In honor of my meeting with Shephard last night, I wanted to explore some of the reasons I enjoy his work...we talked briefly about the case pending with the Associated Press over this image and I have been thinking about the case for a while...art, as a discipline, generally does not prescribe to this notion of complete and utter ownership of an image...we realize it may be possible that nothing new has been created for a very long time and we re-present similar images and ideas over and over, but in a slight and subtle new way, incorporating the modern individual and her or his own experiences...nothing is entirely unique but everything is infinitely new...new to the artist and new to A viewer...this digestion process changes the parts and makes a new whole...I won't get into the legalities of the situation but let's just look at what this image did the the AP image could not do...the structure may be similar, but with the color, divided background, the simplification of shape and line...these significant changes transformed a likeness into work of art that moved, empowered, motivated and changed our country. The other point I would like to make is that the AP had every opportunity and still does to sell the "original" likeness, yet no one wants to buy it, why? They are a big company with deeper pockets, more opportunity to market and sell this image, yet is still remains meaningless to most people. Is that what's really relevant here? It's a different image, it is a work of art and not just a snap shot...
I have no problem with the appropriation of images.
ReplyDeleteWe all do it.
My problem with Shep is that he denied it, lied about it, tried to bury the facts and when caught pretended he "forgot"
And then he took legal action against a fellow artist for appropriating his work.
It wasn't the image that caught the voters' imagination. It was the voters' imagination that caught and used the image.
Please do not try to raise this hack to a level of greatness he does not deserve.