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/
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/
Re: <underfire> answer to Joy (fwd)
there's a discussion going on over at Jordan Crandell's list that I've
sortof dropped out of (exhaustion) but my name lingers on subject lines
much to my embarrassment...
I thought this was relevant in some way to our discussion (even though
I'm no student of philosophy--even the "street" variety ;)
also see list archives:
http://list.v2.nl/pipermail/underfire/
best,
j
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 13:07:29 -0500
From: manuel delanda <manuel666@pipeline.com>
Reply-To: underfire@z2.v2.nl
To: underfire@smtp.v2.nl
Subject: Re: <underfire> answer to Joy
On Thursday, February 26, 2004, at 04:56 PM, Bernard Roddy wrote:
> The 911 example is designed to show that different cognitive states
> could drive one to the same actions, but it is also true that what one
> thinks is "real" depends on what representations are informing one's
> cognitive faculties.
only if you uncritically accept (like most intellectuals after the
linguistic turn do) that experience is shaped by language (that is, if
you accept that Kant modified by Saussure is the essence of
experience). But if you do not accept that (as for ex Deleuze does not)
what's real does not depend on our minds. But anyway, trying to
convince you of this is like trying to convince a christian that jesus
is not the son of god. Who cares?
Manuel DeLanda
Street Philosopher.
sortof dropped out of (exhaustion) but my name lingers on subject lines
much to my embarrassment...
I thought this was relevant in some way to our discussion (even though
I'm no student of philosophy--even the "street" variety ;)
also see list archives:
http://list.v2.nl/pipermail/underfire/
best,
j
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 13:07:29 -0500
From: manuel delanda <manuel666@pipeline.com>
Reply-To: underfire@z2.v2.nl
To: underfire@smtp.v2.nl
Subject: Re: <underfire> answer to Joy
On Thursday, February 26, 2004, at 04:56 PM, Bernard Roddy wrote:
> The 911 example is designed to show that different cognitive states
> could drive one to the same actions, but it is also true that what one
> thinks is "real" depends on what representations are informing one's
> cognitive faculties.
only if you uncritically accept (like most intellectuals after the
linguistic turn do) that experience is shaped by language (that is, if
you accept that Kant modified by Saussure is the essence of
experience). But if you do not accept that (as for ex Deleuze does not)
what's real does not depend on our minds. But anyway, trying to
convince you of this is like trying to convince a christian that jesus
is not the son of god. Who cares?
Manuel DeLanda
Street Philosopher.
Re: The Distorted Molotov
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, twhid wrote:
> I would like to add to Liza's thoughts.
>
> I'm not sure it's censorship... Why would the photojournalist want to
> censor Joy? There really is no reason. Does the photoJ think that she
> will be financially harmed by Joy sampling her work? I doubt it. That
> would mean that someone would choose to use Joy's image instead of the
> original. Joy's not trying to sell repro rights of the image, Joy's
> trying to sell the painting.
Case in point: we neither share or overlap in the realms of critics,
curators, venues and market. in a world where one must choose one's
battles wisely, why is she even bothering?
>
> I think it comes down to simple pride and something similar to as the
> Stockholm Syndrome. She feels she owns this image (tho her subject
> would probably like to light her on fire with a pepsi molotov if he
> knew what she was doing with his image). It's not simply 'legal' with
> her, she probably really feels that Joy is stealing from her, it's
> become ethical with her. The twisted copyright laws of the USA have
> been internalized by her, she confuses legalities with ethics. It's the
> Disney Syndrome.
No doubt it's a pride thing. It seems that she believes that any quality/
power of my work is a simple duplication of the power of hers: in effect
that I'm trying to pass off her artfulness as my own.
But here are a few points + questions I want to ask:
Regarding photographs that depict real events, does there exist an
intrinsic meaning or incorruptible essence? Or is the photograph an
amoral wild thing that can be co-opted to mean just about anything
depending on spin, captions, context? It's got to be the latter, which I
think we all, including the photographer suing me, would have to agree
upon. 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. These folks have a mission, and since there is a
moral stance involved, to their mind ANY decontextualizing /
recontextualizing of their image, even in the name of art is as
abominable as, say, Pepsi using her original image to sell soda.
However, what if I am using decontextualization/recontextualization as a
tool in my work? What if I choose to critique the way photographs are
passed as "evidence" in the mass media? or in photojournalistic books for
that matter? What if I don't believe in the complete transparency of the
medium, of the journalistic photograph? -- no photograph is truly
"neutral". And what if I believe that the use of different mediums
radically changes the response in the viewer? What if I am using paint to
critique the uses of photography?
For that alone she should hate me, but she shouldn't sue me, because it's
my right to make work that critiques a social phenomenon -- even if it's a
longstanding socially protected institution like photojournalism.
Tim, as for your crit (below): It occurs to me that we musn't lose site of
what copyright is really for: protecting the author from outright theft.
If I had taken part or all of this woman's photograph and passed it off
as my own, I'd be guilty of copyright infringement; if someone grabs a
jpeg of one of my paintings and tries to pass it off as part of their own
portfolio -- for a grant application, say -- they are guilty of copyright
infringement. And I would probably not sue them, but I would take them to
task. Having it there, under the image, is just a warning : don't dare
steal this outright!
Otoh, I sure as hell don't want to prevent people grabbing my jpegs and
shredding or making whatever they want out of them, so probably you are
right, a CC license would be much more appropriate. So yeah, maybe I
should go and change all that -- it IS inconsistent. (But-- do I have to
go do that on all my pages right now? can it wait, I'm so tired! PLEEZE??)
;)
J
> +To crit Joy+
>
> I find it strange that there is a copyright on the original Molotov
> page which I mirrored here:
>
> http://www.twhid.com/misc/joy/molotov/
>
> If you are going to sample imagery for your own work you should at the
> very least release your work with a cc license which allows
> unattributed sampling, no? Or it should be released with no strings
> attached whatsoever. I mean, technically, all of our joywar pages are
> illegal.
>
> Seems a bit --let's say-- inconsistent?
>
> take care,
>
> I would like to add to Liza's thoughts.
>
> I'm not sure it's censorship... Why would the photojournalist want to
> censor Joy? There really is no reason. Does the photoJ think that she
> will be financially harmed by Joy sampling her work? I doubt it. That
> would mean that someone would choose to use Joy's image instead of the
> original. Joy's not trying to sell repro rights of the image, Joy's
> trying to sell the painting.
Case in point: we neither share or overlap in the realms of critics,
curators, venues and market. in a world where one must choose one's
battles wisely, why is she even bothering?
>
> I think it comes down to simple pride and something similar to as the
> Stockholm Syndrome. She feels she owns this image (tho her subject
> would probably like to light her on fire with a pepsi molotov if he
> knew what she was doing with his image). It's not simply 'legal' with
> her, she probably really feels that Joy is stealing from her, it's
> become ethical with her. The twisted copyright laws of the USA have
> been internalized by her, she confuses legalities with ethics. It's the
> Disney Syndrome.
No doubt it's a pride thing. It seems that she believes that any quality/
power of my work is a simple duplication of the power of hers: in effect
that I'm trying to pass off her artfulness as my own.
But here are a few points + questions I want to ask:
Regarding photographs that depict real events, does there exist an
intrinsic meaning or incorruptible essence? Or is the photograph an
amoral wild thing that can be co-opted to mean just about anything
depending on spin, captions, context? It's got to be the latter, which I
think we all, including the photographer suing me, would have to agree
upon. 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. These folks have a mission, and since there is a
moral stance involved, to their mind ANY decontextualizing /
recontextualizing of their image, even in the name of art is as
abominable as, say, Pepsi using her original image to sell soda.
However, what if I am using decontextualization/recontextualization as a
tool in my work? What if I choose to critique the way photographs are
passed as "evidence" in the mass media? or in photojournalistic books for
that matter? What if I don't believe in the complete transparency of the
medium, of the journalistic photograph? -- no photograph is truly
"neutral". And what if I believe that the use of different mediums
radically changes the response in the viewer? What if I am using paint to
critique the uses of photography?
For that alone she should hate me, but she shouldn't sue me, because it's
my right to make work that critiques a social phenomenon -- even if it's a
longstanding socially protected institution like photojournalism.
Tim, as for your crit (below): It occurs to me that we musn't lose site of
what copyright is really for: protecting the author from outright theft.
If I had taken part or all of this woman's photograph and passed it off
as my own, I'd be guilty of copyright infringement; if someone grabs a
jpeg of one of my paintings and tries to pass it off as part of their own
portfolio -- for a grant application, say -- they are guilty of copyright
infringement. And I would probably not sue them, but I would take them to
task. Having it there, under the image, is just a warning : don't dare
steal this outright!
Otoh, I sure as hell don't want to prevent people grabbing my jpegs and
shredding or making whatever they want out of them, so probably you are
right, a CC license would be much more appropriate. So yeah, maybe I
should go and change all that -- it IS inconsistent. (But-- do I have to
go do that on all my pages right now? can it wait, I'm so tired! PLEEZE??)
;)
J
> +To crit Joy+
>
> I find it strange that there is a copyright on the original Molotov
> page which I mirrored here:
>
> http://www.twhid.com/misc/joy/molotov/
>
> If you are going to sample imagery for your own work you should at the
> very least release your work with a cc license which allows
> unattributed sampling, no? Or it should be released with no strings
> attached whatsoever. I mean, technically, all of our joywar pages are
> illegal.
>
> Seems a bit --let's say-- inconsistent?
>
> take care,
>
Re: RHIZOME_RARE: I am a pirate ?!
dear GH,
it's nice to hear from you. this case has brought up so much interesting
discussion lately, where ever I go -- and I'm learning a thing or two
about copyright infringement. Interestingly, the case against me is not
strong at all, though that doesn't mean they can't harrass my ass (now
they want money AND control). Part of the strength of my case for sampling
and fair use resides in the fact that the image I accidently utilized
was not "art" per say, but photojournalistic ("transparent"):
the events and persons depicted were not staged (we hope) by the
photographer. So who do THEY belong to? Even if the presence of the
photographer incited the person to throw the Molotov with more visible
emotion (ie: the revolutionary was 'performing' in a sense), the
photographer is still engaged in reportage (ie: they are not doing what
Jeff Wall or a Greg Crewdson do; they are doing what reporters do for
newspapers: moral high ground or no, they are still a camera for hire).
The question invariably arises: who, if anyone, owns images that are
dispersed in the mass media, that become part of our collective
imagination and consciousness? are there distinctions between them?
do different degrees of collective ownership or non-ownership apply to
iconic images, say, (eg: do Americans own the image of the Statue of
Liberty, or does France?)
And (warming to my theme) does the medium in which the image is rendered
play a part in the viewer's response and hence the meaning or depth of
meaning of the image?
god, what would Andy think about that? (actually: what did he think about
McLuhan, if anything at all?)
best,
Joy
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, G.H. Hovagimyan wrote:
> gh replies:
>
> I'm pretty sure that Andy Warhol had similar trouble with Campbell's
> soup. Indeed it went a little deeper since he used their copyrighted
> color Campbell's Soup red. He also had to get a licensing agreement I
> believe. I read this someplace and I can't put my finger on where it
> was. Maybe one of Arthur Danto's drooling books on art beyond art or
> some such non-sense.
> gh
>
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2004, at 2:21 PM, joy garnett wrote:
>
> >
> > To view this entire thread, click here:
> > http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread168&text#419#23419
> >
> > + + +
> >
> > friends,
> >
> > the most interesting thing just happened: I'm being sued for copyright
> > infringement (does it mean I'm finally a grown-up?). the joke is I was
> > served the letter the day after I met with an arts funding rep who
> > encouraged me to list "sampling" on my grant application as part of my
> > painting practice. It made the whole thing seem almost funny.
> >
> > the plaintiff is a world-famous photojournalist who takes pics in
> > war-torn regions; the pirated image is a detail of a photograph
> > taken in 1978. Months back while trolling the Web for news images and
> > such, I found the cropped detail w/ no credit line, probably on some
> > anti-NAFTA/anarchist solidarity website, printed it out and stuck it
> > in a
> > folder to paint later. I had no idea it was a detail of a pic by a
> > Magnum
> > photographer or that it was from their most seminal series and book.
> > The
> > joke is definitely on me.
> >
> > To my mind of course my derivative artwork has very little to do with
> > the
> > original photo. First of all it's a painting; it also happens to be
> > 6-feet tall and rather decontextualized from whatever its original
> > context
> > was. And it's wildly cropped and brushy and all that painterly stuff.
> > But
> > apparently the use of a different medium doesn't make it any more
> > justifyable to "derive" under the present copyright law.
> >
> > how did the plaintif find out about it? I was ratted out by a supposed
> > friend, also a photojournalist, who recognized the image--they stick
> > together. also: the painting was in my solo show that just came down
> > last
> > week; the image was used for my announcement card and is on the
> > gallery's
> > and my websites. The show was reviewed in the New Yorker and the
> > derivative artwork in question was praised. Basically I'm screwed in
> > terms of wanting to fight it--the plaintif is wholly within their
> > rights.
> >
> > Here's the thing: for all that my dander is up, the plaintiff is being
> > pretty cool considering their permissions-centered world-view:
> > they are basically asking only that I supply a credit line, and that I
> > ask
> > for permission in writing to exhibit/reproduce in the future. They
> > don't
> > want $$ for this particular infringement. basically they chose to
> > license
> > the image to me for my exhibition after the fact. It seems reasonable
> > and
> > rather decent.
> >
> > However being sued does bring up the whole issue for me in a weird
> > way. I
> > mean, my work is ABOUT the fact that images are uncontrollable
> > entities.
> > It's about what happens when you remove context and framing devices.
> > my work is derivative by definition, and thoroughly reflective of this
> > age
> > of sampling and remixing. This will no doubt happen to me again. And
> > although
> > the permissions people--photojournalists, the recording industry, etc.
> > --are fighting a losing battle, you can bet they are going to fight til
> > the death. I may be getting off easy this time, but it seems that when
> > your aquaintances lie and then turn you in for copyright infringement,
> > the climate of creativity--not to mention general decency--is in
> > serious
> > danger.
> >
> > I see an art lawyer later today.
> >
> > all the best,
> > Joy
> >
> > http://www.firstpulseprojects.net
> >
> >
> >
> > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> >
> > Rhizome.org is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and an affiliate of
> > the New Museum of Contemporary Art.
> >
> > Rhizome Rare is supported by grants from the Rockefeller Foundation,
> > the
> > Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and with public funds from
> > the New York State Council on the Arts, a state agency.
> >
> > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> >
> > Rhizome Rare is filtered by Rhizome SuperUsers, a dedicated group of
> > volunteer editors. To learn more about becoming a Rhizome SuperUser,
> > please email editor@rhizome.org.
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this list, visit http://rhizome.org/subscribe .
> >
> > Subscribers to Rhizome Rare are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Member Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php.
> >
> >
>
it's nice to hear from you. this case has brought up so much interesting
discussion lately, where ever I go -- and I'm learning a thing or two
about copyright infringement. Interestingly, the case against me is not
strong at all, though that doesn't mean they can't harrass my ass (now
they want money AND control). Part of the strength of my case for sampling
and fair use resides in the fact that the image I accidently utilized
was not "art" per say, but photojournalistic ("transparent"):
the events and persons depicted were not staged (we hope) by the
photographer. So who do THEY belong to? Even if the presence of the
photographer incited the person to throw the Molotov with more visible
emotion (ie: the revolutionary was 'performing' in a sense), the
photographer is still engaged in reportage (ie: they are not doing what
Jeff Wall or a Greg Crewdson do; they are doing what reporters do for
newspapers: moral high ground or no, they are still a camera for hire).
The question invariably arises: who, if anyone, owns images that are
dispersed in the mass media, that become part of our collective
imagination and consciousness? are there distinctions between them?
do different degrees of collective ownership or non-ownership apply to
iconic images, say, (eg: do Americans own the image of the Statue of
Liberty, or does France?)
And (warming to my theme) does the medium in which the image is rendered
play a part in the viewer's response and hence the meaning or depth of
meaning of the image?
god, what would Andy think about that? (actually: what did he think about
McLuhan, if anything at all?)
best,
Joy
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, G.H. Hovagimyan wrote:
> gh replies:
>
> I'm pretty sure that Andy Warhol had similar trouble with Campbell's
> soup. Indeed it went a little deeper since he used their copyrighted
> color Campbell's Soup red. He also had to get a licensing agreement I
> believe. I read this someplace and I can't put my finger on where it
> was. Maybe one of Arthur Danto's drooling books on art beyond art or
> some such non-sense.
> gh
>
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2004, at 2:21 PM, joy garnett wrote:
>
> >
> > To view this entire thread, click here:
> > http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread168&text#419#23419
> >
> > + + +
> >
> > friends,
> >
> > the most interesting thing just happened: I'm being sued for copyright
> > infringement (does it mean I'm finally a grown-up?). the joke is I was
> > served the letter the day after I met with an arts funding rep who
> > encouraged me to list "sampling" on my grant application as part of my
> > painting practice. It made the whole thing seem almost funny.
> >
> > the plaintiff is a world-famous photojournalist who takes pics in
> > war-torn regions; the pirated image is a detail of a photograph
> > taken in 1978. Months back while trolling the Web for news images and
> > such, I found the cropped detail w/ no credit line, probably on some
> > anti-NAFTA/anarchist solidarity website, printed it out and stuck it
> > in a
> > folder to paint later. I had no idea it was a detail of a pic by a
> > Magnum
> > photographer or that it was from their most seminal series and book.
> > The
> > joke is definitely on me.
> >
> > To my mind of course my derivative artwork has very little to do with
> > the
> > original photo. First of all it's a painting; it also happens to be
> > 6-feet tall and rather decontextualized from whatever its original
> > context
> > was. And it's wildly cropped and brushy and all that painterly stuff.
> > But
> > apparently the use of a different medium doesn't make it any more
> > justifyable to "derive" under the present copyright law.
> >
> > how did the plaintif find out about it? I was ratted out by a supposed
> > friend, also a photojournalist, who recognized the image--they stick
> > together. also: the painting was in my solo show that just came down
> > last
> > week; the image was used for my announcement card and is on the
> > gallery's
> > and my websites. The show was reviewed in the New Yorker and the
> > derivative artwork in question was praised. Basically I'm screwed in
> > terms of wanting to fight it--the plaintif is wholly within their
> > rights.
> >
> > Here's the thing: for all that my dander is up, the plaintiff is being
> > pretty cool considering their permissions-centered world-view:
> > they are basically asking only that I supply a credit line, and that I
> > ask
> > for permission in writing to exhibit/reproduce in the future. They
> > don't
> > want $$ for this particular infringement. basically they chose to
> > license
> > the image to me for my exhibition after the fact. It seems reasonable
> > and
> > rather decent.
> >
> > However being sued does bring up the whole issue for me in a weird
> > way. I
> > mean, my work is ABOUT the fact that images are uncontrollable
> > entities.
> > It's about what happens when you remove context and framing devices.
> > my work is derivative by definition, and thoroughly reflective of this
> > age
> > of sampling and remixing. This will no doubt happen to me again. And
> > although
> > the permissions people--photojournalists, the recording industry, etc.
> > --are fighting a losing battle, you can bet they are going to fight til
> > the death. I may be getting off easy this time, but it seems that when
> > your aquaintances lie and then turn you in for copyright infringement,
> > the climate of creativity--not to mention general decency--is in
> > serious
> > danger.
> >
> > I see an art lawyer later today.
> >
> > all the best,
> > Joy
> >
> > http://www.firstpulseprojects.net
> >
> >
> >
> > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> >
> > Rhizome.org is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and an affiliate of
> > the New Museum of Contemporary Art.
> >
> > Rhizome Rare is supported by grants from the Rockefeller Foundation,
> > the
> > Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and with public funds from
> > the New York State Council on the Arts, a state agency.
> >
> > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> >
> > Rhizome Rare is filtered by Rhizome SuperUsers, a dedicated group of
> > volunteer editors. To learn more about becoming a Rhizome SuperUser,
> > please email editor@rhizome.org.
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this list, visit http://rhizome.org/subscribe .
> >
> > Subscribers to Rhizome Rare are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Member Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php.
> >
> >
>
Re: Molotov & Piracy in Penzance
kate, that's fantastic -- I'm beginning to feel like we've stumbled onto
an online exhib. without even realizing...
xox
J
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Kate Southworth wrote:
> http://www.gloriousninth.com/piratesofpenzance.html
>
>
> Here's one from Cornwall.
> love
> Katexx
>
an online exhib. without even realizing...
xox
J
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Kate Southworth wrote:
> http://www.gloriousninth.com/piratesofpenzance.html
>
>
> Here's one from Cornwall.
> love
> Katexx
>
Re: The Distorted Molotov
OMG Liza that is so funny and great, I am rolling here (!)
xox
j
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, liza sabater wrote:
> http://www.culturekitchen.com/archives/000555.html
>
> +
> -> 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
>
xox
j
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, liza sabater wrote:
> http://www.culturekitchen.com/archives/000555.html
>
> +
> -> 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
>