[Hairbland]

Nov 2, 2014 12:15:26 GMT 1 Daniel Silk said:

Nov 2, 2014 12:11:46 GMT 1 Hairbland said:

I don't think people think his images were original, certainly not anymore. But a bit lazy in copping them.

Do people think Banksy's images are all original?

Not at all. But his reinterpretation is. That's what this discussion is.

Compare Fairey's Obama to Whatson's Ballerina. That's a more relevant argument.

Banksy's not the barometer. And I'd compare Banksy's reinterpretations to Warhol's before I'd defend Whatson with what Banksy does.

[natstan]

Nov 2, 2014 12:15:26 GMT 1 Daniel Silk said:

Nov 2, 2014 12:11:46 GMT 1 Hairbland said:

I don't think people think his images were original, certainly not anymore. But a bit lazy in copping them.

Do people think Banksy's images are all original?

This suggests if the ol' mighty banksy can do it, everybody should follow. Gimme a break.

(At least the 'mighty' one reused an image and added wit to it in most times)

[Graffiti Prints]

Always the same haters digging whatever they can to diss Martin

What's up with that I don't get it at all?

If you ignored him that would speak louder IMO

Otherwise this forum just becomes a place of spite not art and decent banter.

One thing to say pass, don't like it etc but the posters here and everyone knows who I mean just post shit over and over and come across as just haters and ridiculously spiteful

Spending valuable time of there life spreading there hate like bitter jam on every whatson thread or mention, it's pathetic imo

This forum is at another crux in its evolution IMO as the horrible, spiteful, flipper and in your face members are saying the most and shouting the loudest

I am guilty too as I just look at some threads and I'm like - omg - can not be arsed to say anything, I wonder how many others feel the same way?

[dranfan14]

says more about them than the art/artist imo... if I read a thread about some piece I don't like I just move on to the next thread and forget about it. I don't spend my time trying to convince everyone else to hate it and spoil other peoples enjoyment of the piece/artist in question.

[monkeyface]

Nov 2, 2014 13:48:41 GMT 1 Graffiti Prints said:

Always the same haters digging whatever they can to diss Martin

What's up with that I don't get it at all?

If you ignored him that would speak louder IMO

Otherwise this forum just becomes a place of spite not art and decent banter.

One thing to say pass, don't like it etc but the posters here and everyone knows who I mean just post s**t over and over and come across as just haters and ridiculously spiteful

Spending valuable time of there life spreading there hate like bitter jam on every whatson thread or mention, it's pathetic imo

This forum is at another crux in its evolution IMO as the horrible, spiteful, flipper and in your face members are saying the most and shouting the loudest

I am guilty too as I just look at some threads and I'm like - omg - can not be arsed to say anything, I wonder how many others feel the same way?

I feel exactly the same. I use this forum to see other peoples art and print releases that are coming up or new examples of street art. It would be great to have discussions and opinions over the actual art that brought us to this place in the first place but too many discussions turn into spite and point scoring. 
Its a shame because there are many good and great members but the children that play on here spoil it for the majority. 

[NN]

As far as I see it, it is a legitimate thing to point out the original source of the print. In fact Martin Whatson screws with every buyer by not crediting/naming/showing this bluntly use of "reference". The value immensely decreases by the factor that it contains stolen images and the originality of the piece also suffers due to that. All this creates a loss in value for the buyer (from my point of view) & therefore should also be talked about on an art/print related forum. Like the print or hate it, but if you take buying art a serious business (which many of here do from what I see) then these informations should always be talked about giving future buyers the chance to reduce information assemetries.
Furthermore artist that do such things should face the harsh critic by the art buyers, art fans.

[Deleted]

Nov 2, 2014 13:48:41 GMT 1 Graffiti Prints said:

Always the same haters digging whatever they can to diss Martin

What's up with that I don't get it at all?

If you ignored him that would speak louder IMO

Otherwise this forum just becomes a place of spite not art and decent banter.

One thing to say pass, don't like it etc but the posters here and everyone knows who I mean just post s**t over and over and come across as just haters and ridiculously spiteful

Spending valuable time of there life spreading there hate like bitter jam on every whatson thread or mention, it's pathetic imo

This forum is at another crux in its evolution IMO as the horrible, spiteful, flipper and in your face members are saying the most and shouting the loudest

I am guilty too as I just look at some threads and I'm like - omg - can not be arsed to say anything, I wonder how many others feel the same way?

While I love your incredibly detailed work, and own a couple prints youve made, AND plan on buying more, I feel telling people to be quiet (Ignoring him) about something that has gone directly into your pocket is in bad taste. It would appear "Ignoring  him" and not speaking about this would keep it off the SEO, and maybe others wont find out about a plagiaristic action snd keep buying from him, and you. And this is coming from someone thats definitely not a flipper. 

Ripping off other artists for print profits is a NO. Taking a photograph, and turning it into fine art (Which all this time I assumed thats what it had been) holds a different light to the subject than live tracing an oil painting and calling it yours. Most artists reference material, yes. But, how it gets from the source to the canvas is what separates the men from the boys. That original painting has far more artistic merit than the whatson "version", and its really unfortunate that he made that decision.

I like whatson, especially the zebra. I wish he didnt do that, but he did. Now he should deal with it the same way others artists in his shoes have. 

[Dr Plip]

I have a horrible feeling his Zebra is taken from a stock image....

[Deleted]

Probably, but if its a photo im okay with it. if its a painting, I have a problem.

[sgolby]

Nov 2, 2014 14:31:34 GMT 1 @hxfour said:

Nov 2, 2014 13:48:41 GMT 1 Graffiti Prints said:

Always the same haters digging whatever they can to diss Martin

What's up with that I don't get it at all?

If you ignored him that would speak louder IMO

Otherwise this forum just becomes a place of spite not art and decent banter.

One thing to say pass, don't like it etc but the posters here and everyone knows who I mean just post s**t over and over and come across as just haters and ridiculously spiteful

Spending valuable time of there life spreading there hate like bitter jam on every whatson thread or mention, it's pathetic imo

This forum is at another crux in its evolution IMO as the horrible, spiteful, flipper and in your face members are saying the most and shouting the loudest

I am guilty too as I just look at some threads and I'm like - omg - can not be arsed to say anything, I wonder how many others feel the same way?

While I love your incredibly detailed work, and own a couple prints youve made, AND plan on buying more, I feel telling people to be quiet (Ignoring him) about something that has gone directly into your pocket is in bad taste. It would appear "Ignoring  him" and not speaking about this would keep it off the SEO, and maybe others wont find out about a plagiaristic action snd keep buying from him, and you. And this is coming from someone thats definitely not a flipper. 

Ripping off other artists for print profits is a NO. Taking a photograph, and turning it into fine art (Which all this time I assumed thats what it had been) holds a different light to the subject than live tracing an oil painting and calling it yours. Most artists reference material, yes. But, how it gets from the source to the canvas is what separates the men from the boys. That original painting has far more artistic merit than the whatson "version", and its really unfortunate that he made that decision.

I like whatson, especially the zebra. I wish he didnt do that, but he did. Now he should deal with it the same way others artists in his shoes have. 

Agreed wholeheartedly... Graffiti Prints, this is a DISCUSSION board... Emphasis on discussion.  We discss art, and reference material is fair game.  I have a great respect for the prints you produce.   However coming in here as you have done several times, in an effort to stimy negative speech about one of the images you produce is counterproductive.  All you are doing is creating negative feelings towards your operation. 

[Dr Plip]

If you google "Ballerina stock", you get a few images that look (facially) very similar to the Whatson ballerina. I wonder if that lady has posed for quite a few ballerina photos?

Don't. DON'T google "Zebra stock". You get recipes.

[Dr Plip]

I think what I find most shocking about the whole thing is, was this really the prettiest ballerina stock photo he could find?

[Dr Plip]

She looks kinda similar to this lady:



I'll admit, it's not enough for a conviction, but her face and hair and neck look similar.

[Graffiti Prints]

Nov 2, 2014 13:48:41 GMT 1 Graffiti Prints said:

Always the same haters digging whatever they can to diss Martin

What's up with that I don't get it at all?

If you ignored him that would speak louder IMO

Otherwise this forum just becomes a place of spite not art and decent banter.

One thing to say pass, don't like it etc but the posters here and everyone knows who I mean just post s**t over and over and come across as just haters and ridiculously spiteful

Spending valuable time of there life spreading there hate like bitter jam on every whatson thread or mention, it's pathetic imo

This forum is at another crux in its evolution IMO as the horrible, spiteful, flipper and in your face members are saying the most and shouting the loudest

I am guilty too as I just look at some threads and I'm like - omg - can not be arsed to say anything, I wonder how many others feel the same way?

I quote myself again I was having a go at posterbob and some others who I feel are such a negative force here

Like the guy talking space invaders could not even get half way through his post it's was horrible

it's up to you lot if you wanna look for source pics etc and talk about it I was not having a go about that

[thomasmer]

Banksys never ripped off an image, thank fuck for that.

[Dr Plip]

So it looks like a photographer took an image of a ballerina, an artist then created a painting of it, then another artist created an image of that?

I was just trying to find the ballerina/model, not necessarily the original stock image. Quiet afternoon.

[Deleted]

Nov 2, 2014 15:27:55 GMT 1 Dr Plip said:

So it looks like a photographer took an image of a ballerina, an artist then created a painting of it, then another artist created an image of that?

I was just trying to find the ballerina/model, not necessarily the original stock image. Quiet afternoon.

Remember this: animalnewyork.com/2010/is-appropriating-an-appropriated-image-illegal/

[FЯ]

Nov 2, 2014 15:32:14 GMT 1 gonefellow said:

Nov 2, 2014 15:27:55 GMT 1 Dr Plip said:

So it looks like a photographer took an image of a ballerina, an artist then created a painting of it, then another artist created an image of that?

I was just trying to find the ballerina/model, not necessarily the original stock image. Quiet afternoon.

Remember this: animalnewyork.com/2010/is-appropriating-an-appropriated-image-illegal/

Where is all this going, what is the result of this thread.
nothing.

why are people so bothered.

a load of bluddy curtain twitchers.

[Dr Plip]

Nov 2, 2014 15:32:14 GMT 1 gonefellow said:

Nov 2, 2014 15:27:55 GMT 1 Dr Plip said:

So it looks like a photographer took an image of a ballerina, an artist then created a painting of it, then another artist created an image of that?

I was just trying to find the ballerina/model, not necessarily the original stock image. Quiet afternoon.

Remember this: animalnewyork.com/2010/is-appropriating-an-appropriated-image-illegal/

Yeah. Faile and all that as well.

[Deleted]

Nov 2, 2014 15:33:27 GMT 1 FЯ said:

Nov 2, 2014 15:32:14 GMT 1 gonefellow said:

Remember this: animalnewyork.com/2010/is-appropriating-an-appropriated-image-illegal/

Where is all this going, what is the result of this thread.
nothing.

why are people so bothered.

a load of bluddy curtain twitchers.

I believe an honest discussion about art appropriation and copyrights should be part of an art forum. It's a topic that could impact any artist with the amount of opportunistic litigation occurring.

[curiousgeorge]

Nov 2, 2014 13:48:41 GMT 1 Graffiti Prints said:

Always the same haters digging whatever they can to diss Martin

What's up with that I don't get it at all?

If you ignored him that would speak louder IMO

Otherwise this forum just becomes a place of spite not art and decent banter.

One thing to say pass, don't like it etc but the posters here and everyone knows who I mean just post s**t over and over and come across as just haters and ridiculously spiteful

Spending valuable time of there life spreading there hate like bitter jam on every whatson thread or mention, it's pathetic imo

This forum is at another crux in its evolution IMO as the horrible, spiteful, flipper and in your face members are saying the most and shouting the loudest

I am guilty too as I just look at some threads and I'm like - omg - can not be arsed to say anything, I wonder how many others feel the same way?

And you call yourself Graffiti prints? Might be an idea to go way back and learn about the values many in this culture hold.One of the important ones being…question everything and believe nothing!! To suggest anything other than praise is hate/spit/bitter jam? whatever is just plain stoopid


The forum was built on flipping(when it started you could turn a profit on maybe 90% of artists), so it's far from another crux in its evolution.It's changed a fair bit since expresso beans culture crossed over onto this board, some older members embraced this with open arms as it injected some more means to make a profit during much leaner times….

The paying advertiser telling members to shut up…I've not been around nowhere near as long as a lot of members.But you telling members to shut up is a genuine crux in it's evolution.

[Deleted]

Nov 2, 2014 15:27:55 GMT 1 Dr Plip said:

So it looks like a photographer took an image of a ballerina, an artist then created a painting of it, then another artist created an image of that?

I was just trying to find the ballerina/model, not necessarily the original stock image. Quiet afternoon.

The difference being, Richard Young (The original Artist) has the permission of a photographer, which he mentions here. www.ryoung-art.com/Dancer%20at%20peace%20oil%20painting.htm

And, because the artist painted it with a knife, it made a great amount of contrast for the layers in whatsons live tracing of it. For those who dont know, its an application within Adobe Illustrator to vectorize raster images in layers, as many colors as you choose. 

So, Richard Young painted his interpretation of a photograph with permission, while Whatson ripped off Youngs work, and in turn the photographers as well

Anyways, the end result is a sold out edition, and a bunch of potentially let down buyers. No big deal, right?

*Edit - Im being harsh as far as terms Im using, but I do like Whatson's style and his work as a whole. His street work, and most of his prints are great. Ive always questioned his tactics with portraits, as I've been livestreaming things since the program was called Streamline. 

[cmodart]

Honestly sometimes I don't post opinions because of users that predictably monopolize the thread with personal attacks and super-negativity, but I think this thread has merit beyond that.

The substantive point for discussion seems to be the origin of the source image, and the difference between appropriation and plagiarism. It does seem however that there are those who are quick to jump on Martin and give other artists the benefit of the doubt.

One differentiator that lends itself to "reappropriation" is the degree of obviousness. In this case, the image is fairly obscure, and almost no one would identify it as the work of another without proper attribution by the artist.

another is some type of transformation of the image. Through transformation the artwork can become conceptual in nature, and a new work is born. This is also where I struggle a little with this piece. Is the tagging a statement of sorts? Is there some deeper intended meaning? Or is it meant to just be pretty? (Probably not)

Ultimately, I think this is a nice piece by an artist who clearly manipulates imagery with his personal brand of tagging to create a new work. I do not think it is meaningful in the context of his artistic style to create an original source image, but If it is not original, Or obviously reappropriated, maybe it would be better for him to somehow credit the Artist or creator of the original. How cool would it be if you created an image and at least got a nod from an artist that used it?

Back to the forum, there are lots of intelligent people here with great opinions on art. It's cool when those are discussed without personal attacks on users or artists.

[eschiff]

curiousgeorge really well said. GP's actions are always suspect and calling everyone who dislikes his buddy's art as haters is laughable. He's more worried about his business model failing then anything to do with an art discussion.

[Dr Plip]

So if you purchased the print because you originally found the image aesthetically pleasing, will that change because the source image was appropriated from another artist (with or without permission)? Not getting at anyone or the artist, I'm just curious whether people will now be taking their prints down off the wall.

[Deleted]

Nov 2, 2014 16:11:04 GMT 1 Dr Plip said:

So if you purchased the print because you originally found the image aesthetically pleasing, will that change because the source image was appropriated from another artist (with or without permission)? Not getting at anyone or the artist, I'm just curious whether people will now be taking their prints down off the wall.

I happen to own the print (main/175)... I still like the image... Will it be on the wall? Abso-fracken-lutely... Would I have bought it after reading this thread? No. Not for that price anyway.

Cheers!

[natstan]

I have bought from GP in the past and I always believe this is a professional setup. But I totally disagree with the way it (and some other members) tries to dissuade forumites from making an opinion of their artists if it is negative. This has happened twice as far as my memory serves me well. We are mature enough to judge art on our own and this action just makes you look unprofessional. It may even make me jus give up buying anything from ever again, no matter how good it is.

I never see you request people to go slow on praises on your artists?? Yes, I could go away if I don't like the work (i have to stress I don't hate MW the artist) but what use is a discussion forum if it's just all about praise? Should I also walk away and say nothing if I like a print? So what is this forum for? To flip?

[sgolby]

Nov 2, 2014 16:11:04 GMT 1 Dr Plip said:

So if you purchased the print because you originally found the image aesthetically pleasing, will that change because the source image was appropriated from another artist (with or without permission)? Not getting at anyone or the artist, I'm just curious whether people will now be taking their prints down off the wall.

I own it, still like the image.  Still giving it as a gift to my best friend's daughter.

[Poster Bob]

As a representative of the artist you and he both would be best served by your noninvolvement in any thread critical of his work.

Nov 2, 2014 15:00:00 GMT 1 Graffiti Prints said:

Nov 2, 2014 13:48:41 GMT 1 Graffiti Prints said:

Always the same haters digging whatever they can to diss Martin

What's up with that I don't get it at all?

If you ignored him that would speak louder IMO

Otherwise this forum just becomes a place of spite not art and decent banter.

One thing to say pass, don't like it etc but the posters here and everyone knows who I mean just post s**t over and over and come across as just haters and ridiculously spiteful

Spending valuable time of there life spreading there hate like bitter jam on every whatson thread or mention, it's pathetic imo

This forum is at another crux in its evolution IMO as the horrible, spiteful, flipper and in your face members are saying the most and shouting the loudest

I am guilty too as I just look at some threads and I'm like - omg - can not be arsed to say anything, I wonder how many others feel the same way?

I quote myself again I was having a go at posterbob and some others who I feel are such a negative force here

Like the guy talking space invaders could not even get half way through his post it's was horrible

it's up to you lot if you wanna look for source pics etc and talk about it I was not having a go about that

[Graffiti Prints]

Nov 2, 2014 15:57:30 GMT 1 curiousgeorge said:

Nov 2, 2014 13:48:41 GMT 1 Graffiti Prints said:

Always the same haters digging whatever they can to diss Martin

What's up with that I don't get it at all?

If you ignored him that would speak louder IMO

Otherwise this forum just becomes a place of spite not art and decent banter.

One thing to say pass, don't like it etc but the posters here and everyone knows who I mean just post s**t over and over and come across as just haters and ridiculously spiteful

Spending valuable time of there life spreading there hate like bitter jam on every whatson thread or mention, it's pathetic imo

This forum is at another crux in its evolution IMO as the horrible, spiteful, flipper and in your face members are saying the most and shouting the loudest

I am guilty too as I just look at some threads and I'm like - omg - can not be arsed to say anything, I wonder how many others feel the same way?

And you call yourself Graffiti prints? Might be an idea to go way back and learn about the values many in this culture hold.One of the important ones being…question everything and believe nothing!! To suggest anything other than praise is hate/spit/bitter jam? whatever is just plain stoopid


The forum was built on flipping(when it started you could turn a profit on maybe 90% of artists), so it's far from another crux in its evolution.It's changed a fair bit since expresso beans culture crossed over onto this board, some older members embraced this with open arms as it injected some more means to make a profit during much leaner times….

The paying advertiser telling members to shut up…I've not been around nowhere near as long as a lot of members.But you telling members to shut up is a genuine crux in it's evolution.

But I'm not telling anyone to shut up

I keep my word simple so there not twisted or built on but they always are