By imitating paintings as freely and frequently as they do, and by tolerating and even endorsing such activity by their fellow practitioners, photographers undercut themselves and their colleagues who object to such infringements on the part of visual artists, abandoning any claim to the moral high ground. […]
|
|
What doesn’t get talked about during the periodic uproars over a painter’s appropriation of a photographer’s work are the numerous situations in which the shoe’s on the other foot. So photographers’ commonplace practice of basing photographs on works of graphic art, often in detail and faithful to the originals, is celebrated, not condemned, by the very same community that objects, vociferously, when painters and other graphic artists imitate or derive iconography from photographic images. What inexplicable double standard operates here? […] When he referred to this painting by Leon Golub, the art critic Robert Hughes wrote, “In the end, there are some tasks that painting can do and photography cannot. No camera is allowed in the basements of power that Golub has made peculiarly his own.” Perhaps he might have asked the artist for more background. […] If it’s acceptable (or not) for painters to work from photographs, and to replicate closely or paraphrase broadly the iconography of photos, do photographers get to do (or not do) the same with paintings? And, if they do, why do all the complaints about image appropriation seem to come from the photography side of the spectrum? […] |
 SPJ Research Award 2014 |
Ends and Odds (Again)
The Republic Party goon squad, with the malevolent John Boehner and the smirking Ted Cruz as their pit bulls, lost me the opportunity to engage with a cluster of my colleagues in putting photography from 1980 through the present in perspective, and cost me a paying gig. That makes it personal. […]