Hot Rod Biology

last Thurs:

I always thought it was him agonizing over why that work seemed to be so much more interesting to him than what his peers were doing. It starts to become patronizing when it is used as a style...but then if someone elseís work throws light on your own and seems to lead a way forward...is it patronizing to see the decals on revheads cars and like them, and even want to emulate them?

re. ethics and appropriation:

I think a huge thing that has happened in the last few years is the locking down of copyright laws and the ability for corporations, artists, individuals to take legal action.

Recently a guy in the UK exhibited some prints using the English Queens face, they were a blow-up of the stamp and a protest to the Iraq war - Royal Mail stepped in, threatened legal and the exhibition closed down...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,970219,00.html

I think the full ramifications of copyright law are yet to be fully seen - the law definitely protects/empowers the gov't/corp sphere more than the individual.

Could Jamie Read or Saville do the same work now? What does this mean for the future of appropriation as a "new idea" generator?

Thatís an interesting post that Neal has put up, recently, an artist in europe (I will find the link) has been sued by a photographer for using a photograph taken during a public protest as the subject for a painting. One of the interesting things that has come out of this is that people have questioned how much can copyright encrouch on public reporting.

Does it also depend on what Kalman's intentions were? My understanding of M&Co's use of vernacular was also to highlight (maybe satirise?) the "overly sophisticated, indeed superficially decorative trends underscoring American graphic communications" (S.Heller) at the time. Kalman believed that studying vernacular art provided a method for breaking through some of the slick design cliches that hampered interesting conversation and constricted humour.