David's Project 365

[davidc]

No it's just the exposure ended before that train passed under the bridge.

[davidc]

London is superb for this kind of stuff . Although I know a lot of people cry out that taking photos of this kind of thing is somehow "stealing" the original artists work I think that's rubbish - reminds me of a club meeting where someone was marked down for taking a photo of a statue they hadn't sculpted themselves. These works are so often lost in such a short space of time - buildings are knocked down, random "junk" grafitti is sprayed on top or other artists decide to reuse the space.

It'd be a shame for the art to disappear without a trace so I like taking photos of it. Maybe I should do a project on how one wall changes week to week?

Regardless, I think it's cool



http://500px.com/photo/24036575

[davidc]

Hmm this pic might disappear soon I uploaded the wrong one.

[davidc]

Fixed now. Also doing something of a social experiment seeing if I can identify the artist via Twitter/Facebook

[davidc]

Turns out it was painted in August 2012 by street artist Jimmy C as an Olympics tribute to Usain Bolt.

<3 the internet

[Mike Farley]

London is superb for this kind of stuff . Although I know a lot of people cry out that taking photos of this kind of thing is somehow "stealing" the original artists work I think that's rubbish - reminds me of a club meeting where someone was marked down for taking a photo of a statue they hadn't sculpted themselves. These works are so often lost in such a short space of time - buildings are knocked down, random "junk" grafitti is sprayed on top or other artists decide to reuse the space.

It'd be a shame for the art to disappear without a trace so I like taking photos of it. Maybe I should do a project on how one wall changes week to week?

Regardless, I think it's cool

I have mixed views about photographing any form of art, although I certainly agree that recording something as ephemeral as graffiti does preserve it and this shot is certainly a worthy contender. The words I would use in this context are borrow and share, as the creator definitely intended their work to be seen. The problem for me is that often the impact is in the artwork and there is an imbalance between the contributions of the original artist and the photographer.

I remember a few years ago someone getting the top mark in an internal club competition with a stunning image, which no one could quite work out what it was. It turned out to be a modern art installation photographed in a museum. While the person who took it had undoubtedly demonstrated some skill in taking the picture, it is certain that its score owed very little to that. It was essentially a record shot, but not marked as such.

It is difficult to know where the boundaries lie with this, since in the main photographers record what is there rather than create it. There is the skill in knowing what will make a good image and framing it in such a way that will give it appeal. With some genres of photography such as studio work or still life, for example, there is a greater degree of input. We also have image editing applications such as Photoshop, which allow images to be made which have never existed in real life, so in its higher forms photography is definitely a creative art.

I applaud you for taking and showing us this image especially since you acknowledged that it raises some questions which some find uncomfortable. Whether and how to make use of someone else's creativity is a dilemma we have all faced at some point.

[Mike Farley]

Turns out it was painted in August 2012 by street artist Jimmy C as an Olympics tribute to Usain Bolt.

Kudos to Jimmy C. Kudos to you for the doing the research.

[davidc]

Lots of interesting points raised there, will need to think of a cohesive reply I'm finding it possible to take multiple sides on the issue!

[Mike Farley]

I'm finding it possible to take multiple sides on the issue!

That's because there is no right or wrong answer and often it will depend on circumstances.

[davidc]

I'm finding it possible to take multiple sides on the issue!

That's because there is no right or wrong answer and often it will depend on circumstances.

I'm not so sure on this specific point. If a photographer takes a shot of someone else's work and then passes it off as their own that's unethical and almost certainly illegal. Definitely wrong

Had a chance to think about the rest of the issue overnight and I think I've come to some conclusions!

I think the vast majority of cases when photos are taken of other art forms people seeing something that appeals to them and want to capture that moment - this being the essence of photography really. Does it REALLY make any difference if you take a shot of something sculpted by a person or something sculpted by nature? I don't think so, not so long as your intention and reason for taking the shot is correct.

If I'm being honest I must admit that I find most sculpture/painting etc. shots tend to look like holiday snaps and it's rare I see one that I look at and like - bad photography certainly, but not "wrong".

The reason I took the shot I did was that it's grafitti, but it's good quality, adds character to the neighbourhood and now we've researched it's background, it#s got an interesting back story to boot. Unlike the "art" paraded around places like the Tate Modern, street art like this is all too often fleeting and when painted over it's lost forever. Is my shot brilliant? No, not spectacular, merely adequate to correctly record the scene, but it's a striking piece of art and I thought it'd translate well into a striking photo that will likely last longer than the art itself. Which in my book is "right"

The imbalance between artwork and photographer is a good point. Generally I agree it tends to be skewed to the artist and that the photographer is simply the medium to bring this to a wider audience. Looking at your example above though, about a shot of modern art that was unrecognisable as to what it is, for me that sounds more like of the photographer taking inspiration from the art and injecting their own input - surely if you cannot identify what the original item is yet it's a pleasing image, the photographer has done a fine job in presenting the subject as they want you to see it? So I'd possibly argue in that specific case the score indeed DOES owe a lot to how the photographer saw, took and presented it. Given the original item was unrecognisable was it perhaps more of an abstract than a record shot?

So in a nutshell, I'd suggest the boundary line between what's acceptable and what's not be very firmly placed at deliberate attempt to "steal" credit for the original artwork. Whether or not it's a good photograph is an entirely different question IMO.