Week 2: Whose Image is it Anyway?

Image on left: original photography by Patrick Cariou / image on right: artwork by Richard Prince

Copyright law.  There have been some notable art copyright cases in recent decades. One of the most significant is French photographer Patrick Cariou’s claim, suing Richard Prince and his gallery, Gagosian, for copyright infringement. Read more about the case here  or an even more detailed report here.

I am no fan of this style of work – how can a few crude daubs of paint and a magazine cutting make this a new work of art (or indeed ‘art’). There seems far too much sympathy in using the work ‘appropriation’ – there is no synonym that can make it acceptable. If it necessary to exhibit such work, I could come close to tolerating it if there were clear apologies to the original artist/photographer and if the exhibition was clearly labelled as being one of intellectual property theft and vandalism.

I cannot begin to agree with the decision of the court.

I find it saddening that one level of argument in favour of the court is that Cariou did at least gain publicity for his work. When Cariou took the original photography, he had no intention of gaining from the exposure of this case. It must be rather galling to be better known as the person whose work was appropriated by someone else, rather than for your skills as a photographer.

Cariou was not approached with regard to permission, so it would seem improbable that the subject in the photograph received that common courtesy. I wonder how such a case would be handled in Europe? The GDPR issues alone could be sizable.

In the back of my mind is the thought that my project could be seen as being repurposing of other people’s art: the project sees me photographing then editing stained glass windows. However, the artists are all deceased, I always seek permission from the owner of the art work prior to any photography, and I gain approval for use of the photograph once the editing is complete. My project does not see me reinterpret the works (despite Course-based encouragement to do so) and the only editing is corrective (removing cracks in glass; erasing grime and dirt; removing support bars). Any publication of the images sees full reference to the original artist, the copyright owner of the original item and details the location of the item: I am working in collaboration with the owners (in the absence of the artist). I believe that this is the only acceptable way of ‘using’ pre-existing art works… however, for the benefit of my project, should you feel that I am omitting an important step, please do comment to that effect.

Week 2 Challenge: Let’s Talk Business

This week’s activity therefore, requires thought about the following three areas in relation to my practice:

• A Mission Statement
• The Product
• The Market

This is an opportunity to consider them from a more commercial angle.

Mission Statement
The fantastic beauty of stained glass windows is rarely replicated in a photography as there are so many factors inhibiting the process: the weather and lighting conditions may be unfavourable; a camera lacks sufficient dynamic range; there may be a build-up of years of dust and grime; the horizontal support bars detract from the original design.  Dominic Price’s vision is to record an image that is a lasting memory of a stained glass window, viewed as fresh and clear as the original artist would have wanted.

The Product
An initial site visit ascertains the logistics of the shoot, together with the most opportune time of day and time of the year to take the photograph.  Diffused, bright light is optimal, avoiding harsh shadows created by the lead calmes that hold the individual panes of glass together.  However, vegetation and surrounding buildings can have a dramatic impact on the anticipated lighting were one to carry out remote calculations.  If the site lends itself to a straightforward set up, then the photography stage typically takes no more than an hour per light (an individual vertical division of a window), with up to 30 exposure bracketed images being taken for each view.  The stained glass window or light is then reconstructed individual pane at a time, by selecting the most appropriately exposed fragment of an image from the exposure bracketed range.  With the image reassembled, any damaged or overly dirty panes are corrected.  A follow-up location visit allows the chance for a final comparison with the original prior to the digital removal of any support bars.  The final image can be supplied in a number of ways, from digital file to a host of print options, with a Giclée print on 310gsm standard fine art paper; double mounted in white card, then black box framed, being the preferred finish.

The Market
With scarce competition in the field, the potential market is huge: any location with stained glass.  Beyond individual images, there is the opportunity for exhibiting works to local communities as well as publishing the images within guide books or as greetings cards.  Clearly religious festivals are well documented within stained glass windows and lend themselves well to the greetings card market.