http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8699359.stm?ls
Human Polar bear eh? Looks like it was very very cold...
Monday, May 24, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
... some truth in the old - tortured artist - stereotype?
It’s hard to justify being an artist some days. I feel like I’m not really making a difference in the world, that I’m buying into a system that I fundamentally disagree with. But then, those are the times that I’m conscious of that fact. The rest of my life, like everyone else it seems, I spend in blissful unconsciousness. I’m making an art piece about New Zealand Freshwater at the moment. It’s something I’ve been researching for a while now, and have already responded to on a basic level.
This time, however, I’ve been forced to re-examine my own behaviour in relationship to the subject. I, like most people in this country, live in a house with a flush toilet. It’s an everyday mindless thing, to flush excrement down the toilet. I know it’s one of the biggest microbial pollutants of our fresh water, I know it’s unfair to return it to nature with the expectation that nature will fix it, I know that the chemicals used to ‘treat’ it are bad for the environment and ecosystems they’re being pumped into, but I still do it. Every day. Because that’s what we’re taught as toddlers, potty training: always flush the toilet. To be fair, we make a conscious effort not to flush if it’s not necessary, an attempt to conserve water (how much water does it take to flush a toilet!?), but that goes out the window if we have guests round.
We take water for granted, especially here in New Zealand. I’m a part of that ‘we’ so why should I make art about it? I don’t have a solution to the environmental problems that we’re causing. I’m a poor student, so buying expensive alternative cleaning products without unnatural chemicals in them is not always an option. The materials I am using to display the samples, used in ecology labs, sure, but they’re plastics. I’m not a scientist with years’ worth of statistics to back up everything I’m displaying, so is it relevant? Is executing this, in the public eye, with the hope that people will get involved enough? Will this create enough of a critical dialogue around the topic to justify the environmental cost of its creation, and of my living?
And what do you do, when the answer is “I don’t know.” Because I don’t. But this is all I know. This is my first language to communicate in. Making art about ‘big picture’ issues is the only way I can justify being part of a late capitalist system which seems hell bent on destroying all natural resources in order to turn a profit. Some days I don’t even know if that’s enough.
This time, however, I’ve been forced to re-examine my own behaviour in relationship to the subject. I, like most people in this country, live in a house with a flush toilet. It’s an everyday mindless thing, to flush excrement down the toilet. I know it’s one of the biggest microbial pollutants of our fresh water, I know it’s unfair to return it to nature with the expectation that nature will fix it, I know that the chemicals used to ‘treat’ it are bad for the environment and ecosystems they’re being pumped into, but I still do it. Every day. Because that’s what we’re taught as toddlers, potty training: always flush the toilet. To be fair, we make a conscious effort not to flush if it’s not necessary, an attempt to conserve water (how much water does it take to flush a toilet!?), but that goes out the window if we have guests round.
We take water for granted, especially here in New Zealand. I’m a part of that ‘we’ so why should I make art about it? I don’t have a solution to the environmental problems that we’re causing. I’m a poor student, so buying expensive alternative cleaning products without unnatural chemicals in them is not always an option. The materials I am using to display the samples, used in ecology labs, sure, but they’re plastics. I’m not a scientist with years’ worth of statistics to back up everything I’m displaying, so is it relevant? Is executing this, in the public eye, with the hope that people will get involved enough? Will this create enough of a critical dialogue around the topic to justify the environmental cost of its creation, and of my living?
And what do you do, when the answer is “I don’t know.” Because I don’t. But this is all I know. This is my first language to communicate in. Making art about ‘big picture’ issues is the only way I can justify being part of a late capitalist system which seems hell bent on destroying all natural resources in order to turn a profit. Some days I don’t even know if that’s enough.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Not a good idea! ... the copyright debate!
So I put this on the "March against Mining" Facebook group. With "Not a good idea." Copyright Amelia Hitchcock 2010. My copyright for this particular artwork, and more specifically for the photo of it. Various people "like it" as is the trend on facebook... but then... someone points out that it's identical to Peter Madden's work. Well, it's not. It's similar, the techinque is basically the same, but are you going to accuse every painter of copying every other painter?
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Em Davidson Hiya - wrt that mine cut from the book - I can show you a precedent a few years old if you're curious, and tired of people saying that madden invented the concept - it's been done a bunch of times :D (along with everything else imaginable). I'd have to get my camera back first though, I just photographed the pic this m...orning - from a book called "map art". (I'm working with geography atm) - this is nice tho.
and mentions another book artist: Noriko Ambe pictures of her other work found here.
Beautiful work. Anyway, back on the No Mining page...my Mum comments (never one to be left out of anything!) and then a stranger I don't even know wades in (on my side!)
So - as far as NZ copyright law goes - these are two different expressions of the same basic idea.
These two works are most definitely NOT identical. Only the basic idea behind the idea is the same.
I prefer this version myself. It looks a lot more realistic, and credible. But thats just my take.
As far as I know - it is not about discernable difference. It is about making unauthorised copies.
If Amelia saved your art, and then modified it - that would be copyright infringement. As she would ... See morehave used your work without your permission.
If Amelia saw your art, and decided that she liked the idea, enough to make her own version of what u have portrayed - then that is not an infringement of copyright. She has not Copied your work. Rather, she has imitated it, in her own way.
I merely mention NZ law - as that is what I am more familiar with. I am assuming other countries have similar laws (assumption on my part only).
So the first I saw of his work was after reading his snarky comment about patents - and it didn't live up to his hype - If I'd looked at some of his resolved work before reading his comment I might be more impressed, but that's not how it worked out - I guess it's a useful lesson in netiqite for me as an artist :D