I like that installation ! I did a Walmart picture collage for my art class a few years ago but nobody got the project - oh well.
Doug Funny, Patty Mayonnaise, Skeeter...the Beats - Killer Tofu
Beavis and Butthead - Todd - Winger - Stuart
I mean we're talking some of the greatest animation shows in the history of life.
Proud to have two of his pieces.
Here's the ultimate skinny...
The artists involved had every right to call the cat on appropriating their work.
However they created a problem for themselves, I suspect, by not placing any (C) notice or ID on the paintings. Big surprise, since to do so might open them up to graffiti prosecution.
Such notices are the 1st step in protecting one's creations b/c while (C) is inherent in the work itself, one must be active in self-protection---there's no (C) police out there working on anyone's behalf & if you don't take steps to cite yer role as a creator you can't blame anyone for not crediting you.
That's why even major corps like Xeorox & Kleenex regularly sent out notices to those who may use their [TM} brand names as generic terms.
It's legit to take pix of public displays but it's not legit to then try marketing those without either getting permission or crediting the creator(s)...which takes us back to the 1st point: if there's no disignation of (C) or of even who made the work, how ya gonna get credit ?
This is increasingly vital in our age of massive online postings & exchanges.
While (C) terms have been extended greatly in recent yrs (Mark Twain's estate would be raking it in if theses laws were in place a century ago !) --- the intended beneficiaries are not really ythe artists but corporations that may come ot control the works, e.g., Disney maintaining near eternal control over anything having to do with Mickey Mouse.
Bottom line: y' gotta monitor uses & guard yer work on yer own.
I get it, everybody is trying to make a buck and needs credit where credit is due. I haven't seen the any of the photos that this this fake-ass overpriced BOHO bullshit place put in their building but I think this whole outrage stuff is stupid. Let me know if I have the story straight here; some guy took a bunch of pictures of publicly displayed murals around town and did some sort of photo collage and sold prints to the BOHO place and was also trying to sell prints on instagram? So now everybody is angry that the artists aren't being compensated for the appropriation of their work? If some dude takes a photo of a public wall then I would think that its his photo and he can do what he wants with it. If you took a picture of that "awesome" new ferris wheel downtown and sold prints of it would you have to track down the people that own it and give them a cut? where do we draw the line? I'm tired of hearing about everyone's causes and issues. #keepittoyourself
@xcnuck there's a lot of pieces that are used in his collage, but the nearly all of it comes from either Living Walls murals or Cabbagetown Wallkeeper murals which are completely legal and done with all the proper permits and approvals neccessary. There are two elements of the piece where I can recognize the artist, but not the location so I couldn't tell you about their permission, but none of these images are tags. The elements of the collage were created by professional Atlanta artists.
do these street artists have permission to paint on the walls that they paint on? more specifically, were the pieces displayed in Kaase's collage originally painted with permission? if the answer is "no", or even "some of it", then I don't think Kaase is at fault whatsoever. Why should he have to ask for permission to display the collage publicly if it is composed work that was originally performed without permission?
Know that I'm rereading this, I'm realizing that the author has no idea what murals were used or where. There isn't a singular wall that Mr. Kaase took a photo of, but a mashup of many in the cabbagetown and EAV areas. If this is an article about correctly appropriating work to someone, perhaps you'd like to credit Travis Smith for using some of his work in the photo for this article?
Or you know, just use it without permission.
@atlenthusiast A little background on this story...I took a tour of BOHO4W with my mom a few weeks back and noticed the photo mural in the yoga room and was immediately interested in knowing how this wall came to be. I started texting and calling anyone who's work I could identify in the mashup and soon came to discover that no one knew of either BOHO4W or the fact that their work was being used. This pissed me off, so i fired a tweet out at BOHO asking about the murals origins and that was that until a few folks on twitter saw my tweet to BOHO and started doing a bit of their own investigation eventually finding Mr. Kaase's instagram and commenting so much that he eventually deleted his account (after several name changes). TO BE CLEAR Mr. Kaase WAS attempting to sell prints of this work despite what he claims otherwise.
My goal in this wasn't to self-police this guy, but instead get to the bottom of how this photo mural ended up on the wall by contacting BOHO. It really bothered me really to see that this apartment complex that bills itself as artsy and community oriented wouldn't pay one or any of the local artists pictured to paint a mural but instead use a shitty photoshopped collage of multiple murals around town. I also wanted to make sure that the artists pictured were aware of their images being used as I would want to know if someone had used my images in their business as well. Whether or not this was legally wrong wasn't really my concern, I just wanted to highlight that this mural was done without anyone's permission and that it's not really okay for BOHO to do this.
Ultimately, I think BOHO has responded appropriately to this event, but Mr. Kaase on the other hand is apparently playing dumb to cover his ass.
The bottom line is SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL STREET ARTISTS!!
Also, in addition to Peter Ferrari, Sam Parker, Molly Rose Freeman, and Trek Matthews which the article names, the work of Erin Bassett, King Gorilla, Dax, and Interezni Kazki was used as well. There could be even more than that, but that's what I can recognize.
One more thing, I don't think the mural pictured was used by Mr. Kaase in the collage. Almost every other mural on Wylie, but I'm pretty positive it wasn't this one.
This article points toward the need for clarity around public art appropriation for Atlanta enthusiasts like myself. I often photograph our city, for fun, and I display many of these works in my home. These photographs capture architecture, parks, and city streets. If I were to display any of my photographs publicly, would the Atlanta art community come banging down my door yelling accusations of appropriation?
Should the architects of the Fox Theater - a publicly accessible architectural work, and personal favorite of mine - seek compensation for the photographs and artistic renderings of its exterior? How about Chicago's famous "Cloud Gate," affectionately known as the "Bean" and arguably one of the most photographed sites in the city? My point is this: Where do we draw the line?
Freeman says it best when she asserts that this is a "legal gray area." Indeed it is, as a cursory Google search of intellectual property regulation sheds light on the legal quagmire that currently exists.
Perhaps it was ethically questionable to display an artistic rendering of the murals in a privately-owned space without attributing the individual components to their original creators. However, it seems (based solely upon the statements in this article) that there was no intent to profit from the work, which leads me to believe that Kaase's rendering was a sincere - albeit misguided - expression of appreciation for our unique Atlanta neighborhoods.
Regardless, this instance has initiated dialogue, which will hopefully shed light on the need for clarity around the protection of art in public spaces and lead to increased legitimacy of public art, as a whole.
Seems to me that the Artists missed an opportunity here.
Instead of focusing on attempting to "hurt" the guy by what can only be characterized as juvenile cyber bullying, the could have requested attribution and potentially some compensation from the development. This would have at least given their work more exposure.
Were other artists contacted as well? He "appropriated" a lot of artists' work. Also, he straight up lied - "I've never had to even think of the legal ramifications or the ethical grounds of reproduction because I've never sold it." -> I think everyone who saw the prints FOR SALE on his now-deleted Instagram can vouch against that statement.
This is just a shoddy defense that's sugar-coated as an apology in order to save his own face. The artists are still not getting proper credit.
Regardless of this guy's intentions, I was impressed with the quick and respectful manner in which BOHO4W handled the situation.
"I've never had to think about copyright law or anything like that" Never had to or never bothered to?
If Kaase really hasn't sold his "art" before, why did his (now deleted...) Insta have prints for sale? While he may not have known better, lying won't help him feel like a good person. So sad.
I dislike that this story was forwarded to CL by concerned art fans and all of them are being portrayed as hateful trolls. This issue was brought to light by some fairly reasonable people and not everyone was on the attack.
I understand giving the "culprit" (so to speak) the benefit of the doubt in this article, but it feels very much like a defense piece.
The explanation of the legal rules on public art is nice though, and appreciated.
Little harsh, in'it?
Oh that's right...I DID say enjoy yourself.
Go to hell Kombo!
"In response to Oydave's comment, "Look at the two pieces. Is the second a rip-off of the first?" The answer is no. the second one was made 2 YEARS earlier than the first, how could it be a rip off of the first?"
Ever since I was in kindergarten, the first is on the left and the second is on the right. Reread and reorient yourself.
An artist can always sue someone for this kind of thing but if you can't show actual financial harm, I don't know how far you'll get. Another choice is to raise hell on the interwebs. That shit never goes away and you can hound someone til the end of time!
It's a shame in this case, though. Maybe it's just because I know the alleged offender but, to me, the two works are so strikingly different, I can't work up any juice on this. If there was a face in the second piece...that's on the right, dude...then it would be outrageous. I don't see the paragraph analogy as legit. Visual art and literature are such different animals that you can't really compare elements like that. Of course, a lot of people feel differently so enjoy your outrage.
Tons of Atlanta artists use colorful geometric shapes. But to copy the exact colors, the exact pattern the shapes are laid out in, the same spacial distribution and size of the shapes, the same inward curve at the top center. This is NOT "referencing" or an "homage" to another artist. When taking inspiration from another artist, you have to at least change the elements IN SOME WAY, that makes it a NEW piece, otherwise its just an exact copy of something. Like taking a paragraph out of another article, and inserting it in the middle of your own article, signed with your name.. I don't see how it could be any more obvious.
In response to Oydave's comment, "Look at the two pieces. Is the second a rip-off of the first?" The answer is no. the second one was made 2 YEARS earlier than the first, how could it be a rip off of the first?
Creative Loafing Atlanta
Powered by Foundation