As replaced by Prince, the five original Carist stops, documentation of Rastas, or even “photos” per segment, but become tokens in a game of “Spot the Art”, which is Duchamp’s urinal Launched back in the teens of the last century. Prince is outlining how paintings live in different cultural pigeons – for example “illustration,” “documentation,” or “fine art” – and shows that appropriation takes us from one pigeon to another. How can I bother going.
Therefore, one of the five pieces called “graduation”, which the court decided were not adequately adapted in 2013, when the prince takes an electric guitar from another source and calls it one of Cario’s Rastafarians In his hands, he is actually saying a lot about Rastafarians or rock music or guitar. He has been saying something about the power of artists to visualize and blend across cultural boundaries since Warhol.
While the court incarnated as transformational in 25 works – where Prince made a lot of fuss with the look of Cariou’s photographs – the original pictures are just the raw material for the collage-y result in a completely different direction, aesthetic , But so taken as far as the big art issues are concerned, being completely old hat, insignificant gestures. Frankly, a nude with a rasta banging head The kind of thing you can see in a high-school art class. The “change” that Prince made about those works did not result in any novel creativity worthy of the name.
The concept of “change” Lawyers and judges have been going crazy since the Supreme Court first introduced the 1993 case. It turns out that when and how actions and meanings and messages are transformed into a culture, it is difficult to figure out – just how art should be, as far as art is concerned. Art is all about finding new ways to worry about such issues. The bottleneck comes in imagining that the courts can at any time try to make stricter and faster rules about them.
After considering all the options with me, Christopher Sprigman, a lawyer and professor who teaches intellectual property at New York University, simply throws up his hands: copyright law, he said, “is often very smart, but it Not too deep – and art is just the opposite. When two things collide, you have a problem. “
In the current law, Spiegerman said, just about all fair use decisions, or at least all the tangled ones, must inevitably involve some sort of “aesthetic principle” – the kind of “principle” of a court. It is decided that collage is the way artists go. And aesthetic theory is not, to say the least, where judges have the most expertise. People like to quote the words of the great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: “It would be a dangerous undertaking only for trained persons trained in law to make themselves the ultimate judges worth pictorial portraits.”