joy garnett
Since the beginning
Works in United States of America

ARTBASE (1)
BIO
Joy Garnett is a painter based in New York. She appropriates news images from the Internet and re-invents them as paintings. Her subject is the apocalyptic-sublime landscape, as well as the digital image itself as cultural artifact in an increasingly technologized world. Her image research has resulted in online documentation projects, most notably The Bomb Project.

Notable past exhibitions include her recent solo shows at Winkleman Gallery, New York and at the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC; group exhibitions organized by the Whitney Museum of American Art, P.S.1/MoMA Contemporary Art Center, Artists Space, White Columns (New York), Kettle's Yard, Cambridge (UK), and De Witte Zaal, Ghent (Belgium). She shows with aeroplastics contemporary, Brussels, Belgium.

extended network >

homepage:
http://joygarnett.com

The Bomb Project
http://www.thebombproject.org

First Pulse Projects
http://firstpulseprojects.net

NEWSgrist - where spin is art
http://newsgrist.typepad.com/

Discussions (685) Opportunities (5) Events (8) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: Molotov Landscapes


dear Edward -- thanks, and yeah, these are really really sexy
and beautiful!

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Lee Wells wrote:

> very sexy
>
> on 3/7/04 11:09, Edward Tang at edtang@antiexperience.com wrote:
>
> > Hi Joy (and everyone else listening)!
> >
> > With my first post to rhizome, this is my humble contribution to the Distorted
> > Molotov-ness, I post this link with my best wishes that all of this Stuff will
> > work itself out soon for you and they stop bothering you!
> >
> > http://www.antiexperience.com/edtang/works/molotov.html
> >
> > - Ed
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>


DISCUSSION

THE THING: Molotov


solidarity from THE THING

:)

check it out: login:

http://bbs.thing.net/


DISCUSSION

Re: The Distorted Molotov


Well-put;

here's something I hadn't considered until now (duh): my shift in
sourcing raw material from declassified government images to a broader
variety of images found in the media. the government doesn't care if you
use declassified stuff; but disney and pepsi and mattel do.

I consider this event/ordeal as a kind of short course in copyright
principles and law. my lawyer's fees are tuition (ouch).

> There's no free lawsuit in this country.

said like a true veteran; I want that on a t-shirt (to wear with my pirate
patch?)

J

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, liza sabater wrote:

> On Friday, March 5, 2004, at 11:34 AM, Joy Garnett wrote:
>
> > That is partly why photojournalists sue: they want control over
> > the interpretation and context for the photograph, otherwise it's use
> > could be up for grabs.
>
> I just want to make a point that this is the reason MN got C&D'd by
> Mattel. It was so obvious that what he created was not a Barbie that a
> child could play with. But Mattel has sued people in 3 prominent
> lawsuits on the grounds that the images created with artworks corrupted
> and diluted the Barbie trademark and, thusly, hurt the company's
> property. Here's some links to the latest dismissed case:
>
> http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/cyberia-l/msg44605.html
> http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?idx93&cid=1&cname=Media
>
> We could talk to our heart's content about the multivocity of art, of
> difference and the Nietzschean critique of the thing-in-tself but that
> does not a legal argument make. Companies and individuals do not trade
> in goods anymore but in brands and for that matter, CR and TR holders
> with the money to sue will do so to protect their right to market the
> 'Myth of a Brand' as a commodity. An artist that want to mess around
> with a myth, big or small, has a responsibility not just to their work
> but to the possible legal and social implications of their work.
>
> In the case of copyright and trademark interpretations, they go well
> beyond the scope of protecting an artist or the uniqueness of a
> product. As long as we are in an economy that all what it does is to
> trade interpretations, the one with the most money to sue will win. I
> mean, even in the case of the Naked Barbie, the guy came out losing
> because Mattel did have to reimburse him for his legal expenses. In '96
> if we had decided to go to court it would have cost us anything between
> 20 and 50K --even if the lawyer had defrayed her fees. Now it's in the
> hundreds of thousands. In these cases you need to do gobs of research
> and that's where the money goes. There's no free lawsuit in this
> country.
>
> These are realities artists have to keep in mind when dealing with
> sampling, remixing, etc. DJ Danger Mouse has to contend with that as
> well, for The Grey Album. Grey Tuesday was nice but the guy is going to
> need a legal defense fund to deal with EMI.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1159201,00.html
>
>
> l i z a
> =========================
> www.culturekitchen.com
>
>