Artis Renascentia

Scott Hardie | August 23, 2015
A friend recently asked this question, inspired by the art of Jane Long, and I haven't been able to stop thinking about it: Is it morally objectionable to use the images of others in art without permission? What about if these people are unreachable, or have died?

Samir Mehta | August 23, 2015
[hidden by request]

Samir Mehta | August 24, 2015
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | August 30, 2015
I meant more in the sense of making art. I don't consider Project Harpoon to be art. They're fat-shamers and hottie-oglers, and guessing from their name, their provocativeness is deliberate. That doesn't mean that I'd stop them, but I certainly don't respect them.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with using someone else's likeness to make art, but I understand why other people can be bothered by it. Art can challenge one's values. I grew up in Chicago and I remember when someone painted the beloved mayor in women's underwear, which led to the people who normally fight aggressively for civil rights turning around and denying the artist his own civil rights because the image offended them. (Never mind that calling it an insult to portray him in women's underwear is itself an insult to women.)

My preference on this issue is influenced by my feelings about the similar matter of copyright. I resent that copyright has been extended to such ridiculous lengths far exceeding the author's lifespan, so that corporations like Disney can enjoy exclusivity on a dead man's creations. The earliest federal copyright was 14 years and even that, I think, is too long. Star Wars and Star Trek are good examples: Fans make and consume all kinds of amateur productions based on these cultural-touchstone works, so obviously there's interest in seeing a lot more about them made. Imagine how much great art we're being denied because a single corporation controls each property for decades. I can't favor anyone being legally allowed to make a Han Solo movie and not favor anyone being legally allowed to make art out of Harrison Ford's likeness, or by that reasoning, my own likeness.

Samir Mehta | August 31, 2015
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | October 24, 2015
Oops, didn't mean to leave this hanging...

You are closer to the subject of copyright than I am, and can better argue its merits. 14 years could be extended to 20 or 25 out of concern for the originators of art, but much more than that and you're taking art away from the people who rightfully own it. I can think of a rational reason to let me make money off of other people's creations after a reasonable time has passed: This leads to much more and better art for all of us to enjoy. We should all be free to recreate and interpret and explore artistic creations, and without an opportunity for profit, it's not a justifiable endeavor for most people. Maybe there's another way, where non-profits can produce expensive art, but that doesn't seem feasible on a mass scale.

Perhaps I am influenced by getting an English degree and having it drilled into my head in literature classes that fiction and poetry doesn't belong to the author. We can keep in mind the author's intentions for a work, but it's totally legitimate to interpret a work any way that we please, to see symbolism and subtext where none was meant. In the same way that I feel free to interpret Star Wars any way that I like, I believe that Star Wars belongs to me, and to you and to everyone else, and to other corporations that would like to make more Star Wars films to please us. Fair use protects us making art on our own time (thank goodness) but not the people who would do it professionally, so I consider it insufficient.