Friday, April 6, 2007
What you see
If the previous post made you think of how powerful not-so-free association can be, then you might like Logo.Hallucination. Its author, Christophe Bruno, used a pattern-recognition software to analyze images on the net and discover similarities with known brand logos.
Now, here is the crazy part: after discovering the image, Bruno sends an e-mail to its owner:
Scary? Funny? Ironic? Insofar as this is an artistic project, it sounds hilarious (especially if we were to try and find the author of the Origin of the World)(pun intended). But if internet cafés started off as an artistic project, why can't a ruthless fight over image rights start off as a funny piece of software?


(via) Read more "What you see..."
And our dear Courbet can apparently be associated to Corus: 
Now, here is the crazy part: after discovering the image, Bruno sends an e-mail to its owner:
Madam, Sir,
We inform you that our automated monitoring spiderbot has detected a potential infringement of Intellectual Property Law in the digital image located at the address […]. Indeed this image includes a total or partial representation of the logotype of the brand XXX. Since you are responsible for the diffusion of this image on the Internet, we would like to remind you that such unauthorized use of copyrighted work could be liable for statutory damages. Moreover, it may have violated other US federal laws, including (among others) the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and the Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Accordingly, we hereby suggest that you should contact immediately, and possibly through our agency, the company XXX so that we negotiate with them a friendly contract which would allow a regularization of this situation, according to the following possibilities:
Case 1: You might be financially rewarded by company XXX insofar as this situation constitutes advertising and promotion for the brand XXX. In this case you must explicitly indicate the reference to the company XXX by adding its logo to the aforesaid image and insert a link towards the site of this company.
Case 2: You wish to continue the exploitation and diffusion of your image without mentioning the company and in this case you will have to settle reproduction rights with this company insofar as the latter authorizes you to further exploit and diffuse your image.
If you fail to comply with these requests, the company XXX will have no choice but to proceed in a manner appropriate to protect its valuable intellectual property rights.
Sincerely yours
Logo.Hallucination
Scary? Funny? Ironic? Insofar as this is an artistic project, it sounds hilarious (especially if we were to try and find the author of the Origin of the World)(pun intended). But if internet cafés started off as an artistic project, why can't a ruthless fight over image rights start off as a funny piece of software?
(via) Read more "What you see..."
Labels:
commercial,
digital
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
The virginal origin of the world
Produced by the 25Peaces collective, it was supposed to be a promotion of Europe, and from what I understand, to participate in the campaign in favor of the European Constitution (in 2005, if I am not mistaken). As the image was posted on huge billboards, it was considered too radical and was taken off. And the Constitution lost the referendum.
But what is the actual message? Is it 'the origin of a new world'? It seems more like the beginning of something that can never be born. Instead of the origin, instead of the troubling, but real, thing, we get... panties with stars. Thank you very much. Where exactly is this Europe supposed to originate? Oh, and the retouched skin, the pure atmosphere of soap commercials and soft porn... It reminds me of Jeff Koons. And I'm not sure that's where I would like to see my Europe. Then again, I'm not sure Orlan's earlier variation on the Origin of the World motive would be convincing in a political debate:
Tanja Ostojic's work was accused of misogyny. After writing the above words, I found a fascinating interview with the artist, who clearly states that the objective of the work was not to promote the EU ideals, etc., but it was created beforehand, namely as a comment on the EU's politics of (non)intergration. Now it makes sense. Ostojic actually seems quite upset about the context the work was shown in and the idiotic way it was treated by the Austrian media. Her site also made me discover another, impressive work by Ostojic: Looking For a Husband with an EU Passport (2003):
Wow. This hurts. I would call this a hard core artistic attitude. In that it doesn't have any problems with exploring what is too intimate to be shared. Nudity is a common, though not at all necessary element. It is really about exposure. Maybe, about making us feel uncomfortable. Do I like it? Is there any way one can like it?
(partly via)
Technorati: photography, erotic art, fine art, painting, art, contemporary art, vvoi
Read more "The virginal origin of the world..."
Labels:
controversial,
painting/photo
Sunday, April 1, 2007
ONE LOVELY DRAWING, part eleven

This drawing by Bob Peak may seem like a cliche today, but in a far off time, O best beloved, this kind of drawing was totally new. Never in 35,000 years of human drawing had anyone made such a picture. How many artists can make a similar claim?
It's hard to imagine this brilliant, brassy kind of art coming from any culture that existed prior to the 1960s. This drawing radiates the energy and enthusiam of its era, but it also has timeless strengths that stand up quite well.
Peak seems to have developed his drawing style by taking the linework of Egon Schiele and blowing it out of a psychedelic cannon.

Egon Schiele drawing circa 1910

Peak ad for Puritan
Peak later went on to a lucrative career making (in my opinion) uninspired and repetitive movie posters following drab specifications from Hollywood studios. But there was a moment in the 1960s when Peak's designs sizzled. His accomplishment deserves our respect and admiration. Read more "ONE LOVELY DRAWING, part eleven..."
Thursday, March 29, 2007
The object-driven touch: Robert Wechsler
What can we control?
What is the part of reality that is actually controllable?
Say, when we take things in our hands.
There is a point where reality simply will not be tampered with. It says only so much.
And the beautiful thing is when someone manages to feel this point and use it, changing the vectors, but keeping the power, the energy, the impulse that the world drives through us.
Does that sound esoteric?
What is the fish doing in the church? What is the Holy water doing around the fish? Within the fish? It is all here, and the transgression is only a small part of the game. The name Sanctuary, to me, is not ironic. It is playful, yet strong.
Where do we go from here?
Here?
Good work, Robert Wechsler.
(via)
What is the part of reality that is actually controllable?
Say, when we take things in our hands.
There is a point where reality simply will not be tampered with. It says only so much.
And the beautiful thing is when someone manages to feel this point and use it, changing the vectors, but keeping the power, the energy, the impulse that the world drives through us.
Does that sound esoteric?
What is the fish doing in the church? What is the Holy water doing around the fish? Within the fish? It is all here, and the transgression is only a small part of the game. The name Sanctuary, to me, is not ironic. It is playful, yet strong.
Here?
Good work, Robert Wechsler.
(via)
Technorati: design, fine art, installation, art installation, photography, visual art, art, contemporary art, vvoi
Read more "The object-driven touch: Robert Wechsler..."
Labels:
painting/photo,
sculpture
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
KENT WILLIAMS

I love these powerful pictures by Kent Williams, one of my favorite artists working in graphic novels today. This kind of art has its roots in the urschleim.
Williams is also a magazine illustrator, a gallery painter and an art teacher. He teaches contemporary figurative painting in Pasadena, California.

Some of his pictures are more successful than others, but Williams is one of the very few sequential artists who I think makes effective use of the technical tools and creative choices now offered by graphic novels. For example, the following panel from the graphic novel Tell Me Dark displays far more nuanced color and shading than was possible in previous generations of comic books.

As another example, Williams used a kneaded eraser to mold a figure by lifting highlights from a background of vine charcoal. This delicate technique was not possible with the printing technology for earlier comic books.

As another example, Williams used a kneaded eraser to mold a figure by lifting highlights from a background of vine charcoal. This delicate technique was not possible with the printing technology for earlier comic books.

The golden age of illustration began in the late 19th century as a result of the invention of photoengraving. Prior to that time, art could only be published in a book or magazine by painstakingly tracing the original image onto a wooden block which was then carved by hand by an engraver. The artist was at the mercy of the engraver (who often co-signed the finished block) as well as the printer. Photoengraving inspired a mini-renaissance because for the first time, books and magazines faithfully captured the artist's true talent (for better or worse).
Comics have now gone through a similar renaissance. For most of their history, comics were drawn in pencil by one artist, then traced in ink by a second artist for reproduction. Often, a third artist applied color on a separate page or guide sheet as a reference tool for the printer. Now graphic novels have overcome all these limitations of the medium. Today's artists are free to work with delicate line, or subtle gradations in color and value, or mixed media.
While many writers have taken advantage of the freedom of the graphic novel, very few artists have risen to the challenge. Most sequential artists treat the graphic novel like a super sized comic book on glossy paper. Even successful painters such as Alex Ross, who use the new image quality to convey slick, photo-realistic art, don't add much artistic integrity. Their art may be dazzling but it seems thin and lacking in humanity.
Apart from Williams, there seems to be only a handful of artists-- McKean, Miller, and perhaps half a dozen others-- who are doing artwork worthy of the medium.
Read more "KENT WILLIAMS..."
Apart from Williams, there seems to be only a handful of artists-- McKean, Miller, and perhaps half a dozen others-- who are doing artwork worthy of the medium.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Using walls (p.2): the Splasher controversy
There are several excellent Polish sites about art. They focus mainly on Polish art and the Polish contemporary art milieu, and have a certain tendency toward a specialized and a high-brow discourse, but they have lots of good discoveries and insights and are a great reference point. And they're in Polish, which makes me one lucky bastard. Lucky for most of you, they also have lots of images of new Polish works. I recommend two: art.blox.pl and strasznasztuka ('terrible art')
From time to time, they also put on things happening outside of Poland. Below is a translation of one of the articles:
(text by strembol)
more on Splasher here
And here is the idea that Splasher is a marketing ploy by the very people who promote street art as a commercial art form - this way they get free publicity (with a street-art war twist to it, apparently?).
The very idea shows us something new: that these are real people, existing in a real society, and obeying its laws. Whether they are perpetrators or victims, they participate in a social context. And its a relief to see how clearly they are integrated in it through the Splasher affair. Read more "Using walls (p.2): the Splasher controversy..."
From time to time, they also put on things happening outside of Poland. Below is a translation of one of the articles:
"Splasher" is now the hottest street-art name in New-York. Not because of what he makes, but because of what he destroys. Stencils, stickers and posters on the streets of Brooklyn and Manhattan have been for over a month the objects of the attack of the anonymous 'vandal'. Street art created by people as famous as Banksy or Swoon are destroyed in the same way - by a cruel splash of color paint.
The street art works, once considered only as acts of vandalism, are now themselves victims of a vandal. But is Splasher really just a street hooligan? It seems not. He chooses his goals very carefully - they are always the works of known artists, who have also often entered into the regular gallery circuit, and their works are sold at auctions for big money.
The mysterious Splasher is being looked for on the internet. Bloggers are looking for the motive of his actions. Many believe Splasher simply protests against the commercialization of street-art and against putting it in the same pot with classic works of art.
But what are Splasher's actual motives? Next to many of the works there were manifestos glued to the wall (one of them is reproduced below). They have references to dadaism and expressions like 'True creativity is the joyful destruction of this [existing] hierarchy'. Is Splasher the conscience of contemporary street art? Or a conceptual artist, who as part of an adopted theory of 'destruction' creates a new work of art?
New Yorkers don't appreciate Splasher's "art". The destruction of the works of known artists, such as Banksy, results in disapproval, and even anger. Splasher is not seen as the "savior and renewer", but as a simple vandal. Vandal among vandals? Or could Splasher be the last real street artist, who sacrifices famous murals and stencils in the name of a fight for the purity of the art form? Because what is the difference between street art and gallery art, if we can't destroy someone else's work at will in either place? After all, street art is based on an idea of destroying and lawlessly occupying space. Always at the cost of someone else. After all, the street is not a museum - every street artist, even Banksy, is subject to the same rules and accept that his work can be removed at any moment.
The question remains - do Splaher's desperate gestures make sense? Is it better to fight for a pure street-art, or to cherish its highest achievements?
(text by strembol)
more on Splasher here
And here is the idea that Splasher is a marketing ploy by the very people who promote street art as a commercial art form - this way they get free publicity (with a street-art war twist to it, apparently?).
The very idea shows us something new: that these are real people, existing in a real society, and obeying its laws. Whether they are perpetrators or victims, they participate in a social context. And its a relief to see how clearly they are integrated in it through the Splasher affair. Read more "Using walls (p.2): the Splasher controversy..."
Labels:
land art/urban
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
