred to me before. Maybe because the concept of life is sometimes twisted. But then again, it may lead to a vibrant life.

 

One more loop to pass!

This is a good article- very informative http://www.slate.com/id/2090475/

 

Gerry- Yes, a standard of conduct has been breached- by old school standards. He created a new standard-

appropriation, sampling, clip art- common themes throughout the visual arts, popular music and just about every media

outlet there is. Really, isn't breaching a standard of conduct what being a creative artist is all about? What do you consider

avant garde?

Martin, you seem to have no respect for Mr. Abell. Certainly, the Guggenheim doesn't.

 

I think photography is/can-be a higher order of activity than today's alleged "arts." Today's dance, theatre, painting and music can be as well.

 

The mistake (or depraved failing, in Guggenheim's case) is that people who once would properly have been known as artists are now lumped in with people of the ilk of Paris Hilton and Mr. Prince (she, at least, looks good nude).

 

Prince may or may not have even produced the images that he's "appropriated"...certainly poseurs and thieves have always been common among people who claimed to be artists. Prince hasn't "created a new standard," he's simply sucking on a flabby system, as is Guggenheim.

 

Three hackneyed concepts:

 

"Really, isn't breaching a standard of conduct what being a creative artist is all about? What do you consider avant garde?"

 

1) creativity vs "standard of conduct"

2) avant garde treated as value

3) "creative artist" is "all about" a cornball parameter

John-

I do respect Abell- but not necessarily the "system" that he was also working for- Keep in mind that he was being well

paid to make these images. He wasn't making art per se- beautiful images yes, but art, no. Not only that, but he was

being paid (big bucks too) to perpetuate the "image" of Big Business- Marlboro- and by doing so supporting a system

that was, and still is, by way of it's own self admission, selling a product that is not only engineered to be addictive, but

causes cancer, amphasima, stroke, heart attack... Need I continue. Obviously Abell is a talented photographer, but he

doesn't necessarily gain the respect of the Guggenheim because of his secondary involvement in a movement he had

nothing to do with.

 

What "alleged arts" are you talking about- some concrete examples please (names of artists)- or are you one of those

people who only goes to museums with art by dead artists. Have you been to a gallery recently that had a body of work

that is relevant to art today- or for that matter photography as a whole?

 

If you think breaching standards of conduct isn't part of making "art" than what is, really? We're not talking about

pictures of flowers and landscapes here, but something that matters- a new way of thinking. I'm not saying that artists

have to go out of their way to be social miscreants- but being outside the mainstream does help to foster ideas

independent of "the rules of conduct". Remember, Prince didn't even know who the work he was appropriating was by-

nor did he care- another recurring theme amongst great thinkers. By that token you had better start to re-examine artists

like Picasso, Duchamp, Lautrec, Pollock, Rothko, Haring, Basquiat, Warhol etc., etc. Let alone taking into consideration

the breakthroughs that have been made in philosophy, psychology, science, linguistics, writing and theology, by people

who choose to not be bound by the status quo.

 

Abell is doing just fine- as a matter of fact, when we are all long gone and those darn Prince pieces are part of art

history, his name is going to be associated right along with it- forever.

Interesting Slate article, Martin. Got to think about it some. ( Only thing, how come I got no respect as prodigal artist when I drew my mustaches and beards on Boston subway posters way back when?)

 

Kristina, you observe correctly " We are all circling in the same space." Yep, and no air traffic control. Except when money/livelihood is a stake. Then it gets less academic. Ironic reproduction is a fair use as I recall. Or so the argument goes. Hmm.

I grew up especially in San Francisco, sharpened and deepened my values at a time (Sixties) when people were encouraged to grow as individuals, to express individuality. Today, individuality is less respected.

 

Martin, here you've embraced "approved" frames of reference and jargon. We're different, one from another. Nonetheless I do envy anyone who spends a lot of time in NYC. I love the elm forest in Central Park, and the independent galleries.

 

"Status quo" and "breakthrough" and "new ways of thinking" are trite advertising copy, beloved by critics, curators, and fanboys. The same frames of reference, the same noisy adjectives, are used to peddle Cadillacs, cosmetic surgery, pop-philosophies, and last week's digital toys.

 

Referring to creative efforts, they intend specifically to reduce individual experiences of paintings, dance, theatre, photography, literature, thought etc.... to homogenize.

 

Warhol talked little, but he did talk about that.

 

"Picasso, Duchamp, Lautrec, Pollock, Rothko, Haring, Basquiat, Warhol etc., etc."

 

That litany of big-museum artists includes a fine cartoonist who deserved better than to be used by Guggenheim and MOMA for drink coasters and other "art" tchochkas, three outright huckster/frauds (Duchamp, Basquiat and Pollock...all lionized by rubber-stamp critics) and four who IMO stand apart and above... and were often commercial: Picasso, Rothko, Lautrec, Warhol.

 

Lumping all those dissimilar men together tells one more interesting tale: Maybe by adding Paris Hilton to the list we can magically elevate ourselves above sexists, at least demonstrate that we know her sex exists?

 

Abell's commerciality allows less accomplished people to abuse him...reminds me of a soviet and fascist technique...brings to mind something Geraldine Ferrarro said about race during the primaries.

 

Prejudice against commercial photographers is ridiculous, especially since "artists" who exhibit at Guggenheim are usually represented by peddlars (agents) and are hotly in pursuit of money (Prince).

....btw, everybody on Martin Sobey's list smoked, and most used more destructive substances:

"Prejudice against commercial photographers is ridiculous, especially since "artists" who exhibit at Guggenheim are usually represented

by peddlars (agents) and are hotly in pursuit of money (Prince)."

 

And Leo Burnett Ad Agency (for whom Sam Abell shot several Marlboro Ads) isn't a peddlar? Please- they are the 9th largest ad agency

in the world with offices in over 80 countries, and over 8,000 employees. Give me a break John. Really, when didn't money matter?

 

We all have artists whose work we tend to gravitate to for one reason or another, but "hucksters"? You are letting your personal tastes

get in the way of the fact that these artists all broke ground- changed art- no matter if the art was considered high or low (high mostly, if

you want to get back to the smoking, drinking and drugs argument)

 

You're right about the phrasing I use- its tired and abused. I'm not a writer. I'm a photographer and an artist. I am an individual and my

work- at least my art- sets me apart. Did that 60's upbringing in SF make you an individual? What sets you apart John?

"He created a new standard- appropriation, sampling, clip art- common themes throughout the visual arts, popular

music and just about every media outlet there is."

 

Martin, you give Richard prince far more credit than he deserves. As far back as John Heartsfield in Germany in

the 1920s and 30s artists "re-contextualizing" existing photographs were doing the same sort of thing and

dealing with much more dangerous subjects and people. See

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/davepalmer/cutandpaste/heartfield.html.

 

"Really, isn't breaching a standard of conduct what being a creative artist is all about?"

 

No it isn't. It is about discovering a way of looking at the world and presenting it in a way that is compelling

enough to make people reconsider what they are seeing. Prince fails that test. His work is neither visually or

intellectually challenging nor has it proved particularly influential. Breaching standards of conduct is easy.

 

"Give me a break John. Really, when didn't money matter? "

 

It has always mattered. and that is central to understanding that Prince's craft is akin to being a surfer

figuring which will be the most profitable wave to ride at a given time. He's made a reputation and a lot of

money by figuring out how to turn his name into a very profitable art "brand" safe for consumption. Which is

exactly what an ad agency does for its clients in future art history, at best Prince figures to be a footnote

whereas people like Bacon, Basquiat, Schnabel, Mapplethorpe, Koons, and Haring will be the visual artists of that

period who are seen as the boulders that shaped the course of the river of art that came afterward. Why them and

not Prince? Because they actually pushed against real boundaries and changed the way people think about what they

see and what is going on in the world around them.