A few photos of the artists and paintings in Downtown Lake Worth.
From this year’s Nude Nite event in Tampa, aerialist Suzanne Curry performs for the attendees.
While vacationing in Madeira Beach, FL, I came across the Lake Eerie College Storm swim team doing calisthenics on the beach.
As digital artists we are faced with the questions and concerns of digital copyright every single time we post to the web. Visit any social site where art is commonly posted and you will find ongoing discussions ranging on everything from steps you can take to protect your work, sharing information on known violators, what you can do when you find your work has been copied, what constitutes fair use of your or other’s work, to sometimes even whether you are giving up your rights simply by posting to the site. Fortunately on many popular sites like deviantArt, Flickr, and MySpace, your rights are fully preserved (although deviantArt and Flickr both provide the option of choosing a less restrictive Creative Commons license).
It is that latter spirit, the Creative Commons notion that “Creativity and innovation rely on a rich heritage of prior intellectual endeavor”, in which I ask you to consider a story that challenges the very notions of copyright and plagiarism.
“[Copyright] is taken as a law, both in the sense of a universally recognizable moral absolute, like the law against murder, and as naturally inherent in our world, like the law of gravity. In fact, it is neither. Rather, copyright is an ongoing social negotiation, tenuously forged, endlessly revised, and imperfect in its every incarnation.” – Jonathan Lethem, “The Ecstasy of Influence” harpers.org/TheEcstasyOfInflue…, Harper’s Magazine Features
Lethem’s piece is an exploration of the vital role that “plagiarism” has had on art, and the dangers that the ever increasing stranglehold of copyright law present to creativity and culture. Much of what he provides as examples lean more toward the fair use end of the spectrum than on outright duplication, however even in that nebulous realm of cut-ups and mash-ups he examines the strangleholds that large corporations and organizations are exerting on the creative and cultural heritage which underlie nearly every aspect of modern culture. He presents the notion that all art is a gift to future art, and ultimately argues that all art is drawn from and built upon things which have come before. He does not suggest that we should give up the rights to our works, but asks us to reconsider how far those rights should really extend.</p>
I have a quote in my profile at deviantArt: “If you stop shooting beauty because it’s cliché, you will have nothing left to shoot but ugliness.” That is my response to the idea that pictures of sunsets and flowers are overdone. I had bought in to that idea for a while, and it made me question my efforts at those subjects. I almost felt guilty for posting pictures of “cliché” subjects.
The point of that statement is not to disagree with the idea that those things are overdone. There are people who believe that just because the subject is a sunset or a flower, that it is automatically a good picture. Not true. Anybody can point and click. Not everyone can compose a striking image. If that were true, the images I have on my wall here next to me – a butterfly and a frog, both by a very talented nature photographer – wouldn’t really be worth what I paid for them.
But this is much like the discussion over whether the presence of cheap digital cameras diminishes the value of the works of the dedicated photographers. Just because there are a lot of pictures of sunsets and flowers, doesn’t mean that there are a lot of good pictures of those things.
I do agree that one measure of a good photographer is the ability to take good photos of everyday things, but I don’t necessary hold that as a requirement when making the judgment. After all, there are plenty of people doing great shots of volcanoes and deep sea creatures that deserve credit.
I think the real answer is that there are two requirements for a “great” photographer. The first is technical proficiency. The second is the artistic element, the photographer’s eye. The second element is the tricky piece when trying to make statements about which subjects do or do not mark the work of a great photographer. One photographer may be technically proficient at shooting still-lifes, but outstanding at capturing candid street scenes. Another may do acceptable studio portraits, but excel at capturing the height of action at sporting events. In the end, you can only judge a photographer on their body of work, without prejudice for the subjects within.
Sorry if you are seeing this page… I had to rebuild my site, and not all content made it…