Frankly, McDuffies, I can't tell if you're just playing devil's advocate here. The evidence, as it's been presented, of Mr. Goldman's chronic "borrowing" is a bit overwhelming.
I wrote an earlier response to this, which I held off on posting, because I'm leaving for the wilderness tomorrow, and probably won't have the chance to respond to any rebuttal. However, fear has been overcome, and here it is:
mcDuffies wrote:Soup can and Marylin Monroe portrait weren't that famous before Warhol's paintings either. Anyways, I figure the guy saw Kelly's image as just another one of internet memes that come from who knows where and where original author is unknown by now.
Please excuse my use of language, since I use it solely as a punctuative, but the first thought that came to mind when I read that was, "the fuck they weren't!"
The Campbell's soup can and Marylin Monroe's face are both icons of American popular culture, and were both icons of American popular culture at the time Warhol made art out of them. That was the point of the work, pointing out the mass-production quality that popular culture can take on when working with imagery and ideas. I can agree that the specific photo that Warhol had used of Marylin doesn't really matter from a global perspective, when looking at the piece at hand, since it was a comment on the interchangeability of artwork within the hype machine. I'd like to point out, though, that the information on that photo was not hard to come by. It was a publicity photo of her shot in 1953, for the film
Niagara, by photographer Gene Korman. The fact that I found this info by simply typing "Andy Warhol Marylin Monroe" into Google, and clicking on the first link that popped up, certainly is evidence to show that the origination of the image still bears some significance to the art, and the info has not been lost to the annuls of time.
The soup can, is a different creature altogether. The Campbell's soup can is not famous because Andy Warhol painted them. Andy Warhol is famous because he painted Campbell's soup cans. The cans were his first gallery showing, and they were his first claim to fame. In fact, when asked why he chose the soup can, he replied, "Because I used to drink (soup). I used to have the same lunch every day for 20 years." By using a common comfort food, one which he himself was familiar with, as the subject of his paintings, he brought a fresh perspective to American branding. He took one of the most popular and trusted brands of American grocery, something to be bought cheap, used, and disposed of, and propelled it to the level of an artform. The fame of the soup can paintings lies in the fact that he chose the right product to display.
Like those other examples posted on site that Neko linked. There's a pattern, most of those memes, like the beer poster or the pixelated kitty, are used so much that you practically forget that someone had to create them at some point.
Both the example of Marylin and the soup can are examples of taking objects which are temporary, a throw-away promo photo, and a common can of soup, and immortalized them through the appropriation into forms of artwork. Monroe is still seen as a legendary beauty. Campbell's soup has a resonance with nearly every soup-eating American, and has had that resonance for 110 years now. It had been around for over three generations when Warhol did the paintings. Like Monroe's beautiful face, the red, white, and gold label was universally recognizeable before the time of Warhol's treatment, and it was a testament to the brand he'd chosen, and the personality he'd portrayed, that these pieces of art worked as well as they did.
So, then the question becomes, "are these objects that Todd Goldman is using iconic?" No, they are not. I've heard of Roman Dirge, and read a couple of his
Lenore comics. I've seen that stupid beer slogan on the refrigerator magnets of hipster friends. That's about it. The rest of the stuff held up as example has managed to escape my attention completely, and I'm a pop culture junkie and internet addict. Certainly, none of the examples of his 'borrowed' imagery falls within the realm of the common vernacular in popular imagery. Lenore is no Charlie Brown, and Dave Kelly's cat thing is no Mickey Mouse. Hold either of them up to a random sampling of people in the mall, and the only people who may recognize either would be the kids coming out of Hot Topic or a comic shop. I doubt the rest of the world would have any clue.
So then, the question of motive comes up. Why is Goldman using these images, which are pretty obscure beyond the subcultures in which they originated? I mean, if he's claiming that he's using these things as some sort of social commentary, then what, exactly, is the comment? You keep saying it's about memetics, but I'm not buying it. There are much greater examples of a strong internet memes to present, if he's really looking to say something about the viral aspects of wired culture. Why an obscure cat thing, instead of the "All Your Base" guy? Why Lenore, instead of ninjas fighting pirates? Frankly, the meme thing is weak. If you're going to discuss the subject of memetics, then you'd best pick the memes that people are familiar with across the board. If the meme is obscure, then it's not a meme, and the message is lost. Moreover, there are much stronger ways to present that message than merely tracing an image, and selling it to a single individual through a single gallery.
No, I don't buy the meme thing at all. I can't wrap my head around that argument. After all, the biggest attention either of these artists has ever gotten is now from the buzz generated by this controversy. That's memetics at work. So, I guess if that was Goldman's intent all along, he's a fucking genius. However, if it's just a case of a guy getting caught with his artistic pants down, well then, I'll refrain from calling strangers names.
I guess he's simply not the nice guy with some artistic integrity. Though Kelly is the guy who shoots before asking questions and has this particular talent of taking the worst out of men, still...
But that's not my concern, I just wanted to say that it's not such clear-cut case of plagiatrism that it's made out to be.
I agree that this could be no simple case of plagiarism. Copyright law rarely comes down to defining someone as a plagiarist in black and white terms. If Mr. Goldman
does intend to cry "fair use!" then, he has to prove it. The only leg he can stand on is going to be under the blanket of parody. Unfortunately for Mr. Goldman, the burden of proof is on him. Should this go to the courts, which might just be a very feasable action, given the widespread sampling he'd done, and the potential for a class-action against him, he has to prove that his work was parody. I'm not sure how that's going to happen, since parody has to have some very specific defining factors, and simply tracing an image is not one of those factors. As far as commentary goes, where's the commentary? There is none. This was not within the realms of academia, or editorializing. Again, simply tracing an image, and painting it, is not a comment. There has to be more behind it, and it should be apparent to the viewer of the piece.
The biggest catch I see here is the part about scruples. Being an ignorant asshole does not exempt a person from the law. A lack of common sense, integrity, and all around charm is not a Get Out of Trouble Free card. You can't just shrug and say, "I thought it was okay," or, "I'm contributing to a discourse." Not in this situation. He's already been quoted as saying that his ideas just come to him without influence. He's already taken credit for, not only the ideas of others, but the execution of those ideas, too. Most importantly, he's already used this to make money. If he thinks he's some sort of nouveux Pop artist, he's working on a level that misses the point of pop art completely. Even the new forms of pop art are taking a crack at pop culture icons. This guy ain't. These aren't icons. If he's trying to take a crack at memetics, he's failed again. The best of these barely qualify as memes, and certainly not all of them do.
And, yes, this is tracing. The only difference between Kelley's piece, and Goldman's piece is that one has a bow, and one has a lightbulb and color. Compositionally, they are the same. Thematically, they are the same. On overlay, the lines even match up, they're saying the exact same sentence! It might as well be a photocopy with some white-out and crayon on it.
The bottom line is this guy is really coming off as a pirate, and unless some very drastic information comes to light in this, I'm prepared to go on thinking that piracy is exactly Goldman's game. It's one thing to be inspired, or to use pre-existing images to make a valid point. It's another thing entirely to use pre-existing images to make money for yourself. This further exemplifies why I believe in registering your work before wide publication, like posting to the internet. At least then, you have some sort of insurance policy attached to your work, not the least of which is legal public record, should you decide that an infringement is drastic enough to take action against it.
Okay. I've spake my piece. Sorry for making it so big and argumentative. Feel free to ignore it, or rip it apart. Off to the mountains I go!
