Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,911   Posts: 1,584,688   Online: 720
      
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 92

Thread: Sherrie Levine

  1. #61

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,322
    So you've said. And you're asking rhetorical questions, not sincere ones...as they have been addressed and you cannot acknowledge the answers. For you, everything is black and white. That must be very comforting.
    It looks like you like to talk to just talk without making any sense. Shows your ture ignorance and arragonace.

    You kind of remind me of a child. Always having to get the last word in. Good day...


    Where is that ignore button...

  2. #62
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    (speechless)

  3. #63

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,322
    If appropriation is art, and part of the so called artist vision, then why was Warhol sued? Why did he settle at all? Why was Koons and Hirst sued? If this is an art form why were settlements made if they did nothing wrong?

  4. #64
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    Now something can't be art if its creation violates civil or criminal satute? I believe I've officially heard everything.

    Kevin, you don't understand Levine. You don't. Saying otherwise won't change that. The subject matter of her work was not the subject matter Walker Evans' photographs. The subject matter of her work was not even the Walker Evans photographs. The subject matter of her work was the nature of art. This isn't a very big idea but it's a bigger idea than you can get your head around. Give it up.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky View Post
    (speechless)
    Another post with mo merit. I am assuming you need to get the last word in also... Because your speechless states nothing. I have sat here and took your tripe when all I wanted was an honest answer to the question I asked.

    But you couldn't do that except sling verbal insults.

    So go on, get your ego filled and let your BS spew. Everyone knows you got to be the big man by slamming others because they don't conform to your views. Go on, really let your ego get the best of you. Sling more insults.

    I just want to know, how is what she does considered art. I still don't have an answer and I still don't understand why it is called art. Yes, I am familiar with the Urinal and I don't understand how that is art, I am familiar with the Mona Lisa piece that was done where a mustache was drawn on it, and I don't understand how that is art either, as nothing was created.

    I really don't get it.

    To appropriate I was under the impression, you take something and make it your own, even though I don't agree with it. But you modify it in a way where is it not like the original anymore. These pieces of hers are just direct copies and I don't see the artistic vision in it. I see the artistic vision in the original piece that was copied verbatim.

  6. #66

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by jstraw View Post
    Now something can't be art if its creation violates civil or criminal satute? I believe I've officially heard everything.

    Kevin, you don't understand Levine. You don't. Saying otherwise won't change that. The subject matter of her work was not the subject matter Walker Evans' photographs. The subject matter of her work was not even the Walker Evans photographs. The subject matter of her art was the nature of art. This isn't a very big idea but it's a bigger idea than you can get your head around. Give it up.
    Honestly I don't get it. I try to understand it, and I have read about it. But I just do not get it at all.

    I give up and I just dont get it.

  7. #67
    matthewbetcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    somewhere in a black and white landscape
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    81
    Images
    9
    i hate to even begin here as this topic AGAIN speaks to the massive and increasingly violent divide between {P}hotographers® and artists engaged in the world of fine art who happen to use photography as a medium... but i can't resist...

    john has hinted at the entire crux of the matter here - in the midst of sparky's common sense articulation of the idea behind works of art that seems to be completely ignored. whether or not you like and/or appreciate the ideas at work here in this work (or levine's, or duchamp's, or warhol's, or hockney's, or prince's, or da vinci's, or wall's, or... you get the point) the question here is of authenticity and whether or not plagiarism is at work.

    all you need to do is simply look at what plagiarism is and the answer is clear. plagiarism is NOT simply the use of another's production or even copying another's image for that matter. plagiarism is the use of another's production or copying of another's work (image in this case) in order to use as one's own WITHOUT A CREDIT TO THE SOURCE. again, you don't have to like it as art, but it IS a matter of intent and there is no intent in either's work to pass the images off as their own. it's textbook early post-modern "appropriating as recontextualization" at work :rolleyes:

    again, as art you don't have to like it, but please realize that the entire notion of the artist as some sort of authentic auteur is and always has been through the entire history of art a romanticized load of shite. and yes, i actually do have the background/education to make such a statement.


    _M
    "the age of nature is past; it has finally exhausted the patience of all sensitive minds by the loathsome monotony of its landscapes and skies." naturaimmemorial.com

  8. #68
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    speechless = surprised... but I think anything more I can say would only be non-productive.

  9. #69
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    This really is my last word to you on this subject just in case you're trying to understand this. The point she was making with her work could not be made without appropriating work. It's essential to the exersize. The viewer must be aware that she didn't take the original photographs or the entire point is lost. They not only must be appropriated images, the must be well-known images.

    As I said, I think it's a silly parlor trick and I'm not impressed with her but it must be judged on what it is, not what it is not. Her work is not photography.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  10. #70
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    Oh, and right on, Matthew.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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