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: Joywar: endless postscripts a la RSS etc (1)


sorry: mr damon's nmasca.blog link:
http://nmazca.com/blog/arch/2004_03_01_archive.htm#108055172851312438

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, Joy Garnett wrote:

> found today:
>
> Who owns the rights to this man's struggle?
>
> <image> <image>
>
> Yesterday afternoon I clicked over to Amberglow and noticed a mixed-up,
> tiled version of the painting, Molotov, above. That blog's author
> mentioned legal action that PepsiCo had brought against the painter, one
> Joy Garnett, after her "Riot" series was shown at a NYC gallery.
>
> Scores of freedom-minded, art-savvy, anti-corporate bloggivists have since
> risen in (virtual) solidarity with Ms. Garnett, posting either the same
> image or variations thereof (this is my favorite) in order to assert
> artists' rights. This collective action has been called JoyWar.
>
> I was excited by all of this, and I decided that I too would take up the
> fight against Pepsi and its heavy-handed intellectual-property bullying.
> But that would have to wait until after I bought a couple of birdfeeders
> and tidied up the back patio.
>
> So... those tasks completed, I sat down to stick to it The Cola Man. Only
> to find out that Pepsi was not the litigant at odds with Ms. Garnett. It
> is, in fact, the photographer whose image Garnett had downloaded and used
> as the source for her painting (typical for the content of "Riot"). I
> discovered this little wrinkle in the Molotov story after -- say it ain't
> so! -- taking the time to read the backstory. One particular comment on
> another blog -- in regard to attribution that Garnett didn't give to this
> unnamed, world-famous female Magnum photographer -- left me wondering "So
> who is it?"
>
> Susan Meiselas. Very attentive readers of nmazca.blog will recall the bit
> that I posted about her book, Carnival Strippers, back in October.
> Meiselas' photo of a Sandinista fighter was made during her coverage of
> the armed struggle against the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua... which
> later turned into a struggle against the Reagan-sanctioned, CIA-backed
> Contras.
>
> "This is obviously not a case of an artist protecting [her] speech rights
> but of one artist using [her] copyrights as a way to censor another
> artist." Is that so? I would say not, and I'm fairly liberal with access
> and use of my own images. The major factor is attribution, if not
> permission. It can't be assumed that a grainy photo from a not-so-long ago
> war is in the public domain. Is it sufficient to make a general statement
> about the use of others' images, make comments about reinterpretation and
> altered contexts, and then present the work for sale (again, without
> credit given to the original creator)? Garnett uses found images, also,
> and it would be too much to expect attribution with those. But this other
> bit is tricky, and I wouldn't be so hasty to dismiss Meiselas'
> assertion... although her bit about never showing the painting again, come
> on.
>
> I'm concerned about originality on one hand, and freedom to adapt on the
> other.
>
> Another noteworthy point is this: "No one has asked if the photographer
> obtained permission to capture the image of the person throwing the
> molotov? Why's that? We should believe that someone owns the rights to an
> image because they snapped a shutter, while the person photographed is
> merely a landscape?" Thus, my original question: Who owns the right to
> this man's struggle?
>
> Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to burn a copy of The Grey Album.
>
> mr damon 04:15 [p-link]
>
>
> +
> -> 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

Joywar: endless postscripts a la RSS etc (3)


#3
I Speak of Dreams [blog]
http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2004/03/als_awake_again.html
////

Sunday, March 28, 2004
The Pepsi Molotov Cocktail

Al's awake again. I made dinner. Then there's this:

The American artist Joy Garnett, whose paintings are derived from news
images, is faced with a legal action for thousands of dollars over this
one. This has nothing to do with the protection of livelihood and
everything to do with the suppression of free speech and free artistic
practice. Don't let the schoolyard bullies win! Show your solidarity with
Joy by grabbing this image and posting it on your website or by making
your own artwork derived from it."

(the quote is from BoingBoing, linked at the end of this post.)

The protest page is here.
This is the image in question:

<image>

I assumed that the suit was brought by Pepsi, as somehow demeaning the
brand. It wasn't.

Here's the artist's website:

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.

Is Joy Garnett a plaigiarist? Is it "stealing" to use a figure from
another's work in your own? I'd sure like to see the original image, to
see how much Garnett changed the image. What would happen if Garnett
submitted this work for credit in a university class?

Postscript: I had first seen the image, and the controversy, from
BoingBoing's guestblogger.

Johannes Grenzfurthner is writer, artist and founding member of
Vienna/Austria based art-tech-philosophy group monochrom. monochrom is an
unpeculiar mixture of proto-aesthetic fringe work, pop attitude,
subcultural science and political activism. monochrom's mission, its
passion and quasi-ontological vocation, is primarily the collection,
grouping, registration and querying (liberation?) of the scar tissue
represented by everyday cultural artifacts.

More postscript:

The original image is here--it is huge, 70 by 60 inches. The artist has
exhibited the work at Debs & Co--here are more images. For my money, while
Garnett's work is obviously BASED on the work of others (news photographs)
they are not mere copies; the works are transformed by Garnett's craft
(the act of painting) and vision (what is emphasized, what is left out.)

Sunday, March 28, 2004 at 09:39 AM in Random Walk Thru Internet |
Permalink
TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/581407

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Pepsi Molotov
Cocktail:

[...]

DISCUSSION

Joywar: endless postscripts a la RSS etc (2)


#2

///
VILAWEB
diari electronic independent
http://www.vilaweb.com/indextext.html

> Els problemes del 'realisme' pictric En Joy Garnett s un nord-americ que
ha decidit centrar el seu talent artstic en la pintura. Una pintura, aix
s, amb un toc ben personal. L'any passat, per exemple, va fer una exposici
(Riot, 'aldarulls') en qu totes les obres derivaven d'imatges captades de
les notcies. El que no s'esperava segurament Garnett s que una de les
pintures li comportaria molts maldecaps... judicials. I s que la tria
d'una foto amb un noi llanant una ampolla de Pepsi plena de benzina com a
font d'inspiraci de Molotov (2003) li pot representar una multa de milers
de dlars. Malgrat el que es pugui pensar en un primer moment, no s la
multinacional dels refrescos la denunciant, sin l'autor de la fotografia,
feta el 1978. La demanda judicial, sigui com sigui, ha encs la solidaritat
d'artistes de tot el mn en defensa de la llibertat d'expressi artstica. Hi
ha una campanya a internet que demana tant de penjar la 'imatge maleda' a
internet com de fer-ne recreacions.
----------
+ Webs relacionades dins Nosaltres.Com: Pintura.

DISCUSSION

Joywar: endless postscripts a la RSS etc (1)


found today:

Who owns the rights to this man's struggle?

<image> <image>

Yesterday afternoon I clicked over to Amberglow and noticed a mixed-up,
tiled version of the painting, Molotov, above. That blog's author
mentioned legal action that PepsiCo had brought against the painter, one
Joy Garnett, after her "Riot" series was shown at a NYC gallery.

Scores of freedom-minded, art-savvy, anti-corporate bloggivists have since
risen in (virtual) solidarity with Ms. Garnett, posting either the same
image or variations thereof (this is my favorite) in order to assert
artists' rights. This collective action has been called JoyWar.

I was excited by all of this, and I decided that I too would take up the
fight against Pepsi and its heavy-handed intellectual-property bullying.
But that would have to wait until after I bought a couple of birdfeeders
and tidied up the back patio.

So... those tasks completed, I sat down to stick to it The Cola Man. Only
to find out that Pepsi was not the litigant at odds with Ms. Garnett. It
is, in fact, the photographer whose image Garnett had downloaded and used
as the source for her painting (typical for the content of "Riot"). I
discovered this little wrinkle in the Molotov story after -- say it ain't
so! -- taking the time to read the backstory. One particular comment on
another blog -- in regard to attribution that Garnett didn't give to this
unnamed, world-famous female Magnum photographer -- left me wondering "So
who is it?"

Susan Meiselas. Very attentive readers of nmazca.blog will recall the bit
that I posted about her book, Carnival Strippers, back in October.
Meiselas' photo of a Sandinista fighter was made during her coverage of
the armed struggle against the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua... which
later turned into a struggle against the Reagan-sanctioned, CIA-backed
Contras.

"This is obviously not a case of an artist protecting [her] speech rights
but of one artist using [her] copyrights as a way to censor another
artist." Is that so? I would say not, and I'm fairly liberal with access
and use of my own images. The major factor is attribution, if not
permission. It can't be assumed that a grainy photo from a not-so-long ago
war is in the public domain. Is it sufficient to make a general statement
about the use of others' images, make comments about reinterpretation and
altered contexts, and then present the work for sale (again, without
credit given to the original creator)? Garnett uses found images, also,
and it would be too much to expect attribution with those. But this other
bit is tricky, and I wouldn't be so hasty to dismiss Meiselas'
assertion... although her bit about never showing the painting again, come
on.

I'm concerned about originality on one hand, and freedom to adapt on the
other.

Another noteworthy point is this: "No one has asked if the photographer
obtained permission to capture the image of the person throwing the
molotov? Why's that? We should believe that someone owns the rights to an
image because they snapped a shutter, while the person photographed is
merely a landscape?" Thus, my original question: Who owns the right to
this man's struggle?

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to burn a copy of The Grey Album.

mr damon 04:15 [p-link]

DISCUSSION

btw twhid et al.// re: CC licensing


ah tim, creative content has been (finally) licensed a la cc:

paintings
http://commoncontent.org/catalog/images/physical

and even more to the point:
http://commoncontent.org/catalog/web/educational

best,
joy