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: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am a pirate ?!


believe me, I know -- I've tried it all. It was quite a while ago...
besides, there's no telling what that site was or what the image was
called... but thanks!

J

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, CK SHINE wrote:

> Hi Joy,
>
> Depending on how long ago you surfed the anarchist site, and how long a period you have your browser's 'history' function set to retain, you may find the link there. (in netscape under 'go:history:(x) days ago'. in IE under 'go', click the day/date)
>
> good luck!
> +
> -> 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

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am a pirate ?!


quick responses to both Dyske + CK below...

CK wrote:

> obviously, someone recognized the 'essence' of the 'sampled' photo or
> we wouldn't have any legal wrangling here. so this case is based on
> something much akin to the notion of 'intellectual property'.

Interesting thought: was it the "essence" they recognized or just an
identifying mark?

and Dyske wrote:

> Say for instance, I copy one of MTAA's digital artworks from their
> server and post it on my site as my work. I put a big disclaimer upfront
> stating that the work was copied from MTAA and was re-branded as mine.
> And I also explain why I think this is a legitimate artistic gesture.

once again, MTAA (regardless of what they may think), produce "art". I
don't know yet if their work will be subsumed into that monster force, the
unstoppable flood of ubiquitous mass media imagery [hyperbole intended]
and become my and everybody's raw material. ;)

> Since you do make it clear that your images are borrowed from news
> media, there is no deception here. I happen to think that crediting the
> original photographers would make your work even stronger.

It's not about there being deception -- it's that the photojournalist
in this case thinks I'm using her image and hence her fame to gain. she
therefore wants to be able to keep my image out of circulation-- off the
web and from ever being reproduced in print or exhibited. That's what is
behind the phrase "prior written permission". The credit line demand is
only a ruse--a foil for the second, real demand which is control.

Crediting the original photographers would run counter to the concept
here; my intention to take ubiquitous "anonymous" news imagery into a
medium traditionally associated with authorship. It would also prove an
impossible task. Of course, all these news photos are taken by someone;
more often than not they are uncredited (cf: "AP Wire" "Agence-France
Presse" etc.)

best,
Joy

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: I am a pirate ?!


> Hey Joy,

> Can we see the photograph in question?

> Cheers,
> Lee

hee. okay folks, here's my thinking on this: If I include the link to the
photo it means I have to disclose the name of the woman suing me; I want
to wait a bit before I do that. I don't want anything I say or do to
be misconstrued. This way our discussion remains fairly abstract. I mean,
she could very well go forward with an injunction when she sees i haven't
agreed to 100% of her terms. So I want to play it close to the chest for
now.

call me paranoid.

the good news is that at some point down the line when I know where I
stand I'm going to put up a web page--in the interests of public
disclosure and fair use advocacy--in which my image and the link to hers
(um, on the Magnum site), both sets of arguments, and whatever comments
and transcripts I can legally/ethically include...

In the meantime, I have tried like the devil to find the anarchist website
from which I grabbed the offending pirated detail, but I can't seem to
retrace my steps this time. Maybe it's not even there... and if you
google "molotov" "riot" "rioter" "revolutionary" etc., as I do all the
time when I feel like looking for images, this woman's photograph NEVER
comes up. Clearly Magnum keeps it's jpegs well under wraps.

But hey, that doesn't mean you guys can't try to find the original
yourselves. Actually, if you can't (and if none of the photo curators I
know could recognize the source from my painting) it sure makes her whole
case look silly. Go for it -- anyone who finds it I'll buy you a drink.
Seriously, I will.

best,
Joy

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: Re: I am a pirate ?!


hi CK,

Thanks -- that was a really entertaining email to read. I think we
probably (on this list) pretty much all agree that we'd like to see
sampling protected to some degree, by law.

> so in this case, you are a 'pirate' who is fortunate that the entity
> you have 'pirated' asks only that you pay 'tribute' instead of sending
> their fleet against you to scuttle your enterprise and see you down to
> Davey Jones' locker ;-]

hee. Well, actually I don't think that's why I'm fortunate; I'm fortunate
because I found a lawyer who was able to see and make clear to me that I
have something to protect, and that the entity's "reasonableness" is a
veiled threat that I must respond to intelligently. In other words, if I
buckle just to make it all go away, it establishes a pretty awful
precedent for myself. My work process is entirely about sampling and
reprocessing extant images found out in "the field". So although my initial
reaction was to think, yeah, I guess she's being rather reasonable, my
understanding now is that I must protect what I do. I won't give her
control over whether I can show this work or reproduce it in the
future--that's what she really is after: that degree of control. So on
that score she can go jump in a lake. Bring it on sister. I don't
really want to credit her either, but I will as a gesture of good will;
it's a compromise on both sides that way. But I have the feeling I'm
dealing with a Big Ego...

Anyway, the letter's in the mail.

I think what's really at play here is this--and The Grey Album
provides such a perfect example: It seems important to preserve and
protect the right of artists to sample, recombine, "shred",
recontextualize, remix and transform the bits and pieces of our extant
material culture. Recombination: that really is how it's done, how art is
made, isn't it? and it's always been done that way...

Otoh it is clearly important to protect authors from outright theft. But
there is a difference between sampling something to make something "new",
and copying it outright and claiming authorship for fame and/or gain. Like
you said in your post.

We need to determine where the lines should be drawn so as not to a)
stifle creativity, and b) rip off authors or prevent them from making their
livlihood. Recombinant and transformative processes must be understood
and protected as legit; that is what is strong and magnificent in this
current weird culture of ours. We need to embrace that and stop fighting
it. Well, the Permissions People need to embrace that, just a little bit...

Anyway, I think I've already gone on too long about this stuff. More later
if anything develops.

best,
Joy

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, CK SHINE wrote:

> sampling is now an old idea. i've been watching the resulting legal squabbling since the sugar hill gang sampled chic's 'good times, rapped over it and 'created' the monster old skool hip-hop hit 'rappers delight'.
>
> what's at play here?
> one argument asserts that the 'original'insight/artefact provides the
> essential stimulus. secondary comments are simply derivatives and owe
> a debt, both conceptually and contextually to the 'originator' of the
> state(s) of mind/emotions,etc., ellicited by the 'original' artefact.
>
> another argument is that everything is up for grabs, to be 'recontextualized' as the 'sampler' sees fit.
>
> so let's think about you & your work as it might be 'sampled' by someone other than yourself.
>
> let's say this 'sampler' has a profound insight into the relationships between 9 paintings,(one of which being yours) 'created' by 9 different contemporary painters.
>
> the 'sampler' visits each gallery exhibiting each painting and discreetly captures super high resolution digital images of each of the paintings.
>
> the sampler then 'recreates' each of the paintings, stroke for stroke and arranges them into a massive, 18'x 24' 'mega painting'. this 'sampled' work catches the fancy of some very influential critics & collectors, is written about and becomes 'famous'. all the 'sampler' is doing is bringing to light the relationships between the paintings.
>
> yet none of the painters are credited, because naming the painters isn't important to the 'sampler's' insight.
>
> how do you, as one of the 'sampled' painters react to this?
>
> let's take it to the next level and say the 'sampler' sells his 'mega painting' for a million bucks.
>
> now how do you react to this?
>
> it's a very sticky wicket, yes?
>
> Not too long ago, IBM spent millions of dollars in lawsuits over what they believed were patent & intellectual property infringments on their original 'Personal Computer' concept. yet eventually, they couldn't defend their 'original creation' and had to give the vast majority of their monopoly away, even though they were the first to market with a viable product.
>
> having used sampling in much of my work for over 20 years,i agree that
> if a work is suficiently recontextualized, it's fair game.
>
> i think much of it ultimately has to do with how valuable the 'sampler's' output becomes and if there's anyone involved who has the wherewithal to prosecute the perceived transgression.
>
> in the end, we only have those rights which we can defend
>
> so in this case, you are a 'pirate' who is fortunate that the entity
> you have 'pirated' asks only that you pay 'tribute' instead of sending their fleet against you to scuttle your enterprise and see you down to Davey Jones' locker ;-]
>
>

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: I am a pirate ?!


free love" freeware? I always had you guys figured for a flowerchildren!

;)

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, patrick lichty wrote:

> Yes, and I would like to broaden the general description of making love
> to sharing it, to evoking it, to being filled with a sense of largesse
> and altruism and trying to act upon it.
>
> If just gives me something to aim for.
> I'll fall short sometimes, sometimes I'll go beyond. But it's a great
> idea.
>
> Patrick Lichty
> Editor-In-Chief
> Intelligent Agent Magazine
> http://www.intelligentagent.com
> 355 Seyburn Dr.
> Baton Rouge, LA 70808
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-list@rhizome.org [mailto:owner-list@rhizome.org] On Behalf
> Of Lee Wells
> Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 9:55 AM
> To: Joy Garnett; Pall Thayer
> Cc: list@rhizome.org
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: I am a pirate ?!
>
> Ok.....and now on to something completely different.
> MAKE MORE ART, MAKE MORE LOVE
>
> on 2/29/04 10:08, Joy Garnett at joyeria@walrus.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Art history (and general cultural history) are narratives of
> > appropriation. Without eavesdropping, gossip, war, stealing, invasion,
> > piracy, etc., there would be no cross-fertilization, no cultural
> > development or creative efflorescence as we know it (ok, a loose bad
> > re-cap of Manuel Delanda, 1000 Years of Nonlinear History").
> >
> > the concept of "authorship" is relatively recent. the Golden Age of
> the
> > web (now over?) offered a utopian vision that strove to wipe out the
> > rickety concept of author as we knew it; instead, something more
> profound
> > is taking place: a struggle to understand and redefine these
> coexisting
> > yet conflicting principles of authorship, originality, and recombinant
> > creativity. It's really a very passionate time...
> >
> > J
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
> >
> >> This post is just downright absurd. The things you are talking about
> are
> >> things that one would consider if one planned to publish someone
> elses work
> >> (in its orginal form) and make money off it. Like when Barnes and
> Nobles
> >> publishes a collection of the works of Lewis Carroll. The work is in
> the
> >> public domain so they are aloud to publish and sell it and don't even
> have
> >> to pay royalties. What's done in the arts is entirely different and
> the
> >> differences go beyond legal definitions.
> >>
> >> You're comparing apples to oranges.
> >>
> >>
> >> Pall Thayer
> >> artist/teacher
> >> Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
> >> http://www.this.is/pallit
> >> http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
> >> http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
> >> http://130.208.220.190/panse
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Niall Flaherty" <flahertyniall@eircom.net>
> >> To: <list@rhizome.org>
> >> Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 2:40 AM
> >> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: I am a pirate ?!
> >>
> >>
> >>> Yes, you are a pirate... but worse.
> >>> You are bloody un-generous for someone who bases all her paintings
> on the
> >> work of others. They're not dead Joy, their work is not in the public
> realm
> >> (though unlike yourself I haven't made a great study of the legal).
> Would it
> >> really be too difficult to ask first?
> >>>
> >>> It's just a thought.
> >>> Disregard as you do the rights of fellow artists.
> >>> +
> >>> -> 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
> >>
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
>
>
> +
> -> 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
>