Thursday, November 26, 2009

Found Art Reworks (for lack of a better title)


23 comments:

Knick said...

Mr.Macro and I made some seamless additions to these found landscape paintings, his is the top, mine the bottom.

Quitmoanez said...

Very clever, awesome.

D.Macri said...

Thanks for posting!

cara said...

FUN!

jc said...

What are the implications here? If you find a piece of art, especially one that is mass produced, and add a few details, what does this mean. It's certainly collaborative, but not in the way I'm used to. It's fascinating. It makes me think of the Wigtad painting of the little girl that was modified. In this situation we've reconceptualized an arguably boring landscape painting.

On the other hand, if someone found a piece of your art and modified it, how would you feel? Does it make a difference that the art has been abandoned?

I was once given four large canvases with a giant landscape on it. Rather than paint over it I found the artist who made it, and then rolled it up and gave them the pieces. How would have that piece turned out with the Loch Ness monster or a sasquatch in it?

Like,m what if Mondo found one of my portrait paintings in an alley and decided that it needed somekind of lighting effect?

just some of my thoughts....

French Guy said...

Love this, very Ducahamp (voir L.H.O.O.Q.his Mon Lisa with a moustache).

cara said...

As always, JC you raise excellent questions regarding ownership and copyright.

I'd say it's not collaboration, as it seems to me that collaboration may have a level of agreement within it conceptually, and whoever painted these "boring" landscapes didn't agree to collaborate with you.

However, would it be different if these were not paintings of landscapes? What if these images were labels, wrapping paper or magazine covers?

cara said...

and a willingness to work together.
which again precludes these pieces from collaborative work.

D.Macri said...

I wouldn't call this a collaboration (beyond the comparison of the 2 paintings being brought together with a "modern myth" theme). This was not art until James and/or I anointed it with fresh paint.

I don't think it would be as good on magazine covers etc. I like that it's a painting, even if it was done by formula on an assembly line in China!

Quitmoanez said...

Not art!? Man, what have we come to?

:)

jc said...

Whoa, that last paragraph is a doooooo-sy. And I agree with there being at least two definitions, but I don't think I agree with 'the creative act' argument.

This is definitely art. There was probably an artist behind the decision to make it on an assembly line too. The Bauhaus movement is all about artists who no longer make the art themselves and have it manufactured.

Just like a sofa is art, a nice fork is art, that all inclusive definition that David mentions is the one we need to stick to.

Saying a painting isn't art, even if it's a copy or whatever isn't right, I mean, this was hand painted! That's a creative act.

Sure, this isn't contemporary art, it may not be very engaging to most but there will always be someone who thinks this is the most beautiful picture they've ever seen, maybe it reminds them of a special place, or they like the greens or oranges.



And on the topic of collaboration, this is, like Cara mentions, not really people working together on something....but what would you call it then? Is this a movement we've overlooked...kind've like an assemblage....very Duchampian....hmmm, maybe that's the connection.

And thanks everyone, I find these discussions very stimulating!

cara said...

hmmm. well maybe it's something like layering or palimpsest?something about re-using resonates for me.

also palimpsest is one of my fav. words ever.

TheBlueMask said...

Look through a high school text book. Do the moustache or "naughty bits" additions by students to photos constitute art? or vandalism?

Quitmoanez said...

Vandalism!

Jokes. :)

micro said...

I think vandalism is closer to the "art" I like, closer than the mass produced "pictures frames and more".

TheBlueMask said...

Until a print company asks you for the rights of one of your painting$?

jc said...

ooooo, cool quote

renamaphone said...

Well...very engaging discussion here. Question, have you Mr.jc ever thought about exploring this topic (ownership of ideas/art/products of creativity) in a masters thesis? You're obviously passionate about it...you've been talking about this issue since I've known you! :)

I think this is great exercise. I'd love to see a series.

Quitmoanez said...

Oh no, you know you've lost someone to the academy when they begin to suggest that ideas be structured into theses!

:)

cara said...

what else are ideas for?
;)
(kidding)

renamaphone said...

haha...you got me!

No but really, James has been wanting to go back to school for years now...i swear...

Funny Guy said...

That bottom painting looks like one of those "Sasquatch Crush" paintings.

D.Macri said...

So years later I read this...

I don't agree with what I said before. I think I was trying to be provocative because I liked the subject.

Either way, I've learned a bit about commercial productions now. I see that everything created has a human or more behind it. Everything is art ><.

I'm glad James had his head on straight here, I'm guessing he knew this already.