I like it, but is it really my image? An unknown artist left this image under a bridge for all to see. I would like to credit him/her, but the very nature of graffiti art* is anonymous. Great artists have photographed graffiti for ages, often abstracting it. but this image is one I found, and it is making me think of photography as an art.
I have copied artwork, but for some reason, this seems more...
I found the painting above, but I also "found" this image on the same walk.
and it is just as much a recording of what I saw in front of me, but maybe because it was not created by someone else it is fair game?
so what about an image from my archives...
This is a photograph of artwork created by another person. but it is a bit more "arty". Maybe it is the Black & White treatment? But I arguably manipulated this image less than the original graffiti art. (lots of levels, curves and colour correction)
and this image I shot for a calendar...
It is again just a copy of someone else's artwork, a carved Buddha head. When does it become more than (or at least different from) the original? This last image was a studio shot with very controlled lighting, angle of view and background. Does the amount of work put into an image make it? I have some images I have put a lot of work into, that just don't cut it. I can't say I have too many images I have not put a fair bit of work into that work though...
So back to my original conundrum. Is it art? Is the original?
I have no idea, but I like it.
*by graffiti art I am separating skilled painters who wish to express themselves from vandals who just want to mark their territory.
PS. The more I look at the original graffiti, the more I think it is just a recording of a good piece of artwork, but I still think the line linking original art and copied art is quite interesting.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment