I am reading “the interview with the vampire” again and planning to read all the books (again)
Lestat having fancy nails w/ Swarovski crystals? YESSS nevermind that it’s inconvenient and he has to ask Louis to help him get dressed and stuff bc otherwise he’ll wreck his nail gems
[X] is the source, I think, but I’m not sure, it’s all over Pinterest 😛
That’s the question, definitely. Where is the line?
When Shepard Fairey made his famous Obama “Hope” poster, he got in big trouble for it because he used someone’s photo for reference. He’s a street artist, though. His stuff isn’t like my stuff.
If I used the same Obama image as reference to make a realistic portrait, would it be allowed as long as I called it fanart?
People think someone like Andy Warhol got away with it, but he was sued at least three different times by the photographers whose images he used (and sometimes outright traced) to make his art.
Derivative art has forever and ever been an issue in art. Art has always been full of artists copying, stealing, taking credit for, and sabotaging each other. It’s full of forgery, theft, vandalism, and appropriation. Sometimes they get away with it. Sometimes they don’t.
At what point do we say, “I don’t need to give credit”?
Sometimes, even as I’m drawing, I try to see that line. If my art weren’t realistic, would copying be an issue? How exact do I have to be before the lines I’m making are no longer mine? Will this line right here that I’m drawing be what loses me a lawsuit? Who knows?
teacher: write a 5 page essay analyzing this
me: it’s not that deep 🏊🏼
I swear to god they’re so dramatic. Even in art history they read into what an apple or fly means like BICH maybe they’re just in the painting chilling. Y DOES IT NEED A MEANING
Yo, makes me laugh that you say this. Because you’re actually right
At the time artists started painting still life (early renaissance), painters didn’t bother with meanings at all. It was a technical exercise. Seeing how good their techniques were
But painting is expensive as fuck and you gotta pay for pigments and shit, so you had to be able to sell your shitty still life, to the people who pay for your pigments and shit. But they didn’t want still life paintings, because it was… just food….. They wanted Jesus and bible scenes and such. Not apples and shit. Because rich people loved religion. And were pretentious as fuck. Why have an apple painting at home when you can have men freaking out over zombie Jesus
So artists were like ok, see, you don’t get it. The apple refers to the original sin, and all the fruits represent your wealth and such. But the skull’s there to remind you that your wealth doesn’t matter, you’ll die someday anyway
Because that was a popular thing at the time, being rich but having symbolic stuff that remind you that you’ll die someday despite being rich. Rich people were weird. And pretentious
So painters BULLSHITTED all that symbolic stuff around the things they put in their still life paintings to make the boring painting exercises appealing to the gullible (and pretentious) rich people that commissioned them. And rich people gobbled it aaaalllllll up
And that’s how we still have still life paintings from most famous renaissance artists today and that they’re in such good condition, because still life paintings became THE shit amongst rich people and they bought them and kept them at home. Instead of remaining stuck in a dusty, shitty painting workshop, to be forgotten beneath tons of other stuff and rot
And there was this whole lexicon and symbolism dictionary created around still life paintings at the time, like each object was meant to represent something and there began to be conventions and stuff
But they only ever were technical painting exercises
I-want-my-IWTV 