Yes but while any warhol was pushing the limits of what was acceptable as 'Art', This guy started his career by wholesale ripping off 70's sci fi covers.
Let's not devolve this thread from discussion about one person making a ridiculous amount of money for stealing some elses work, into one about why Warhol was/wasn't doing the same thing.
It looks like he has the talent to paint nearly every thing.
Other then normal art thiefs he dont copy paste a texture or 3d modell or reprint the work.
You can say he stole the "composition" or "concept art" okay but the work itself is his own.
So this doesn't seem legal. Even if the creation and artwork are considered his own, the concept and ideas behind the image are not. Other than the process of painting, it's as if he photo shopped the image with a few minor changes and called the work his own. And now there isn't much being done about this? Why?
It seems more like forgery than art creation? Still there is a pretty big market for fakes, one offs and copies but they are sold as such. Anyone who is a respectable art dealer won't pretend that they are more than what they are or that they are something new or original.
It seems like this guy belongs in the copy category and not championed as some kind of pioneer or visionary pushing the boundaries of art?
And now there isn't much being done about this? Why?
These multi-million dollar paintings are a way to transfer wealth between the ultra-rich. They also use these paintings as charitable donations to museums which reduces their taxation. They maximize their tax avoidance when the art appreciates in value, so they try to pump up the value as much as possible.
The discussion of "is this art?" is important only in how much it affects the value of the stock. This is one of the more shameless examples of how the system works.
Post modernism is an excuse for everything to be shit so no one has to think hard to make anything impressive/original or maybe its just to rip stupid rich people off..... Grrrrrr I hate this news !
I guess at least he has some talent and he chose a great subject matter if only it was original.
strictly speaking of the paintings, maybe the image doesn't do the hacked version justice due to the degraded scan quality, but I think Chris Foss' original piece is far superior.
As far as I know, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, this story isn't as bad as it seems.
- The original artist gave permission to the second artist to "remix" his work.
- The second artist sold his painting many years ago (I'm not sure for how much, but it's not millions)
- This sale for $5million goes to that person who bought the piece all those years ago. Which means that the second artist (and the first for that matter) won't see a penny of those millions.
I actually like modern art. When it actually has a point.
A lot of modern art is either dreadfully shallow and tries to make itself seem important by being outrageous, or it has an interesting statement which is completely lost because the artist makes it as contrived and inaccessible as possible for the sake of "durr art".
But this drives me up the wall. I see people come to the defense of this saying that it's the same thing that Warhol did and he is considered one of the greats. But guess what, HE DID THAT FIFTY YEARS AGO! It's been done, it has been analyzed, accepted, and has passed. There is literally no impact or power left in doing this as art. Move on and push for the avant garde instead of being a derivative piece of shit.
i couldnt care less about these art hipsters with their fancy new age stuff whatsoever
just dont try to convice me and dont try to argue with me that i dont understand your cluttered piece of s**t you call art
Personally I think its a blatant rip off. And I'd be well pissed if someone made millions by copying any work of mine and slightly changing the colour.
anyhoo... Games are art right? Everyone hates a blatant game rip off, especially if it does well. This is the same...
I blame the people who buy it anyway. If there's a market, people will make it. The original artist should get a cut though, especially when the similarities are so close.
Replies
He can paint nearly everything and sell for a high prize.
Look at maybe Andy Warhol. 32 pictures of Campells Soups, Double Mona Lisa and a lot more. :poly124:
LOL at the Sotherbys comment...
Why acceptable? Because a soup can is so weird that must be art?
It looks like he has the talent to paint nearly every thing.
Other then normal art thiefs he dont copy paste a texture or 3d modell or reprint the work.
You can say he stole the "composition" or "concept art" okay but the work itself is his own.
It seems like this guy belongs in the copy category and not championed as some kind of pioneer or visionary pushing the boundaries of art?
These multi-million dollar paintings are a way to transfer wealth between the ultra-rich. They also use these paintings as charitable donations to museums which reduces their taxation. They maximize their tax avoidance when the art appreciates in value, so they try to pump up the value as much as possible.
The discussion of "is this art?" is important only in how much it affects the value of the stock. This is one of the more shameless examples of how the system works.
I guess at least he has some talent and he chose a great subject matter if only it was original.
I rest my case
- The original artist gave permission to the second artist to "remix" his work.
- The second artist sold his painting many years ago (I'm not sure for how much, but it's not millions)
- This sale for $5million goes to that person who bought the piece all those years ago. Which means that the second artist (and the first for that matter) won't see a penny of those millions.
A lot of modern art is either dreadfully shallow and tries to make itself seem important by being outrageous, or it has an interesting statement which is completely lost because the artist makes it as contrived and inaccessible as possible for the sake of "durr art".
But this drives me up the wall. I see people come to the defense of this saying that it's the same thing that Warhol did and he is considered one of the greats. But guess what, HE DID THAT FIFTY YEARS AGO! It's been done, it has been analyzed, accepted, and has passed. There is literally no impact or power left in doing this as art. Move on and push for the avant garde instead of being a derivative piece of shit.
Argh, rant over.
I don't think you get it, maaaan.
i couldnt care less about these art hipsters with their fancy new age stuff whatsoever
just dont try to convice me and dont try to argue with me that i dont understand your cluttered piece of s**t you call art
(just to clarify, not everything is bad !)
anyhoo... Games are art right? Everyone hates a blatant game rip off, especially if it does well. This is the same...
I blame the people who buy it anyway. If there's a market, people will make it. The original artist should get a cut though, especially when the similarities are so close.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/marvel-s-agents-of-shield-appears-to-borrow-mass-effect-3-art-update/1100-6417041/
There's still a chance neither party actually cares which seems to make it fine...
If the original artist was debating suing the remix artist then I'm not sure he had permission.