Proposal for an exhibition about U.S. Fair Use laws
FU
A proposal for an exhibition that examines and beautifully illustrates
U.S. Fair Use laws as they pertain to artists.
Curated by Norm Magnusson
CURATOR'S STATEMENT
I’ve long believed that collage is one of the most important concepts in art in the last hundred years.
Maybe the notion above is an original thought of mine, but maybe I read it somewhere; I can’t really be sure . . . does it really matter?
Many think of collage as an elementary school pursuit perpetrated by pre-pubescent punks armed with safety scissors and Elmer’s® Glue, but it’s much, much, much bigger than that. It’s the 2 Live Crew taking a piece of Roy Orbison’s classic “Pretty woman” and spinning it into their own song or the Beastie Boys sampling out the wazoo on the game-changing Paul's Boutique, it’s William Burroughs literally cutting sentences out of other people’s books and arranging them to create his own piece of literature, it’s Georges Braque incorporating glued-on pieces of wallpaper to the surface of his drawings. It’s even Marcel Duchamp taking a commercially-produced object (see below) and simply attaching a different thought to it. All of these are forms of collage, and since all of them borrow from existing pieces of art or commerce, all of them are subject to U.S. copyright law under the doctrine of Fair Use.
Fair Use or a big FU?
Fair Use or a big FU?
Fair Use is an important and codified part of U.S. Copyright law that allows certain uses of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holder. (A deeper legal analysis can be read here.)
If you're an artist engaged in any kind of collage, you will most likely at some point or another, create something that uses parts of something else and when you do, you'll be subject to these laws. That which the arts community calls “appropriation”, the legal community calls either “infringing” or “transformative”, and others might just call “theft.”
If you're an artist engaged in any kind of collage, you will most likely at some point or another, create something that uses parts of something else and when you do, you'll be subject to these laws. That which the arts community calls “appropriation”, the legal community calls either “infringing” or “transformative”, and others might just call “theft.”
So. Thieving or borrowing? Is it a great compliment of flattering usage or is it a major F.U. to the originating artist? Come decide for yourself at this exhibition at WAAM.
 |
| Above: A much-reproduced and wonderfully appropriate statement from Jim Jarmusch on the concept of artistic theft. A SHORT REVIEW OF INTERESTING STUFF . . . |
Above: a "readymade" by Marcel Duchamp.
Below: "Fountain" another Duchamp piece signed "R. Mutt."
Man Ray said of the piece below: "Whether Mr Mutt made the fountain with his own hands or not has no importance. He CHOSE it. He took an article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title and point of view – created a new thought for that object." His commentary nicely identifies the intellectual liberty that is at the basis of so much post-modern and appropriation art -- it's not the art or the object that matters, only the idea.
That seminal way of looking at the world found a beautifully pure expression of its liberties and liabilities in Sherrie Levine's 1980 (1981?) solo show at Metro Pictures entitled "After Walker Evans" in which she photographed pages from a Walker Evans exhibition catalog, printed them, and presented them as her own. The Estate of Walker Evans looked at it as simple copyright infringement and acquired the photos to prevent their sale.
Below left: A Walker Evans original from "Let us now praise famous men"
Below right: A Sherrie Levine from "After Walker Evans"
This is where it gets really interesting. What the fuck did she do? Nothing?! Take a photo of the art that was painstakingly created by someone else and present it as her own?! We are all taught in school from the time that we start writing book reports that plagiarism is wretched and dishonorable. Well, isn't that what Sherrie Levine did? Sure, she never hid the source of her plunder, and even referenced it right there in the name of her show, but essentially, she simply stole. Plagiarized. Or did she? Is the essence changed by the intention of the artist? By the reaction of the audience? Sorry to keep on with the rhetorical questions here, but answer this: If you knew the work of Walker Evans and then walked into Sherrie Levine's exhibition, how would you feel? (Think for a moment about that.) I would feel pissed off. Angry. Angry at Sherrie Levine. And I would stay that way for a long time. And I would tell all my friends about the bullshit I saw down in Soho. At Metro Pictures no less! WTF? WTF? WTF? And at some point, maybe, some of the issues Levine (and/or other appropriation artists) was thinking about when she actually "made" her work (the nature of originality, the role of the viewer in creating a 'complete' piece of art, the role of the artist as mere 'selecter' of images, the role of the gallery as arbiter of taste and creator of value) at some point, maybe some of these issues would burble forth like a slow bubble rising up through the black tar pits of my ire and disdain. And then POP! There it would be. Sherrie Levine would have won the battle. Her "art" would have been validated by the mind of at least one viewer . . . me. Like it or not, from that point forward, I would have had to begrudgingly admit (as I, in fact, do now) that she had succeeded in creating something completely new out of something completely old. Mind over matter. Touché Sherrie Levine!
Now, here below are two other pieces of art to consider. On the left is a photo by French fine art photographer Patrick Cariou. It was published in his book "Yes, Rasta". On the right is an image by appropriation artist Richard Prince in which he takes Cariou's source material, fucks with it a little and calls it his own. So. Answer this: what do you think? Good stuff, Richard Prince? Nicely done? Continuing a long line of fine creations addressing some of the more interesting questions in the world of mass media and consumer culture and art appreciation? Or just bullshit? You make the call. Is Richard Prince an artist or a thief? Now, suppose you happen to think that Prince is, personally, a real douchebag. Would that change your answer? Suppose Patrick Cariou is the jerk. Would that change your answer?
Well, luckily, the courts are not so concerned with those questions. They are concerned with interpreting the law. And the law, (in brief) according to the U.S. Copyright office is this:
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
- The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
- The nature of the copyrighted work
- The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
- The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
So. Now. Cariou v. Prince. Cariou's fame had increased dramatically as a result of Prince using his photos. Then the lawsuit happened and it has increased even more. I am not a fan of Richard Prince so I did not pay any attention to his show at Gagosian that featured this work. But then the lawsuit hit. And all of a sudden, Cariou, whose name I had never heard, became a household name. I've got to imagine that the theft has actually increased the potential market for the victim. Should that be taken into account? Does that make it all okay? Was it all okay anyway?
One of the main arguments in favor of a broader definition of what constitutes fair use is that it spurs creativity. Artists have always referenced the art that's come before them, the argument goes, and to prevent them from doing so would be bad for the entire realm of creative endeavor. And not just in the arts, but in science and business and philosophy and everywhere where creative people play and profit.
Now I happen to agree with that. I also happen to think that Richard Prince should be forced to pay Patrick Cariou handsomely for stealing his images and using them in his own art. So how does this jibe?
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
Well, it's a little like the famous line from U.S. Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart on pornography: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. But the courts want more. They've been working hard to keep up with changes in art and art theory and the advent of photography and the advances in technology that now put art making and image theft (or reference) into the hands of anybody with a computer. So the courts came up with the idea of transformation. Specifically, the phrase "transformative use", which was coined by the Honorable Pierre Leval, a federal appeals judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He laid down what is widely regarded as the conceptual benchmark for how to assess fair use in his 1990 article in the Harvard Law Review "Toward a Fair Use Standard." Some highlights from this article include, for starters, this quotation about the purpose of copyright law:
[C]opyright is intended to increase and not to impede the harvest of knowledge. . . . The rights conferred by copyright are designed to assure contributors to the store of knowledge a fair return for their labors.
. . . [The Constitution's grant of copyright power to Congress] "is a means by which an important public purpose may be achieved. It *1108 is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward . . . ."' "The monopoly created by copyright thus rewards the individual author in order to benefit the public."'
. . . [The Constitution's grant of copyright power to Congress] "is a means by which an important public purpose may be achieved. It *1108 is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward . . . ."' "The monopoly created by copyright thus rewards the individual author in order to benefit the public."'
"Copyright is intended to increase and (specifically noted here!!) not to impede the harvest of knowledge." "In order to benefit the public". Not what one usually thinks about when considering a preciously guarded copyright. But there it is. And it is an especially important thought to bear in mind when considering questions of fair use. As Leval notes further on: "The doctrine of fair use limits the scope of the copyright monopoly in furtherance of its utilitarian objective." He emphasizes:
"Fair use should not be considered a bizarre, occasionally tolerated departure from the grand conception of the copyright monopoly. To the contrary, it is a necessary part of the overall design. Although no simple definition of fair use can be fashioned, and inevitably disagreement will arise over individual applications, recognition of the function of fair use as integral to copyright's objectives leads to a coherent and useful set of principles. Briefly stated, the use must be of a character that serves the copyright objective of stimulating productive thought and public instruction without excessively diminishing the incentives for creativity."
Well, over and over again, the courts rule that satire and parody, no matter how sophomoric or soporific, counts as fair use. In the case of Cariou v. Prince, the lower court was concerned less with whether there was sufficient transformation of Cariou’s image by Prince and more about whether Prince was commenting on or satirizing Cariou’s work. Prince initially said that he wasn’t, more or less brushing aside this criteria, while asserting over and over that his work “can reasonably be perceived to make an artistic statement distinct from the original work.” Prince claimed that transformation can exist separate from commentary and the court seemed to disagree. Prince lost in the lower court; he’s now appealing. (A short NPR piece on the appeal can be read here and an interesting and similar case was reported on in Hyperallergic in 2024 here.)
So, if satire is so well protected, what happened below?
 |
| Top: a photo taken by Art Rogers, a professional photographer, that was used on cards and other stuff. Below: The Jeff Koons sculpture inspired by the Rogers photo. |
In Rogers v. Koons, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found . . .
"both "substantial similarity" and that Koons had access to the picture. The similarity was so close that the average lay person would recognize the copying, a measure for evaluation. Thus the sculpture was found to be a copy of the work by Rogers.
On the issue of fair use, the court rejected the parody argument, as Koons could have constructed his parody of that general type of art without copying Rogers' specific work. That is, Koons was not commenting on Rogers' work specifically, and so his copying of that work did not fall under the fair use exception."
I find that last sentence very interesting. If I wanted to make a high brow commentary upon low brow kitsch, I might just do the same thing Koons did. And my commentary would not be exclusively directed to the source material, but to all kitsch in general (including the source material) as I would be seeing the source material to be representative of all such art, not just the one single piece. For me, the Koons piece, clearly mocking as it was, is fair use. But! But. But, as an artist and a creator of images, I also sympathize with Rogers. He created this image, it is his, Koons changed it very little. It was not an iconic image of kitsch etched into the popular imagination. It was an image of limited distribution that actually brought a few bucks into Rogers' pocket. Why should someone get to steal it and use it for their own profit without compensating the guy who originated it?
My stomach gets tied up in knots just thinking about it. On the one hand, fair use, on the other hand, theft. Right there is why this topic is so fascinating. Frequently, both sides are right.
(Here's a short, sweet article about Jeff Koon's intellectual property lawsuit against a S.F. bookstore for selling book ends that look like balloon dogs. Just in case you were on the fence about Koons' d-bag status.)
Now look at the Warhol flowers print below. Gorgeous, no? Well, the source material for this print was a photo taken by Patricia Caulfield for a magazine article. (Sadly, I can't find this image anywhere.) Warhol took it and made some awesome silk screens out of it. Caulfield saw the prints and sued. Warhol settled out of court giving Caulfield a royalty for all future use and two of the prints. Nice deal in more ways than one: it compensates Caulfield for her work, for her creativity and so on, it allows Warhol to own his work (he maintained authorship and ownership of the prints) and continue on with his work. Everybody wins, right? Seems so to me. The one interesting element of this case where everybody wins is the original theft. Warhol took her image without permission. Yes, Virginia, that's the definition of theft. Now just suppose he had asked first. And she'd said no. Or had asked for a crazy amount of money. What effect might that have had on "stimulating public thought" and "the harvest of knowledge"? Well, it would have been a loss to the world of some beautiful paintings. But others would have popped up; Caulfield's could not have been the only picture of flowers that would have served Warhol's purpose.
So steal first and ask permission later? Is that the practical lesson to artists engaged in fair use?
 |
| Warhol's flowers from a photo by Patricia Caulfield |
Well, the lesson wasn't learned very well learned by Warhol or, later, by the Warhol Foundation
Let's see, quickly, how that lesson played out years later in the cases of Shepard Fairey and the Associated Press and David LaChappelle and Rihanna.
Petulant Fairey was accused by the AP of stealing one of its photos for his HOPE Obama poster. He took a "best defense is a good offense position" and, in turn, sued the AP, claiming fair use. He claimed he had used the Clooney photo and not the other photo. It went to court but was dismissed pending settlement, which the AP later reported as follows:
"Mr. Fairey has agreed that he will not use another AP photo in his work without obtaining a license from the AP. The two sides have also agreed to work together going forward with the Hope image and share the rights to make the posters and merchandise bearing the Hope image and to collaborate on a series of images that Fairey will create based on AP photographs. The parties have agreed to additional financial terms that will remain confidential."
So, again, everybody wins, right? But again, the theft occurred before the deal was struck. Certainly, Fairey could have found and licensed an image, perhaps that very image, before he started. But he didn't. One of the reasons he didn't is the times we live in.
It's the era of the internet and the creative commons license that creative people willingly append to their creations in an attempt to add value by allowing further use. The people who add the cc creative commons mark to their stuff are explicitly entering into an open-ended agreement with all future potential users, specifying the rights that had hitherto been vaguely defined by the fair use doctrine. (An academic examination of the cc license can be read here.)
But the concept of the cc license is much bigger than just the permissions it grants. It's a whole attitude, a new attitude, it is (oh no, here comes that word . . . ) the zeitgeist. Musicians push their music out and encourage people to make their own music videos of it. Youtube fame = financial profit. It's the attitude of give it away and make your money from building relationships with your fans. Back in the old days, when you went into a concert, there were signs everywhere prohibiting recording devices for every show except one: the Grateful Dead. They allowed, encouraged even, their audience members to record their shows and to package and sell these bootlegs recordings. It built enormous goodwill, spread their music further than it might have via traditional channels, found new fans, and might well have been one of the reasons that the Dead were the number one most profitable touring band in the country year after year after year. Take it, love it, love us, buy a ticket to our next show and a t-shirt. BAM! This is the pervasive attitude amongst young creators of intellectual property. Give it away, make your money elsewhere. Create content, create fans, sell them stuff.
The band Radiohead released the album "In rainbows" in 2008 which they gave away as a name your own price download. While most people downloaded it for free (I paid $10) the band still made more money off of the pay your own price scheme than they did off of their critically acclaimed previous album "Hail to the thief". On top of that, they probably added a whole bunch more fans than usual and also made a boot load of scratch off of a special fan-focussed value-added physical box set. A huge success all in all, which nicely illustrates the kind of commercial dynamic that so many of the younger generation of content generators hopes to be a part of. It is the zeitgeist; and it's an important addendum to this discussion of fair use.
But back to collage. In music, it's the sample or the mash up, it's Danger Mouse's Grey Album, in movies, it's the enormous waves of remakes, in the visual arts, it's all the stuff we've seen above, it's Picasso, and Braque and Rauschenberg's "combines" (below) . . .
 |
| Untitled by Robert Rauschenberg |
 | |
|
 |
| Brillo, 1965 Andy Warhol |
 |
Not Warhol (Brillo Boxes. 1964) Mike Bidlo 2005 . . . it's Warhol's Brillo boxes and, maybe even more importantly, it's Mike Bidlo's Not Warhol (Brillo boxes). It's collage, in all its messy, take what you need, attach what you want, glue-on-your-figurative-fingers wonderfulness. And it is wonderful. So wonderful. And that's what this show is about: the great physical and intellectual beauty that can happen thanks to the doctrine of fair use in US Copyright law. Waxing so appreciative right here and now makes me side with the vocal majority of artists and museum directors and various arts professionals: leave it alone. Do nothing to diminish the things that we can do with whatever we want. Indeed, after just a short survey of some of the art that would be (or would have been) affected by a tightening of fair use laws (for that is what might be at stake in the Cariou v Prince case) I am stronger than ever in my resolve that fair use should be protected and preserved and, indeed, the thieves should be free to steal first and pay later. Here's the Rihanna story I promised. She made a music video with brightly colored S&M scenes. David LaChappelle makes brightly colored photographs and some of them were of S&M scenes. |
Just below: Rihanna's video in the left column, David LaChappelle's photos on the right.
Now flip it: Below: David LaChappelle's photos in the left column, Rihanna's video on the right.
You see the similarities no doubt. LaChappelle sued. The case was hinging not on the ideas (which can't be copyrighted) but on the execution of the ideas and the judge was finding enough similarities to move the case along but Rihanna settled out of court. (For a very interesting article on this particular case as it relates to fair use laws in general, click here.)
Take first, pay later.
(And hopefully something good will come out of it.)
A version of this exhibition was presented at the WFG in Woodstock in 2012. Below are some of the pieces that were in that show. Many of them have been promised for a future staging of the exhibition. Many new pieces are being collected as well.
CHAD FERBER
In the spirit of Warhol's "Brillo" and Bidlo's "Not Warhol (Brillo boxes)" Ferber made his own cardboard and painted it to look like a box of Vans sneakers. Spectacular. Copyright infringement or fair use?
STEVAN JENNIS
 |
| "Eagle" 30" x 36" |
 |
| "Skunks" 18" x 24" |
 |
| "The way home" 24" x 24" |
Steven Jennis recontextualizes paint by numbers paintings. A company made the paintings, somebody painted them in, Jennis remakes them, stepping on lots of toes along the way. Seems fair to me.
TASHA DEPP
Depp finds garbage and paints on it. Now, the manufacturers of these goods spent a lot of time and money making them look just right. And then Depp takes them and does her own thing to them. Should Rand McNally sue? Demand royalties? What effect would that have on Depp's art? Suppose that Depp's Rand McNally piece became famous, ubiquitous, suppose it sold at Gagosian for $2 million? Would that change your answer?
DAVID ANTHONE
David Anthone. "Springtime for Hitler" Anthone takes chipped and damaged Hummel figurines and recontextualizes them with his own attached narrative which starts out with Hitler (who hated them and called them "hydrocephalic, club-footed sissies") and ends up with serial killers. I can't imagine the people at Hummel would appreciate these thoughts being attached to their collectible. Should they sue? Would they have a leg to stand on? Or is this fine fair use?
MOLLY RAUSCH
OK, let's say I'm the U.S. Postal service and I think this is blasphemy. I mean, the postal service spends a lot of money each year on the art that goes on the stamp, and here somebody just uses that art for their own purposes?! Cease and desist or laud and applaud?
More from Molly Rausch below. Her breakup series of products.
DAVID GOLDIN
David's work seems pretty fair to me. But just supposing that the Yoo-hoo people thought that the piece above showed their product in a bad light? Should they be able to tell him to stop? To destroy the piece? To not reproduce it or exhibit it anywhere?
JAMES WESTWATER
 |
| Untitled (Warhol flowers) 1997 Acrylic on found 1960's French serigraph, 20 x 16". Here, Mr. Westwater has painted right on top of a print of a silkscreen that was created from an image clipped out of a magazine by Andy Warhol. The mind boggles. Fair use or double F.U.? |
 |
| Blue Boy, 2011, pigment ink print on paper. 20 x 16", edition of 40. Courtesy of Santa Fe Editions www.sfeditions.com |
 |
| Agnes Martin as a Young Woman, 2006, acrylic on found oil painting on canvas, 20 x 16" |
Directly above: a painting on a found painting by James Westwater. It's doubtful that the original painter will ever see this work but what if they do? Not only has James used this pre-existing image without permission, he has permanently and irreparably changed it by painting right on it.
Disrespect? Respect? Fair use? If I were the originating artist and I sued, what would I sue for?
VALERIE FANARJIAN
 |
| "Dangerous Enchantment" |
 |
| "Girl of the snowlands" |
Fanarjian paints on and around old paperback covers from the 1940's. Quite probably, these images have become public domain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain) but there is a possibility that their copyright has been extended and is in force. An image (or other work) enters the public domain after its copyright expires, which happens at various points ranging from 70 to 120 years. (See table here.)
Some of the works below, by Julie Chase, are probably not in the public domain. Who is this woman from New Hope High? She's probably still alive. But this picture of her was bought second hand. So who should own the copyright? It certainly seems like Julie's work on top of this found photo constitutes "transformative use." What do you think?
JULIE CHASE
NORM MAGNUSSON
 |
| After 2012 27 x 20" image size giclée. |
Above: "After" Inspired by Sherrie Levine, Magnusson has taken one of her Walker Evans rip-offs off of the internet and blown it up and blown it up and taken pictures of it and blown it up some more and finally patched together a 10th generation copy of the original Sherrie Levine in a commentary about the absurd end of unfettered appropriation. So? Is Magnusson's piece fair use? He's clearly commenting more on Levine's piece than on the ur-photo by Evans, so to whom does he owe a debt here? One of them? Both of them?
 |
| Reparations 2011, 18 x 13", archival computer print on paper |
This piece is called "Reparations", and it is a light-hearted commentary upon the Cariou v. Prince case in which Magnusson has attempted to repair Cariou's piece back to its original form working with Prince's version as his original source material. Who's being ripped off here? Cariou? Prince? Both? Is it okay? It's clearly commentary and satire. Seems fair to me. And maybe a little bit of an FU to Prince.
 |
| Pess/Op |
"Pess/op" an op-art photoshop creation pessimistically commenting upon the despoiling of pristine landscapes by industrial pollution and the optimistic notion that nature will inevitably find its way back. This piece was created with images taken from the internet. The painting is by Thomas Cole, the smokestack photographer is unknown.
Top: "Fun clothes", made from two sources: The pages from Nabokov's Lolita and a page from a vintage Barbie and Ken coloring book.
Bottom (above): "Delta of Venus", an image from The Coloring book of the 50 States on top of pages from Anais Nin's Delta of Venus.
Okay, here are two pieces from a series where the artist, Norm Magnusson, stole images from two different sources and joined them together to create his pieces. Fair use or double theft?
Above: "The desire for protection" by the same artist. In this painting, Magnusson decided to paint in the style of Jean-Michel Basquiat. Isn't that similar to what Rihanna did to LaChappelle? So is that kosher? Should Magnusson be allowed to blatantly rip-off someone else's style?
Here, (above) the same artist paints his picture on top of an image by Asher Durand. If there's an asylum for kleptomaniacal artists, Magnusson should certainly be there. But regardless, is just painting on top of another artist's work transformative enough to constitute fair use? The lower court judge in Cariou v. Prince didn't think so. Thoughts?
Below, Magnusson paints monsters on post cards, an idea he admits he saw "somewhere online". So. Someone else's concept executed on someone else's art. Certainly that shouldn't be allowed. Hmmm?
A special section of this FU exhibition will be devoted to painting on album covers.
Each artist in the show and a bunch of others will do at least one painting on an album cover.
A few of the album covers that were in the first show are here below.
 |
"Air Force" by Joe Concra. Acrylic paint on vintage record jacket.
 |
A fab interpretation by Richard Segalman (above) and the original below. |
 |
Stevan Jennis (above) cut up a few various album covers to make this gem. |
 |
Tasha Depp. If I can scrape together a few bucks, I'm totally buying this one. So hands off! |
 |
Tracie Goudie has painted herself over U2's "Boy" album. Just gorgeous. |
 |
Fuck. I am loving this project so much. Mark Kanter has done a bang up job on this classic rock-n-roll cover designed by Andy Warhol and shot by Billy Name. Warhol above, Kanter below. |
 |
Chad Ferber's deep black riff. I've given it it's own page, which you can read here: http://ferberblackalbum.blogspot.com/ |
 |
Album cover, tape, acetate. The material list from Heather Hutchison's gorgeous, can't-wait-to-see-it-in-person new flavor of Vanilla Fudge. |
 |
A lovely Woodstock interpretation of a John Sebastian album by Sean A. Cavanaugh. |
 |
Stuart Klein adds a little extra to Andy Warhol's cover of Paul Anka's The Painter. Awesome! |
 |
| James Westwater's Pink Pearl-escent addition to Nelson Eddy's "Stout Hearted Men." Lufferly. |
 |
| Anne Crowley's citified country boy cover from The Marshall Tucker Band. |
 |
From Steeeve Kursh: The White Album painted on top of the soundtrack to Grease. No. Stop. That is too awesome. |
 |
"Kissing Dave Brubeck", an album weaving by the inimitable owner of the new Imogen Holloway Gallery in Saugerties, Diane Dwyer. |
 | ||
Painter extraordinaire and garden goddess Ruth Wetzel has painted and collaged a perfect reinterpretation of Brian Eno's classic "Music for airports."
 Below: 3 fab takes from Catherine Sebastian. Wow.    |
DEEP CUTS
"Paul's Boutique", an album by the Beastie Boys, co-written and produced by the Dust Brothers
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc. A wikipedia entry on the 2 Live Crew/Roy Orbison case.
Grand Upright v. Warner Bros. Gilbert O'Sullivan versus Biz Markie for using his song "Alone again (naturally)" without permission or compensation.
Aura. Walter Benjamin. The specialness of the original in the physical world.
Suess, the Juice and Fair Use, a legal discussion of fair use as it was decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a OJ Simpson murder trial parody told through the framework of The Cat in the Hat. (I know . . . it's fucked up to begin with, but luckily courts don't judge the aesthetic merits of works when deciding these issues. Unluckily, the Ninth Circuit ruled against the strange parody.)
The king of musical parody, "Weird Al" Yankovic sending up Charles Nelson Reilly and The White Stripes and who knows who else in the fabulous CNR video.
WhoSampled.com, a database of "
sampled music, remixes and cover songs."
MOLOTOV MAN (JOY GARNETT)
This is an interesting article on this topic and about the images below, that appeared in Harper's magazine a few years ago: http://firstpulseprojects.com/On-the-Rights-of-Molotov-Man.pdf.
And here's a link to a fine article by Ms. Garnett entitled "The Case for Appropriation -> A Call to Arms".
A most excellent review of the exhibition in the Woodstock Times.
ABOUT THE CURATOR
Norm Magnusson is mildly renowned all over the world.
As a visual artist, he has shown in galleries and museums in New York and New Zealand, London and Paris and all over the United States. His work is in private and museum collections around the world, including NY’s MoMA and he’s been reviewed everywhere from the NY Times to the Washington Post to the Utne Reader, the Center for Sustainable Practices in the Arts magazine, GreenMuze.com and many other national and international magazines, websites and blogs.
His “historical markers” and “decorating nature” series have both gone viral on the internet. He’s received a NYFA Fellowship for sculpture, a Pollock-Krasner Foundation grant for painting, and a Lower Manhattan Cultural Council grant and a NYSCA grant (through the Center for Sustainable Rural Communities), both for public art installations.
For the last 4 years, on August 29, the date of its world premier in Woodstock, NY, Magnusson has produced an anniversary concert of John Cage’s 4’33” at the WAAM Museum in that town.
Recently, he’s returned to his first creative love, acting, starring in community theater productions of plays by David Mamet and David Ives and, most recently, as Pozzo in Samuel Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot.” He wrote and performed his first ever words and images monologue “The signs in our lives” at the Hudson Literary Festival in 2014.
He is the co-founder of FISHtheMOUSEmedia, a developer of educational apps for iOS; where his “Animal alphabet” app was widely acclaimed and honored with a prestigious Gold award from the Parents’ Choice Foundation.
Awards
NYFA (sculpture) 2015
NYSCA through CSRC (installation) 2014
Lower Manhattan Cultural Council (installation) 2008
Pollock-Krasner Foundation Grant, (painting) 1998-1999
Public art projects
2014 “On this site stood” Center for Sustainable Rural Communities, Schoharie, NY
2013 “Hidden gallery walk” Palenville, NY
2013 “I want to sleep with America” Woodstock, NY
2012 “Far and wide” Woodstock Artists Association Museum, Woodstock, NY
2012 “Historical tense”, Artspace, New Haven, CT
2011 “O+ Festival”, Kingston, NY
2010 “The art of inspiration”, Sculpture installation, Time Warner Bldg, N.Y., NY
2010 “Sculpture Key West Invitational,” Key West, FL
2009 “Sculpture Key West 2009,” Key West, FL
2008 “Strange bedfellows” Le Petit Versailles, NYC
2007 “On this site stood,” The Aldrich Museum of Contemporary Art, Ridgefield, CT.
2006 “The Byrdcliffe Outdoor Sculpture Show,” Woodstock, N.Y.
2006 “Unexpected Catskills” Byrdcliffe Arts Colony, Woodstock, N.Y.
2005 “Karen DeWitt,” Historical marker with political content installed on
Heart’s Content Road in Greene County, N.Y.
2004 “Do unto others,” “Practice what you preach” Two :30 videos that aired 96 times on national tv leading up the Nov., 2004 election.
2003 “Jesus loves you, Bush doesn’t” Viral internet project
2000 “Pull toy” Cow Parade, Riverside Park, N.Y., N.Y.
Solo Museum Exhibitions
2011 “Public service public art project” The Pember Museum, Granville, NY
2007 On this site stood" The Main St. Sculpture Project of
The Aldrich Museum of Contemporary Art, Ridgefield, CT.
2003 “Metaphorical Menagerie” The Pember Museum, Granville, N.Y.
2001 “Image and Allegory,” The University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS
2000 “Norm Magnusson -- American Painter” The Springfield Art Museum, MO
Solo Gallery Exhibitions
2013 “Decorating nature” Evolve Design Gallery, Woodstock, NY
2009 “Descent into the political” Bard College at Simon’s Rock, Great Barrington, MA
2008 “America's Seven Cardinal Virtues” Van Brunt Gallery, Beacon, N.Y.
“Youth Culture in America” Muddycup Gallery, Kingston, N.Y.
2006 “America’s Seven Deadly Sins” Van Brunt Gallery, Beacon, N.Y.
2004 “Figures of speech in paint” Inquiring Mind Gallery, Saugerties, N.Y.
2003 “Vacation” Spike Gallery, N.Y., N.Y.
2002 “After the 11th” BridgewaterFineArts, N.Y., N.Y.
2001 “The Animal Alphabet” Bridgewater/Lustberg/Blumenfeld, N.Y. 2001
1999 “Central Park Animals - Then and Now” The Arsenal Gallery, Central Park, N.Y. , N.Y.
1998 “American Paintings” Bridgewater/Lustberg Gallery, N.Y.
1997 “Norm Magnusson” J.J. Brookings Gallery, San Francisco, CA.
1997 “Travelogue” Bridgewater/Lustberg Gallery
1996 “Norm Magnusson” Picturesque Gallery, Akaroa, New Zealand
1995 “Bestiary” Bridgewater/Lustberg Gallery
1994 “The Normandy Paintings” Bridgewater/Lustberg Gallery
1993 “Recent paintings” The Gallery Upstairs at Flamingo East, NYC
1992 “Norm Magnusson” The Gallery Upstairs at Flamingo East, NYC
Group Museum Exhibitions
2013 “Current hues of the Hudson” The Museum at Bethel Woods, Bethel, NY
2011 “Far and wide” Woodstock Artist’s Association Museum, Woodstock, NY
2009 “Food” Muroff Kotler Visual Arts Gallery, SUNY Ulster, Stone Ridge, NY
2005 “Over the top - Under the rug” The Shore Institute of Contemporary Arts
2003 “Genetic expressions: Art after DNA” Hecksher Museum, Huntington, NY
2000 “Animals in Art” The Anchorage Museum of History and Art, Alaska
Selected Gallery Group Shows
2014 “re:Purpose” WFG Gallery, Woodstock, NY
“Miners” Snyder House Historical Site, Rosendale, NY
“Works on paper” Atwater Gallery, Rhinebeck, NY
“Playing with a full deck” GCCA, Catskill, NY
2013 “Museum of controversial art” BAU Gallery, Beacon, NY
“The Kingston Museum of Controversial Art” KMoCA, Kingston, NY
“Cut & Paste” Muroff-Kotler Gallery, SUNY Ulster, Stone Ridge, NY
“These animals are driving me to abstraction” WFG Gallery, Woodstock, NY
“Winter solstice show” Ai Earthling Gallery, Woodstock, NY
2012 “FU” WFG Gallery, Woodstock, NY
“Zoom In” imogen Holloway gallery, Saugerties, NY
“From Wall St. to Main St.” GCCA, Catskill, NY
2011 “SpoOk”, Oo Gallery, Kingston, NY
“SpOor”, Oo Gallery, Kingston, NY
“Change of climate”, Suite 503 Gallery, NY, NY
“Rock City Pop Up”, Van Brunt Projects, Woodstock, NY
“Route 28 or thereabouts” Van Brunt Projects, Beacon, NY
2010 “Define the decade” GCCE, Catskill, NY
“SKW inside” Lucky Street Gallery, Key West, FL
“Mill Street Loft invitational”, Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
Selected group shows (cont.)
“Group show” Kleinert James Art Center, Woodstock, N.Y.
2009 “Decorating nature” Gallery 668, Battenville, N.Y.
“spctclr vws” One Brooklyn Bridge, Brooklyn, NY
“Inaugural” Van Brunt Gallery, Beacon, NY
2008 “Hudson Valley Invitational” Van Brunt Gallery, Beacon, N.Y.
“Animal allegories” Gallery 668, Battenville, N.Y.
“Wild thing” Ira Wolk Gallery, Napa, CA
2007 “Variations on a rainbow” Le Petit Versailles, N.Y., N.Y.
“About face: artists not afraid of U-turns” GCCA, Catskill, N.Y.
2006 “New Hudson Room” Van Brunt Gallery, Beacon, N.Y.
2005 “Compared to what” Gallery OneTwentyEight, N.Y., N.Y.
“This is not an archive” Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, N.Y.
2004 “Ambush” VanBrunt Gallery, N.Y., N.Y.
“Happy Art for a sad world” Spike Gallery, N.Y., N.Y.
2002 “Reactions” Exit Art, N.Y., N.Y.
2002 “Biennial” Bradford Brinton Memorial, Big Horn, Wyoming
2000 “Animals as Symbol” Curated online exhibition, Guild.com
“Salon” HereArt, N.Y., N.Y.
1999 “Urbiculture” Sylvia White Gallery, N.Y., N.Y.
“A big show of small work” Bridgewater/Lustberg/Blumenfeld, N.Y.
“Portraits 2” Jorgenson Gallery, N.Y., N.Y.
“Wish you were here” Elsa Mott Ives Gallery, N.Y., N.Y.
“Framed” Elsa Mott Ives Gallery, N.Y., N.Y.
1998 “Open your heart” Leo Castelli Gallery, New York, N.Y.
“A big show of small works” Bridgewater/Lustberg, New York, N.Y.
“Anima Mundi” Bridgewater/Lustberg, New York, N.Y.
1997 “Whit, Whimsy & Humor” Castle Gallery, New Rochelle, N.Y.
“Winter show” J. Cacciola Gallery, New York, N.Y.
“PhotoSoho” Buhl Foundation, New York, N.Y.
“Art walk ‘97 Show” J.J. Brookings Gallery, San Francico, CA.
“A big show of small work 2” Bridgewater/Lustberg, NYC
1996 “A big show of small work” Bridgewater/Lustberg, New York, N.Y.
“Summer exhibition” J. Cacciola Gallery, New York, N.Y.
1995 “Creative Conflict” Elsa Mott Ives Gallery, New York, N.Y. “High/Low/Art Soup” Renee Fotouhi Fine Art, East Hampton, N.Y.
“Animal Kingdom” The Union League Club, New York, N.Y.
“Open your heart” Christinerose Gallery, New York, N.Y.
“Preview of 1995” J. Cacciola Gallery, New York, N.Y.
1994 “Then and Now” Bridgewater/Lustberg Gallery, New York,N.Y.
“Summer 1994” J. Cacciola Gallery, New York, N.Y.
“Accidental Tourist” Bridgewater/Lustberg Gallery, New York, N.Y.
“Garden in the Gallery” Elsa Mott Ives Gallery, New York, N.Y.
1994 “Group Show” Galerie Antoinette, Paris, France
1993 “Celebration of Victor Hugo” Galerie Les Etelles, Villequier, France
“Group Show” Galerie Antoinette, Paris, France
Curation
2014 “re:Purpose”, WFG Gallery, Woodstock, NY
2013 “The Museum of Controversial Art”, BAU, Beacon, NY
2013 “The Kingston Museum of Controversial Art”, KMOCA, Kingston, NY
2012 “FU”, WFG Gallery, Woodstock, NY
Lectures/Workshops/Classes
2014 “Descent into the political” Kleinert-James Gallery, Woodstock, NY
2014 “Nature art” Rockland Country Day School, Congers, NY
2013 “Decorating Nature” Rhinebeck Science Foundation, Rhinebeck, NY
2010 “Define the decade” Greene County Council on the Arts, Catskill, NY
2009 “Animal alphabet” Woodstock Day School, Saugerties, NY
2008 “Art that’s changed the way I see the world around me” Woodstock Day School
2001 “Image and Allegory” The University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS
2000 “Metaphorical menagerie” The Springfield Art Museum, MO
Selected Bibliography
“ ‘Historical’ signs are really an art installation” Times Journal, June 3, 2014
“Woodstock artist opens local exhibit at the Schoharie Hive” Schoharie News, June 2, 2014
“Animal allegories”, Animal Imagery Magazine, Spring 2012.
“The I-75 Project: Offering up food for thought at every rest stop”, HolyKaw.alltom.com, Nov. 15, 2011.
“The I-75 Project”, Idea.IdeaBing.com, Sept. 27, 2011
“America’s Seven Deadly Sins: The Political Art of Norm Magnusson”, Tikkun.org, Sept. 24, 2011.
“Work in progress: Interstate 75”, CSPA Quarterly issue 6, 2011
“#110 The I-75 Project, activism with a smile”, ThisGivesMeHope.com, Aug. 4, 2011.
“Political art dots local museums’ landscape” Granville Sentinel, May 12, 2011.
“Artist erects social markers in Granville, NY” Rutland Herald, May 6, 2011.
“Rewriting history with a wink” Utne Reader, April 13, 2011
“Street signs and pixilated leaves: the art of Norm Magnusson” Washington Post, Oct. 29, 2010
“Art of Social Conscience: The I-75 Project by Norm Magnusson” LaughingSquid.com, Oct. 25, 2010
“Just a little bit subversive”, CommonDreams.org, Oct. 21, 2010
“Gentle, public activism: Magnusson’s I-75 Project”, TheSocietyPages.org, Sept. 22, 2010
“Markers of American Decline”, ProvisionsLibrary.com, Sept. 22, 2010
“Signs of trouble on the I-75”, osocio.org, Sept. 9, 2010
“Decorating nature by Norm Magnusson”, Wine and Bowties, Feb. 20, 2010
“Artist adds colors to nature” GreenPacks, Feb. 19, 2010
“Mother nature’s forest canvases, kicked up a few colorful notches” Greenwala, Feb. 16, 2010
"Decorating nature series", GreenMuze, 15 February, 2010
“Political descent”, Woodstock Times, November 5, 2009
”Norm Magnusson’s ‘historical markers’”, Woodstock Times, July 31, 2008
“Norm Magnusson” Sculpture, June 2008
“On this site stood a man with a message” The New York Times, Sep. 30, 2007
"Signposting America," Eyeteeth: A journal of incisive ideas, Aug. 18, 2007
“Standing ground – The Aldrich goes Americana, sort of”, Bedford Mag., July 2007
"Parting shot: Norm Magnusson," Chronogram, August, 2007
“Magnusson’s markers highlight social issues,” Ridgefield Press, July 12, 2007
“I saw the sign”, Modern Painters, June 2007
”Norm Magnusson - On this site stood,” American Towns, June 3, 2007
“On this site stood: culture jamming history,” Art Threat, May 29, 2007
“Énoncé de l’artiste,” Esse arts + opinion, Spring-summer 2007
"Painting politics," The Woodstock Times, August 3, 2006
“A blossoming of political art” The Huffington Post, June 6, 2006
“Art that pushes the limits of studio walls,” Atlanticville Press, September 7, 2005
“Caution: angry artists at work,” The New York Times, August 27, 2004
“Vacation,” The New York Times, September 12, 2003.
“Norm Magnusson,” The Week, August 29, 2003.
"Images of a beautiful era, and of scientific breakthroughs," The NY Times, July 27, 2003
"Pember Museum has Art Exhibit," The Granville Sentinel, February 19, 2003
“Artist’s ‘funism’ provides lesson behind each animal,” Springfield News Leader, Oct.18, 2000
"The Artist’s Way," Adweek, August 16, 1999
"Norm Magnusson," Review, March 1, 1997
"Travels with Magnusson," Where New York, February, 1997
"Ecological awareness with paint and a brush," The Villager, February 12, 1997
"From the Big Apple to Akaroa," The Press (Christchurch), March 27, 1996
"Fun-ism in art," The Beta Theta Pi Magazine, Spring 1996
"Museum/Gallery Notes," Wildlife Art News, Sept./Oct. 1995
"Norm Magnusson," Cover, September, 1995
"Viel Rauch um nichts," Der Vogel, August 18, 1995
"Raw News," Raw Vision, Summer 1995
"Animal Rites," The Villager, June 28, 1995
“Norm Magnusson," The New Yorker, February 28, 1994
“Scene Change,” The Villager, February 16, 1994
“Dimanche, les ecoliers invitaient aussi a voter," Le Courier Cauchois, March 27, 1993
“La peinture sur le chemin des ecoliers," Le Courier Cauchois, January 23, 1993
“A la decouvert d’un peintre americain avec les ecoliers de Villequier,"
Paris Normandie, 1/22/93
“A Self-taught Village Artist Creates a ‘Funism’ Style," The Villager, Sept. 9, 1992.
“Enjoyable and Accessible Art," The Villager, August 19, 1992
Museum Collections
Anchorage Museum of History and Art - Anchorage, Alaska
The Museum of Modern Art - New York, N.Y.
(Franklin Furnace/Artist’s book collection)
The Springfield Art Museum - Springfield, Missouri
The Pember Museum - Granville, N.Y.
Selected Private Collections:
Mr. William Burback Garrison, N.Y.
Mr. and Mrs. Kristen and Johann Eveland New Canaan, CT.
Mr. Kenneth Cole New York, N.Y.
Mr. and Mrs. Ione and Marshall Crenshaw Rhinebeck, N.Y.
Ms. Kim Dickens Los Angeles, CA
Mr. Joe Reece New York, N.Y.
Ms. Jill Sobule Los Angeles, CA
Mr. & Mrs. Andy and Kate Spade New York, N.Y.
Mr. Theo Spencer New York, N.Y.
Dr. & Mrs. Harlan Waksal Telluride, Colorado
Tanya Wexler & Amy Zimmerman New York, N.Y.
Public/Corporate Collections
AmSouth Bank - Birmingham, Alabama
Fidelity Insurance - Boston, Mass.
Kenneth Cole - New York, N.Y.
Kohler – Kohler, WI
Simmons, U.S.A. - Atlanta, Georgia
Comments
Post a Comment