Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,879   Posts: 1,520,394   Online: 1014
      
Page 1 of 10 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 92

Thread: Sherrie Levine

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,322

    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.

  2. #2
    jstraw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,703
    Images
    42
    I don't understand what's going on at that website.
    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. In velit arcu, consequat at, interdum sit amet, consequat in, quam.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    861
    Reminds me a bit of the Richard Prince "Marlboro Man Ad" prints. Those sold for huge amounts of money not long ago. It is more a personal call on how each of us consider such works, though obviously enough people considered this to be art to make it important (and apparently valuable).

    Concept or process . . . just read a bit about Jeff Koons and what some people consider to be art is really blurred. I have trouble with some concensus views, though art is often about breaking boundaries and defying conventions or accepted viewpoints. Unfortunately it is not as simple as a bunch of us getting together and defining art by mob rule.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    A G Studio

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    1,298
    That website is not Sherrie Levine's work, but rather Michael Mandiberg's photographs. The images were originally Walker Evans, but were then appropriated by Sherrie Levine, which nearly 20 years later her work was re-appopriated by Michael Mandiberg for a completely different reason than what Levine was experimenting with.

    Here is a short bio on her and what she does- http://www.temple.edu/photo/photogra...rielevine.html

    "...in doing so she raises questions about the originality and the nature of artistic authorship. Like all of Levine's work, this portfolio is a part of a tradition in the 20th century in which the context of the image is at least as important as the subject portrayed. When Levine appropriates a work she is paying a tribute to the ideas that the artist has contributed to our culture."

    "JS: And this is why the someone else that you appropriate is always
    male?
    SL: A lot of what my work has been about since the beginning has been realizing the difficulties of situating myself in the art world as a woman, because the art world is so much an arena for the celebration of male desire."

    "JS: What was your reaction to Gablik's analysis of your intentions and her conclusions? I quote: "Levine lays no claim to traditional notions of 'creativity.' By willfully refusing to acknowledge any difference between the originals and her own reproductions, she is addressing her work in a subversive way to the current mass cult for collecting photographs, and their absorption into the art market as one more expensive commodity. Obviously ideas like these are successful as a negation of commodity-oriented culture. Only until commodity culture succeeds in accommodating even these 'pirated' creations and turning them into yet another saleable item within the framework of institutionalized art-world distribution ... at which point they become more parasitic than critical, feeding on the very system they are meant to criticize."
    SL: My works were never intended to be anything but commodities. It's taken a while for the work to sell but it has always been my hope that it would, and that it would wind up in collections and in museums. You know, money talks but it don't sing.
    The work is in a dialectical relationship to the notion of originality. Originality was always something I was thinking about, but there's also the idea of ownership and property. Lawrence Weiner has this nice quote about wanting to make. a art that makes us think about our relationship to the material world. That's something that I feel very close to. It's not that I'm trying to deny that people own things. That isn't even the point. The point isthat people want to own things, which is more interesting to me. What does it mean to own something, and, stranger still, what does it mean to own n an image?"

    A few pieces taken from this interview- http://www.artnotart.com/sherrielevine/arts.Su.85.html

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by HerrBremerhaven View Post
    Reminds me a bit of the Richard Prince "Marlboro Man Ad" prints. Those sold for huge amounts of money not long ago. It is more a personal call on how each of us consider such works, though obviously enough people considered this to be art to make it important (and apparently valuable).

    Concept or process . . . just read a bit about Jeff Koons and what some people consider to be art is really blurred. I have trouble with some concensus views, though art is often about breaking boundaries and defying conventions or accepted viewpoints. Unfortunately it is not as simple as a bunch of us getting together and defining art by mob rule.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    A G Studio
    Nicely said, Gordon.


    Funny thing is, Richard Prince's Marlboro Man photograph, just about a year ago, was one of the highest selling photographs on auction ever in history, selling for $1,248,000. It was an appropriated image from a Marlboro advertisement.
    Image- http://towleroad.typepad.com/photos/...hardprince.jpg

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,322
    To appropriate something involves taking possession of it. In the visual arts, the term appropriation often refers to the use of borrowed elements in the creation of new work.
    She does not borrow it, she out right steals it and calls it her own. IT is just a straight copy then uses the word AFTER"Photographers Name". I still don't see how you call this art. She isn't creating anything.

  7. #7
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,531
    Images
    15
    Can anyone tell me what the best scanner is for catalog reproduction? I have a project that I am working on to make some fine reproductions of copied original photographs that I will share with the world.


    What's interesting to me are the comments I made the other day after seeing the Paul Strand exhibit. I found that in some cases prints in a book by Strand had more shadow detail than the originals on display. The book was in the room and I took it to the photographs and make a direct comparison.

    Now, was I looking at digital reproductions from the book? The photographs on display had less shadow detail, none, than the reproductions in the book.

    I have a some questions about the legality of what is going on here.
    Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    346
    She is a con-artist in the mold of P.T. Barnum. Anyone naive or dumb enough to consider her work "art" is a fool and an idiot. That said, P.T. sold lots of circus tickets and galleries here in the U.S. are full of works that fulfill my own adage "print it big, price it high, some fool will buy." Just goes to show there really is one born every minute.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    1,298
    The process of appropriating in the art world has existed as far back as I can remember. There has always been artist that have used outside elements in their work.

    Di Vinci was appropriating images from science, biology, math and geometry books. Piccaso used photographs from news paper clipping in some of his paintings. Is architecture a form of art? If so, look at all the photographers that take pictures of it. So we cannot call there work original?

    We photograph the natural landscape of this earth that God created. Are we just appropriating and stealing what he has done?

    Of course, Levine caused alot of legal controversy when she did that work back in the 60's-70's, but she was able to defend her work well and people accepted it. It was partial because she was not trying to hide the fact that they were copies of images. Just by looking at her prints, you could tell they were not original and she was also using the titles like "After Edward Weston" which made it okay.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,322
    Ryan, Di Vinci used oils and canvas to paint what he saw. He did not just make a photocopy and title it After"XYZ". His work was not an EXACT DUPLICATE of the original! You cannot compare the two. Those painters created something from themselves, with their hand, on a canvas with mixing on the pallet and applying the paint to the canvas with their skill and talent. Da Vinci and Piasco was not appropriating anything, they were simply using reference material to create their masterpieces.

    DaVincis work are called masterpieces, Levine are out right copies period. You really got this one wrong here.

    We photograph the natural landscape of this earth that God created. Are we just appropriating and stealing what he has done?
    We go out and find the scene and capture it. A scene that would have never been seen by another. Levinne goes to a store, buys a poster of someone else's works and make a photo of it. A direct copy.

    You cannot compare the two no matter how hard you try or what type of spin you put on it. She is nothing more than a fraud and a copycat in the worst instant.

    So with this line of thinking, I could then go around and copy anyone images that I wanted to, put a new meaning to it, what ever BS I wanted to say and sell it in galleries and not give the original artist one red cent. But of course I would give them credit.

    This is not art, nothing is being created, only images that are stolen. I really pity the future of art and the art educational institution with what they call art in todays world.

Page 1 of 10 1234567 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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