Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,694   Posts: 1,482,501   Online: 1020
      
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 92

Thread: Sherrie Levine

  1. #31

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by kjsphoto View Post
    She goes to a store, buys a poster and copies it then puts it on display.
    Like someone has stated above, the PROCESS of how she creates the work is not important and is really totally irrelevant to the concept and deeper meaning of the work.

  2. #32
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    Kevin, I think Levine is playing a facile parlor trick. Warhol commented on the images and the culture they came from. Levine is only engaged in a meta-discussion about art itself. It's a sort of semantic game. It's way over your head, you're bogged down in dismissing the fact that she's using another photographer's work and unable to take in the fact that she couldn't engage in the conceptualism she's on about without doing so. It's part and parecel of the whole point. It's a tiny point that she's making but I suppose someone had to make it, get some ink, excite some critical frenzy or derision and make a few bucks. I think it's a yawn, in it's specifics but it's an inevitable part of the ongoing conversation regarding the scope and purpose of art.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  3. #33
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,510
    Images
    15
    Sherrie Levine

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Do you call what she does art?

    If yes, why?

    http://www.aftersherrielevine.com/

    I think it is nothing more than plagiarism and I think it is wrong.




    Plagiarism (from Latin plagiare "to kidnap") is the practice of claiming, or implying, original authorship or incorporating material from someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into ones own without adequate acknowledgment. Unlike cases of forgery, in which the authenticity of the writing, document, or some other kind of object, itself is in question, plagiarism is concerned with the issue of false attribution. Plagiarism can also occur unconsciously; in some cultures certain forms of plagiarism are accepted because the concept can be interpreted differently.

    The definition of Art can be subjective so I move on to the next concept.

    Isn't this the question being asked: Plagiarism?

    Mr. Hicks might be able to help us out here.
    Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand

  4. #34
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by kjsphoto View Post
    I call it as I see it. I go to a place, see something I like and photograph it. She goes to a store, buys a poster and copies it then puts it on display. I got my morals in check thank you very much. I don't believe stealing is art period and I am standing by what I said.

    And at the same time I do respect your opinions and have no ill will towards you for the negative comments towards me.
    Well- to me, Kevin - if you look at it on that level - you're plagiarizing ilford - since you just go to the store, buy the stuff, put it in the soup and then frame it and try to call it your own. Levine is using others' work on the same level that we, as photographers, use light-sensitive materials. I hope that makes sense. I'm sorry for what appear to be 'personal' comments - but I was trying to force you to take responsibility for your own comments. That being said - I also think you're quite talented as a photographer, and have some good stuff. Just understand I wasn't trying to dismiss the quality of your work - so much as get you to understand that there are different mindsets out there.

  5. #35
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    Isn't this the question being asked: Plagiarism?


    Levine DID take certain measures in trying to ensure the reproduction was QUITE apparent as well. At least with the Evans photo. It's clearly something like a 3rd or 4th generation copy, and lower in contrast (this is what I heard - cannot personally verify), etc...

  6. #36
    blaze-on's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Riverside, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,432
    Images
    61
    Damn...
    I need to appropriate me some of that thar art from somewheres...I feel a callin ' to make a statement...
    Matt's Photo Site
    "I invent nothing, I rediscover". Auguste Rodin

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky View Post
    Isn't this the question being asked: Plagiarism?


    Levine DID take certain measures in trying to ensure the reproduction was QUITE apparent as well. At least with the Evans photo. It's clearly something like a 3rd or 4th generation copy, and lower in contrast (this is what I heard - cannot personally verify), etc...
    Yes. She did very much so. I've seen her photograph of "After Edward Weston" done of his son Neil in person. Edwards image first started as a copy negative, since the original was a small negative (1st generation away from original), then from that print it was reproduced as a low quality poster for one of Weston exhibit's (2nd generation), the poster was found by Levine and photographed (3rd generation), then it was printed from her negative.

    Looking at the Levine's original print, it's blurry and soft, the shadows are blocked up solid black, the highlights are all washed out and the cropping is even abit different.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by blaze-on View Post
    Damn...
    I need to appropriate me some of that thar art from somewheres...I feel a callin ' to make a statement...
    You have one of my prints...feel free to appropriate it all you like! Just make sure you have a really strong concept to back yourself up!

  9. #39
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,510
    Images
    15
    E. Weston, Strand, et al, made in camera copies to enlarge their work for contact printing in a larger size. Who knows how many generations they went through, what processes, and what methods were used.

    And I used to think they were originals!
    Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand

  10. #40
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Curt View Post
    E. Weston, Strand, et al, made in camera copies to enlarge their work for contact printing in a larger size. Who knows how many generations they went through, what processes, and what methods were used.

    And I used to think they were originals!
    Wouldn't an 'original' be simply something issued by the 'original' artist?



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin