Nina Paley is brilliant again, and makes a great point, though I know lots of people would debate the concept of Creative Commons. Still, she's an artist who lives on her earnings, so I think she should be heard:
good lord, this is a complicated issue, and i can't say i know where i stand on it.
the statement that all artwork is derivative -yes, i agree with that. but derivative of what? of other art? not necessarily so. i mean, what were cave paintings derivative of?
also, i may be wrong about this, but i'm gleaning that she lives on her earnings as an artist because she is funded...this gets into a whole 'nother bag of ideas that have to do with privilege and class.
as a visual object, i don't care for this particular animation, tho i can see that it took a ton of work to make it. the other piece that you linked to in a comment, "sita sings the blues", looks better to me...i like how she mixes the sita figure with american jazz, just for starters. so i'm downloading that one now to watch when i have more time.
what do you think about this topic? i mean the creative commons idea and copyright issues?
I agree, all art owes a great debt to what has come before. It was in part what I was thinking of with this (someone made a very perceptive comment which I included in my notes on the piece): http://himmapaan.deviantart.com/art/Self-Portrait-111615256
Copyright is a finer matter though. Whilst having no restrictions on the re-use of artwork is a very noble idea, sadly there are unscrupulous people. Claiming something they did not create as theirs (seperate from drawing influences or even an acknowledged copy) and profiting from it is just morally not defensible.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
the statement that all artwork is derivative -yes, i agree with that. but derivative of what? of other art? not necessarily so. i mean, what were cave paintings derivative of?
also, i may be wrong about this, but i'm gleaning that she lives on her earnings as an artist because she is funded...this gets into a whole 'nother bag of ideas that have to do with privilege and class.
as a visual object, i don't care for this particular animation, tho i can see that it took a ton of work to make it. the other piece that you linked to in a comment, "sita sings the blues", looks better to me...i like how she mixes the sita figure with american jazz, just for starters. so i'm downloading that one now to watch when i have more time.
what do you think about this topic? i mean the creative commons idea and copyright issues?
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
I agree, all art owes a great debt to what has come before. It was in part what I was thinking of with this (someone made a very perceptive comment which I included in my notes on the piece): http://himmapaan.deviantart.com/art/Self-Portrait-111615256
Copyright is a finer matter though. Whilst having no restrictions on the re-use of artwork is a very noble idea, sadly there are unscrupulous people. Claiming something they did not create as theirs (seperate from drawing influences or even an acknowledged copy) and profiting from it is just morally not defensible.
(no subject)
(no subject)