View Full Version : Forbidden images -- polishing The Bean ...
For those who know of, or are following the story of Cloud Gate in Millenium Park in Chicago, the sculpture that is forbidden to photograph, here's an update. A couple weeks ago I was attending a conference in Chicago, and on Friday afternoon I kinda snuck away and wandered around with the camera, as I'll often do in Chicago. :)
Last year about this time the sculpture was unfinished, and seams were evident. As of that time I wasn't aware that you weren't supposed to photograph it, otherwise I would have taken more shots. :)
This year The Bean is in view, and they are in the process of polishing the soldered seams, making a continuous mirror finish.
As for enforcement of the photography ban, there was none to speak of. I wandered around the sculpture for maybe 10 minutes or so shooting several frames. After a while I did seem to attract the attention of the security guard, who was definitely watching me, but never stepped up and said anything.
Anyway, here's the progress of the bean, Kodachrome 64 this year. :)
The second frame below shows an inset of the first showing the guard watching me taking the shots. The third shows him as well. :)
How could it be forbidden to photograph a sculpture on open-air public display?
So long as there is public access permitted (i.e. you're not trespassing) I don't see how such a ban could be promulgated, much less enforced. It's not as if you "wandered" into a restricted area such as a military base or something like that.
Interesting thread title. I thought someone had come up with yet another metaphor (spanking the monkey, etc.). :D "The Bean" looks like a giant drop of mercury. I knew nothing of this and the history, so thanks for posting the details, and the images.
:)
Interesting thread title. I thought someone had come up with yet another metaphor (spanking the monkey, etc.). :D "The Bean" looks like a giant drop of mercury. I knew nothing of this and the history, so thanks for posting the details, and the images.
:)
heh.. and here I thought "Polishing The Bean" was some sort of new Yo-Yo trick.. ;)
Dave
Yikes! What a, uh, er...thing? Amazing. Does it make sounds?
I failed miserably to usefully photograph (needs to be an aerial photo) a mirror field (geothermal power from the Sun) in the Mojave Desert...maybe a half mile square, filled with 6' tall mirrors.
Remotely on Kirtland Air Force Base ( Albuquerque) there is a Reagan-era "Star Wars" fantasy that reportedly destroys vehicles using reflected/focused light...big trouble for the bad guys if they drive their white Toyota pickups over here and happen to wander into range of this thing, then sit there patiently, waiting for destruction.
Interesting thread title. I thought someone had come up with yet another metaphor (spanking the monkey, etc.). :D
Oh, so that's why it's gotten so many hits in such a short time. :) I thought everybody just liked my photos of it. :)
"The Bean" looks like a giant drop of mercury. I knew nothing of this and the history, so thanks for posting the details, and the images. :)
You're very welcome. :)
Yes, it does look like a blob of mercury, or a metallic jelly bean. I don't know why I'm fascinated by this thing, but I am.
I heard that photography of it was not allowed in a thread on this forum last year. I would think that if photography >REALLY< was prohibited, there would be "No Photos" signs or signs with a circle-slash-camera icon or something.
From what I understand (IANAL) is that the ban is due to claim of copyright of the image of the sculpture, but they do not enforce it for what appear to be casual tourist shots. They tell me (the ubiquitous "they") that if you use a tripod or appear to be a professional photographer, the guard will confront you.
Methinks the artist is just trying to create a stir with the unenforced no photos rule, to generate more interest. Could be. Of course it could be to prevent word from getting around that they took the city for a boatload of money and its just a big blob.
Methinks the artist is a douchebag who takes him/herself way too seriously.
Ben
bmattock
11-01-2005, 09:39
It's not quite as it seemed at first. What is? Although there *is* a controversy, it is about who owns all the rights to copyrighted work, the buyer or the seller, not about photography of the sculpture per se.
The sculpture was created by a British sculpter, Anish Kapoor, and sold to SBC Communications, who donated it to the City of Chicago for their Millenium Park. The sculpter forbids commercial photography of the sculpture - she claims he controls how the sculpture can be used and that it is a copyrighted sculpture. The courts have agreed.
The park itself (http://www.millenniumpark.org/) now claims on their website that they only prohibit 'large scale' photography, and they go on to describe what that is according to them and how a permit can be obtained. Basically, we're talking about tripods and such being prohibited.
Warren Wimmer, a commercial photographer, set up a tripod and tried to take photos there, and was stopped by security guards. That's how this thing got started.
There are lots of photos of The Bean online, and many folks think they're 'sticking it to the man' by taking and displaying the photos. To the best of my knowledge, they are comitting no crime by taking and uploading the photos.
The real question raised by the CloudGate is the one of copyright - if the park is a public space owned by the city of Chicago, then do not the residents of Chicago own ALL the rights to the sculpture? How can the artist still own some of the rights when he sold the piece to SBC Communications?
Well, if I sell something I write to a magazine, I don't lose ownership of it. Generally, the magazine gets only the rights we have negotiated for - typically one-time printing in North America and their website ONLY. Once that is done, I own the work again and can sell it again, etc.
Same for photos! You generally don't sell ALL the the rights to your work when you sell the photos. In fact, you aren't selling the photos, you are selling the right to display the photos for a specified period of time, under a specified set of conditions. Although you can sell ALL rights to the photos if you wish.
So...if a sculpter creates a sculpture and sells it, are they selling the object and all rights to it, or are they selling the RIGHT to display it under specified conditions?
I find it a fascinating discussion of private vs public property laws, copyright concepts, and ownership ideas.
Some might find it interesting to also note that if you are a commercial photographer, you are generally prohibted from taking photos in national parks and forests without a permit, either.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
RJBender
11-01-2005, 09:51
The state of Illinois owns a Frank Lloyd Wright house in Springfield ( http://www.dana-thomas.org/home.htm ) and they don't allow photographs inside the building.
R.J.
I must say that I didn't know they were going to polish out the seams when I first saw the bean last summer. I saw it agan not too long ago and it is much mroe impressive. Still overall, Millenium park is hopelessly a pathetic park. There are a couple of intesresting focal points and everything else is pretty subpar
The park itself (http://www.millenniumpark.org/) now claims on their website that they only prohibit 'large scale' photography, and they go on to describe what that is according to them and how a permit can be obtained. Basically, we're talking about tripods and such being prohibited.
Hmmmm ... the way I read it, it seems to me that tripods >ARE< (now) allowed ...
Millennium Park was created for the enjoyment of the people of Chicago and the city's visitors and guests. In order to protect general public access to the park and ensure maximum enjoyment by park guests, usage permits are required for all large-scale film, video or photography shoots.
Large-scale film, video or photo shoots are defined as those that include any or all of the following:
1. additional lighting or equipment set up that involves more than a camera tripod.
2. electrical needs involving cables, outlets and/or generators
3. talent, models or crew that interfere with public access (groups larger than 10)
4. backdrops or set pieces
5. canopies or tents
"Anything more than a tripod" appears to be the hair to be split here. :)
Also the "Rules and safety" page has just one very terse paragraph.
I also find it fascinating (and sometimes frustrating and even scary) as to what people say cannot be photographed. One I keep hearing about is a restriction of night shots of the Eiffel Tower in Paris.
Those that are scary are the cases that involve people being hassled for taking innocent casual photos of things like bridges and railways, and now even people in public.
Pherdinand
11-01-2005, 10:14
dmr, you are just telling everyone on the WorldWideWeb that you've committed an illegal act - and provide photographic evidence. Be careful, be very careful!
:D
jan normandale
11-01-2005, 10:18
It always boils down to money. The reason for this attempt to control the image is so I cannot take a photo and put it on a calendar or post card or limited print and sell the image of the artist's work. The owner of the work wants the income attributable to the work.
Pix of my aunt standing in front of the work... who cares. No money there.
The state of Illinois owns a Frank Lloyd Wright house in Springfield ( http://www.dana-thomas.org/home.htm ) and they don't allow photographs inside the building.
R.J.
This is understandable. Most museums, concert halls etc. expressly prohibit photos both for copyright and security reasons. Imagine being able to take a lot of photos of "Old Masters" paintings hanging in The Louvre or New York Metroolitan Museum in order to plan an art theft!
I do understand, now, that the sculptor in question can copyright The Bean (or blob or whatever) and thus prohibit commecial exploitation (i.e. without license) of the image.
That's a more rational explanation than just saying it is "banned" to photographers in general.
However, it would be an interesting "test" case for someone with a tripod who is prohibited from taking a photo to file a lawsuit.
Usually copyright infringement is based on the subsequent commercial sale of the image and not on the "subjective" decision of a security guard that some photographers seem like "harmless tourists" and others seem like commercial "exploiters"!
Oh well, back to work!
zuikologist
11-01-2005, 11:14
Sounds like a publicity stunt from the artist.
Sounds like a publicity stunt from the artist.
There's certainly an element of that too. After all, if you took a wide-angle photo that included the thing but had other elements (e.g. buildings, a hot dog cart, passers-by etc.) in it - it might be difficult for the artist to claim copyright infringement unless she could prove "intent" to violate the copyright.
But remember, a lot of folks put copyrights on their photos, even on some Gallery shots here - so I can sympathize to some extent with the sculptor - although the public placement of the work does compromise it's "exclusivity".
RJBender
11-01-2005, 11:48
This is understandable. Most museums, concert halls etc. expressly prohibit photos both for copyright and security reasons. Imagine being able to take a lot of photos of "Old Masters" paintings hanging in The Louvre or New York Metroolitan Museum in order to plan an art theft!
The St. Louis Art Museum allows you to take pictures in the museum, but you can't use a flash.
I do understand, now, that the sculptor in question can copyright The Bean (or blob or whatever) and thus prohibit commecial exploitation (i.e. without license) of the image.
That's a more rational explanation than just saying it is "banned" to photographers in general.
However, it would be an interesting "test" case for someone with a tripod who is prohibited from taking a photo to file a lawsuit.
How much do you think the legal fees would be? Are there any law firms that you know of that handle these types of cases.
R.J.
RJBender
11-01-2005, 11:53
There's a FLW urn in the Dana Thomas house that the state of Illinois bought for $250,000. If I recall correctly, their reason for not allowing photographs was due to copyrights owned by the FLW family.
R.J.
bmattock
11-01-2005, 11:53
The St. Louis Art Museum allows you to take pictures in the museum, but you can't use a flash.
How much do you think the legal fees would be? Are there any law firms that you know of that handle these types of cases.
R.J.
In the Boston museum we visited last year, they would let me take photographs of some paintings and sculptures, but not others. I asked a guard what the dealio was, and was told that some belong to the museum and some are on loan to the museum. The museum allows photographs of the ones they own.
My only objection was that they didn't put up any signs - like "Photography ok in this room" or "Don't take photographs in this room." I'd have been happy to obey them if they were there. But they apparently thought it was better to hire a bunch of security guards to rush over and tell me not to take a photo when it was not ok, and to ignore me otherwise. I got twitchy after awhile, I tell ya.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
bmattock
11-01-2005, 11:57
There's a FLW urn in the Dana Thomas house that the state of Illinois bought for $250,000. If I recall correctly, their reason for not allowing photographs was due to copyrights owned by the FLW family.
R.J.
Wait until someone buys a FLW-built designed house and finds out that they can't paint it. They 'own' the house, but FLW family owns the rights to how it looks.
I could be wrong, but I thought I heard of that happening.
Frankly, if it happened to me, I'd bulldoze the place just to hear them scream, and then take bankruptcy and walk away. If I buy something, it is MINE. I'll paint it blue and glue beef jerky to it with a rotating disco ball that plays "Staying Alive" in Cantonese if I want.
Or this:
http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
My only objection was that they didn't put up any signs ... "Don't take photographs in this room." ... But they apparently thought it was better to hire a bunch of security guards to rush over and tell me not to take a photo when it was not ok, and to ignore me otherwise.
That's one of my gripes as well. If they would at least put up some circle-slash-camera signs, at least we would know that they don't want pictures taken, but I have yet to see such a sign.
We see No Smoking signs all over the place, which some choose to ignore <g>, and No Dogs and now even No Radios, which some blatantly ignore, but for cameras, they seem to have this desire to pounce on you as if you should have known all along not to take pictures. Oh well ...
Wait until someone buys a FLW-built designed house and finds out that they can't paint it. They 'own' the house, but FLW family owns the rights to how it looks.
I could be wrong, but I thought I heard of that happening.
Frankly, if it happened to me, I'd bulldoze the place just to hear them scream, and then take bankruptcy and walk away. If I buy something, it is MINE. I'll paint it blue and glue beef jerky to it with a rotating disco ball that plays "Staying Alive" in Cantonese if I want.
Or this:
http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
I believe that most folks who would buy a FLW house would not want to change a thing. You don't pay a premium to bulldoze something. Not too many people who buy Picassos do so in order to paint over them!
As far as making changes to a FLW house - it is likely that there are deed restrictions and covenants that control the ability to make changes. I do recall that the current owner of Falling Water, a FLW house near Pittsburgh which incorporates a stream with a watherfall flowing under the house, has been seeking permission to make some design changes to stop dry rot etc. I believe he had to retain engineers to show that FLW's design was "flawed". Not sure how his case came out.
Property rights are fine - but they can be legally limited by deed and covenant restrictions. Nothing is absolute. It's why you do your due diligence before you buy!
Now to try and go back to being only slightly OT - bringing a lawsuit for prior restraint could indeed be costly. Unless you could convice a group like the ACLU or a law school rights project that there was a substantial first amendment issue and got them to take up your "cause". I'm doubtful on that one.
More than likely, I suspect, is that as the novelty of ths bean/blob wears off the owner (SBC was it?) will tire of the expense of retaining a security guard and leave the sculptor to enforce her copyright. That is unless she has some kind of contract with SBC that requires them to protect her copyright.
More to the point, if you as a photographer expect folks to respect your art and rights, perhaps you should be as respectful of hers. :angel:
Brian Sweeney
11-01-2005, 13:47
It sounds like personal use photographs, non-commercial are okay. Commercial shots wanting to use the sculpture in ads, for-profit, sound like they are banned- or at least need a permit.
Am I mis-reading the intent?
Westminster Cathedral (London) is conspicuously posted "NO PHOTOGRAPHY ALLOWED!" My father was touring it one afternoon when he noticed security guards hustling a man out the door with the comment "NO PHOTOGRAPY means exactly that!". In this instance I believe that the ban on pictures was to protect certain items from the cumulative effect of electronic flash.
Walker
RJBender
11-01-2005, 14:25
In the Boston museum we visited last year, they would let me take photographs of some paintings and sculptures, but not others. I asked a guard what the dealio was, and was told that some belong to the museum and some are on loan to the museum. The museum allows photographs of the ones they own.
My only objection was that they didn't put up any signs - like "Photography ok in this room" or "Don't take photographs in this room." I'd have been happy to obey them if they were there. But they apparently thought it was better to hire a bunch of security guards to rush over and tell me not to take a photo when it was not ok, and to ignore me otherwise. I got twitchy after awhile, I tell ya.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
In St. Louis, they almost yell at you if you stand too close to the paintings. Why don't they just rope off the area or put some markings on the floor. It makes you feel like you're on a third grade field trip. :p
R.J.
RJBender
11-01-2005, 15:03
Westminster Cathedral (London) is conspicuously posted "NO PHOTOGRAPHY ALLOWED!" My father was touring it one afternoon when he noticed security guards hustling a man out the door with the comment "NO PHOTOGRAPY means exactly that!". In this instance I believe that the ban on pictures was to protect certain items from the cumulative effect of electronic flash.
Walker
Well, at least they were polite about it! :p They could have ripped the film out of his camera, handcuffed him and beat him senseless with a billy club! :(
I thought it's been scientifically proven that repeated exposure to electronic flash has no effect on the pigments in oil paintings. :confused: Maybe they're afraid someone could use a flash to temporarily blind a guard.
R.J.
Flash takes away from the pleasure of others in galleries and museums and concerts. It's like cellphones in restaurants or farting in bed. It's crude and insensitive. Nobody who uses a flash in a gallery has any idea what he's photographing anyway. Drag him out and toss him in the street. Forty lashes. :D
RJBender
11-01-2005, 15:30
Flash takes away from the pleasure of others in galleries and museums and concerts. It's like cellphones in restaurants or farting in bed. It's crude and insensitive. Nobody who uses a flash in a gallery has any idea what he's photographing anyway. Drag him out and toss him in the street. Forty lashes. :D
Don't tell me your laws in New Mexico are more draconian than those in Texas? :eek:
R.J.
RJBender
11-01-2005, 15:46
Yes, it does look like a blob of mercury, or a metallic jelly bean. I don't know why I'm fascinated by this thing, but I am.
D, it's just like those "gazing globes (http://www.gardenguides.com/decor/gazingglobe.htm)" folks used to put in their gardens, except that it's not a perfect sphere. When it appears in High Times magazine as the best place to get stoned in America they'll probably let the graffiti artists in to put their signatures of this blob of metal. http://www.millenniumpark.org/artandarchitecture/cloud_gate.html
Yes, we should respect the artist's rights as Copake (George?) stated. However, keep in mind that without the skills of the ironworkers, welders and laborers this piece of art would not exist.
R.J.
It sounds like personal use photographs, non-commercial are okay. Commercial shots wanting to use the sculpture in ads, for-profit, sound like they are banned- or at least need a permit.
Am I mis-reading the intent?
Brian,
You're hitting the nail right on the head! It is a matter of intellectual property rights - as well as copyright in this situation.
Few, if any, would object to you taking a photo for your own enjoyment. But when you take it in order to sell it - you are stealing the rights of the artist who has every reason to expect that it is she who should commercially benefit from images or reproductions!
It is why Cristo did not object to individuals taking personal photos of their experience walking through "The Gates" project in NYC's Central Park last Winter but forcefully (in a legal sense) protected his rights to photos and renditions of the entire work.
It is much more difficult for large media "public" artists to protect their rights than it is for authors, musicians etc. who have well established protections via their marketing channels.
Seems to me that if we want others to respect our artistic photographic endeavors - we should be at the forefront of defending the rights of this sculptor.
Okay, George, off the soapbox now. Back in your cage. :D
RJBender
11-01-2005, 16:41
Hopefully, the artist will be selling 1/100th scale replicas of Cloud Gate and The making of Cloud Gate DVDs just in time for Christmas.
http://www.newsreview.com/issues/chico/2005-04-21/backbeat.asp
D, let us know if your next Chicago phone directory has the bean on the cover.
R.J.
Gabriel M.A.
11-01-2005, 16:43
Westminster Cathedral (London) is conspicuously posted "NO PHOTOGRAPHY ALLOWED!" My father was touring it one afternoon when he noticed security guards hustling a man out the door with the comment "NO PHOTOGRAPY means exactly that!".
To play Devil's Advocate, "No photography" is not a sentence, so he could have argued that point. English is the most you-know-what-I-meant language I know, with rules so out the window that at least non-native speakers can argue its loopholes.
What they should do is just put big Hello Kitty light-reflective-watermarks on everything; that should deter any flashlights, and the sight would discourage any serious photograph.
RJBender
11-01-2005, 16:53
...I also find it fascinating (and sometimes frustrating and even scary) as to what people say cannot be photographed. One I keep hearing about is a restriction of night shots of the Eiffel Tower in Paris...
Gabrielma would know. Have you seen his website?
http://www.gmaphoto.com/
R.J.
Hopefully, the artist will be selling 1/100th scale replicas of Cloud Gate and The making of Cloud Gate DVDs just in time for Christmas.
http://www.newsreview.com/issues/chico/2005-04-21/backbeat.asp
D, let us know if your next Chicago phone directory has the bean on the cover.
R.J.
And why not? What would be wrong with thet?
It is her artistic endeavor - no one else's.
Why do you feel offended if she protects her product so that she reaps the profits of her art?
I hope she does get paid handsomely if The Bean appears on the phone book cover. After all, if it was your creation - wouldn't you want to be the one to benefit?
Gabriel M.A.
11-01-2005, 17:05
The restriction is one that they enforce at will; what has happened is that the "Eiffel Tower lights" look has been copyrighted. What they say they intend to do with those rights is to control its distribution (i.e. commercial tourism brochures, enterprises using the "look", etc.) but not "prohibit" tourists themselves from taking pictures of it.
Zat wuld be ridiculos. And I agree. They also allow artistic use of it. And to that I say, trés bon.
To play Devil's Advocate, "No photography" is not a sentence, so he could have argued that point. English is the most you-know-what-I-meant language I know, with rules so out the window that at least non-native speakers can argue its loopholes.
What they should do is just put big Hello Kitty light-reflective-watermarks on everything; that should deter any flashlights, and the sight would discourage any serious photograph.
Presumably you do not practice law in the United States. Because if you did, you would realize how quickly a judge would strike down such a silly argument.
Perhaps you should not rely upon anecdotes and television when opining on US jurisprudence. What makes for "juicy" entertainment is not necessarily reality, counselor.
Gabriel M.A.
11-01-2005, 17:08
Presumably you do not practice law in the United States. Because if you did, you would realize how quickly a judge would strike down such a silly argument.
Perhaps you should not rely upon anecdotes and television when opining on US jurisprudence. What makes for "juicy" entertainment is not necessarily reality, counselor.
I see one thing and something else gets posted. OK, my response to this: no, that's why I'd like to keep my humanity intact.
and Westminster ain't not in no U.S. ;)
Gabriel M.A.
11-01-2005, 17:15
Here's some quick info on the "controversy"; the copyright nightmare of the "lighted" Eiffel Tower is unique, because individual photographs are an artist's work, yet the SNTE did some work on a national monument and pulled a Microsoft and copyrighted their "work" on something that already existed...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eiffel_Tower
RJBender
11-01-2005, 17:23
And why not? What would be wrong with thet?
It is her artistic endeavor - no one else's.
Why do you feel offended if she protects her product so that she reaps the profits of her art?
I hope she does get paid handsomely if The Bean appears on the phone book cover. After all, if it was your creation - wouldn't you want to be the one to benefit?
I see absolutely nothing wrong with that, George. In fact, I would be thrilled if the artist did what I am suggesting! :) A 1/100 th replica signed by the artist would probably sell out quickly in all the stores along the Magnificent Mile. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic in that post. The post prior to that one was supposed to be funny.
R.J.
Few, if any, would object to you taking a photo for your own enjoyment. But when you take it in order to sell it - you are stealing the rights of the artist who has every reason to expect that it is she who should commercially benefit from images or reproductions!
Nope.
When you take it in order to sell it, you don't "steal the rights"; the rights still belong to the author (or another owner if they were transferred). You may be violating the copyright, which is a civil offense; thieft OTOH is a criminal offense.
Oh, and the term "intellectual property" is just another fallacy: an attempt to lump together copyrights, trademarks and patents to make it look like they are same things. They're not.
Pardon my nitpicking :)
A truly monorchic experience, a celebration of past lives: what one has been! Would that my epitaph was as shining and seamless!!
RJBender
11-02-2005, 04:45
Suppose that Cloud Gate is nothing more than an exact, large scale replica of a manufacturer's jelly bean and the manufacturer can prove all the dimensions of Cloud Gate are proportionally identical to their product. Can the artist still claim copyright to Cloud Gate? :confused:
We should respect Anish Kapoor's rights as an artist, however, I don't see the artist grinding the welded seams and polishing the surfaces. This work is all being done by construction trade workers. According to the article I submitted in an earlier post, all the logistics are being handled by a metal working shop in California.
R.J.
RJBender
11-02-2005, 04:55
Nope.
When you take it in order to sell it, you don't "steal the rights"; the rights still belong to the author (or another owner if they were transferred). You may be violating the copyright, which is a civil offense; thieft OTOH is a criminal offense.
Oh, and the term "intellectual property" is just another fallacy: an attempt to lump together copyrights, trademarks and patents to make it look like they are same things. They're not.
Pardon my nitpicking :)
Eugene, the next time you watch a video or DVD read the FBI warning.
R.J.
Suppose that Cloud Gate is nothing more than an exact, large scale replica of a manufacturer's jelly bean and the manufacturer can prove all the dimensions of Cloud Gate are proportionally identical to their product. Can the artist still claim copyright to Cloud Gate? :confused:
R.J.
Obviously not - the jelly bean is the commercial product of a large soulless oppressing evil corporation, and the blob is the noble artistic endeavour of a poor oppressed starving ARTIST.
Suppose that Cloud Gate is nothing more than an exact, large scale replica of a manufacturer's jelly bean and the manufacturer can prove all the dimensions of Cloud Gate are proportionally identical to their product. Can the artist still claim copyright to Cloud Gate? :confused:
We should respect Anish Kapoor's rights as an artist, however, I don't see the artist grinding the welded seams and polishing the surfaces. This work is all being done by construction trade workers. According to the article I submitted in an earlier post, all the logistics are being handled by a metal working shop in California.
R.J.
Obviously with large installations there is a significant labor element involved that includes workers retained by the artist to carry out the artistic concept. I would presume that the artist here made a small-scale model of the artwork and then retained the metal working shop to 'scale up' the concept to the desired large size.
And remember, even the "old masters" had apprentices and assistants to fill in parts of their paintings etc.
With these large public installations the "art" is in the conception more so than the execution.
RJ, NM's not more "draconian" than TX, but it's smarter. For example, we have more generous gun laws but far tougher cops. We have more drunk drivers than TX, but TX has more drunk fatalities: Texicans can't figure out seat belts.
Face it, people with cameras are pains in the patoot for everybody else, for the most part. I want gallery and theatre visitors to have a good time with the objects and performances, so I think those places should be VERY draconian.
I mourn the fact that laws and rules seem required: It's better when people simply take these things into their own hands: Photographers are usually fairly wimpy physically, I've observed. ;)
Originally Posted by djon
Flash takes away from the pleasure of others in galleries and museums and concerts. It's like cellphones in restaurants or farting in bed. It's crude and insensitive. Nobody who uses a flash in a gallery has any idea what he's photographing anyway. Drag him out and toss him in the street. Forty lashes.
Don't tell me your laws in New Mexico are more draconian than those in Texas?
R.J.
___________ :rolleyes:
derevaun
11-02-2005, 10:10
It's worth pointing out that the artist's reserved rights to reproductions of his work are separate from the policy to restrict the privilege of taking photos of it. If there were no restrictions, Kapoor would still have cause against someone selling a photo, or using a photo to replace his own in the marketplace, etc. Restricting photos does preempt that kind of use somewhat, and it gives Kapoor a stronger case should it get past a Cease & Desist situation.
RJBender
11-02-2005, 17:03
I see this project as a "gazing globe" shaped like a jelly bean, fabricated and erected by skilled construction trade workers. What was the artist's role besides conceptualizing the project and finding the finances to construct it? I respect the rights of all artists, including this one, but I'm not at all impressed with this artist's creativity.
Suppose "cloud gate mania" sweeps Chicago and all the retailers want a piece of the lucrative tourist trade. I decide to sell balloons in my store made from silver mylar in the shape of a kidney bean... similar but not as chunky as the Cloud Gate "bean." Would I be infringing on Anish Kapoor's copyright? Can the shape of a bean be copyrighted? :confused:
George, in one of your previous posts you said,
...it would be an interesting "test" case for someone with a tripod who is prohibited from taking a photo to file a lawsuit.
If I received a cease-and-desist order for selling the balloons, would this be a good test case?
R.J.
RJBender
11-02-2005, 17:14
...Face it, people with cameras are pains in the patoot for everybody else, for the most part. I want gallery and theatre visitors to have a good time with the objects and performances, so I think those places should be VERY draconian...
Djon, I believe we were complaining about cameras in public museums funded by tax payers. I would never take a camera into a gallery unless an artist had asked me to photograph her work. :)
R.J.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.