• Artist sells screenshots of other people’s Instagram photos for $90,000
    68 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Bradyns;47883319]This is hardly "fair use". I can see the "artist" getting a few phone calls regarding copyright infringement.[/QUOTE] Its all fair use per instagram's policies which mirror Facebook's.
[QUOTE=Jarokwa;47884235]art nowadays is a fucking joke[/QUOTE] It sure is doing its job by invoking a reaction from you
I always wonder with 'art' exhibits like these, does the artist feel some sense of accomplishment?
[QUOTE=Jarokwa;47884235]art nowadays is a fucking joke[/QUOTE] the ignorance of this post is on par with those 13 year olds who think all music nowadays is Justin Bieber and Lil Wayne and think it's cool that they listen to Pink Floyd and The Beatles. basically, you're too lazy to explore contemporary art.
[QUOTE=CobaltCrysis;47884987]It sure is doing its job by invoking a reaction from you[/QUOTE] Ha ha, it was art's plan all along!
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;47883142][IMG]http://www.highsnobiety.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/12/files/2015/06/11-864x576.jpg[/IMG] [URL]http://fox8.com/2015/05/28/artist-sells-screenshots-of-other-peoples-instagram-photos-for-90000/[/URL] What do you guys think?[/QUOTE] I think most modern art is absolute horseshit that is a very thinly veiled attempt at making money.
[QUOTE=Jarokwa;47884235]art nowadays is a fucking joke[/QUOTE] what's with these reactionary comments people have do you truly believe art is a fucking joke based on this one news article or a couple dozen more unorthodox or terrible exhibits in between hundreds of thousands of even millions of artists out there? and you make this post using a hotline miami fanart avatar, like.. whaaat?
[QUOTE=Jarokwa;47884235]art nowadays is a fucking joke[/QUOTE] what's changed in your weekly museum and art gallery visits in the past decade? or could it be you're just talking out of your ass and assuming every modern artist is as strange and eccentric as the dozen or so you've seen on the headlines? i mean that'd just be silly, wouldn't it
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;47885570]what's with these reactionary comments people have do you truly believe art is a fucking joke based on this one news article or a couple dozen more unorthodox or terrible exhibits in between hundreds of thousands of even millions of artists out there? and you make this post using a hotline miami fanart avatar, like.. whaaat?[/QUOTE] Every Facepunch thread tangentially related to art has to have people complain about 'art these days.'
I remember that illustrators on FB were pissed about this.
[QUOTE=Croix;47883962]But the quality of art is completely subjective[/QUOTE] Wellllll, not quite. It certainly can be [I]highly[/I] subjective, but when you start looking at art with a more, let's say scientific point of view, you start to see what makes good art, well, good. My studies so far in graphic design have really opened my eyes to this. I always knew before hand, but now I can finally explain what makes good art good. Keep in mind that our minds and eyes can be manipulated, and certain techniques and simple color combinations can influence what we make of something and produce an engaging result. Good art, in a scientific pov, will engage minds and achieve a certain, possibly intended result. Regardless of subjective feelings even. Take this rather simple piece for example: [IMG]http://cbsboston.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/bluegreenyelloworangered-ellsworthkelly.jpg?w=420&h=285[/IMG] It's just a sideways trapezoid essentially. But because it includes a good use of primary and secondary colors, we see a bit more than a one dimensional shape. The order of the colors is partly responsible for this. It wouldn't flow the same with the red or blue somewhere in the middle for example. Especially from this angle: [IMG]http://www.wgbh.org/imageassets/linde2_wing_mfa_large.jpg[/IMG] Our eyes follow the color and tell us there is 3 dimensional perspective here, as if there is depth or even movement. Same goes for that funky block sculpture or whatever exactly that is. Another example is the Mcdonald's logo. No matter how much you hate them (or love them), in part thanks to advertising, you can never forget them. But let's focus on the logo: [thumb]http://positivelypositive.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Plain-McDonalds-Logo.jpg[/thumb] The red and yellow color scheme, believe it or not, stimulates hunger, to a certain degree. Still, more than we realize. That effect is intended, and is very effective. Thus, scientifically, this art is "good". Now how about something a bit more "artistic": [thumb]http://www.ignant.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/zoomorphix01.jpg[/thumb] I don't even like this piece. It's some ugly hairy old dude. But I can't deny the incredible attention to detail. The way we look at it fully knowing it is a drawing, and yet still perceiving it as something real is what makes it so great. Our eyes are fooled, and all the little lines and shading come together to form a very realistic portrait. That is why we think of it as good. It's still nothing more than some charcoal strategically spread on canvas, but the form we perceive is where the art is.
[QUOTE=Rapscallion92;47885531]I think most modern art is absolute horseshit that is a very thinly veiled attempt at making money.[/QUOTE] This isn't art though, this is theft
People dissing modern art as not art are funny. Not liking such style is one thing, saying it's not art is completely another. Get your head out of your ignorance box and open up a little.
[QUOTE=NO ONE;47883642]That arguement is similar to how quite a lot of things can come across as food, doesn't mean it's any good. I think people get a bit more hung up on this fact than they need to be. Great art will still be great, people just unfortunately appreciate it differently (and less) these days.[/QUOTE] Food use to be something that was good to eat Now literally anything can be food This post is food.
[QUOTE=Jarokwa;47884235]art nowadays is a fucking joke[/QUOTE] Hardly. Just over-saturated since the internet gives everyone a platform where as back in the day you had to prove yourself before any of your shit even got spread around, or you spent the better half of you life chiseling the same piece of marble.. Now someone with a bunch of deviantart followers can pass off any old shit and people will call it great art. [editline]5th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=itisjuly;47886333]People dissing modern art as not art are funny. Not liking such style is one thing, saying it's not art is completely another. Get your head out of your ignorance box and open up a little.[/QUOTE] I think its because people tend to lump "Modern Art" in with "Retarded performance art that is done in modern times" and think instantly of the chick shoving chef boyardee up her pussy for art.
i hate facepunch on this topic. Always posting the most ridiculous news about art, making it seem like its all shit and stupid people. Get to know what art means and has meant to human race, people.
[QUOTE=Jarokwa;47884235]art nowadays is a fucking joke[/QUOTE] okay grandpa
They had shitty art back throughout history, it's just that no one remembers the shitty ones.
i HAT£E ART!
Did nobody catch the part where Instagram's terms of service explicitly say that any content you upload to the service is available for use by anybody else at no charge? There's already been a case where someone sued over stolen instagram pictures, and they lost - because they explicitly agreed to Instagram's terms of service. This is just making light of how retarded Instagram's TOS is. Seems pretty effective to show that you can literally just take someone else's art and sell it for thousands of dollars. Facepunch regularly derides art that doesn't have a "purpose" or a "meaning" or it's "just splatters on a canvas a baby elephant with downs could make that," and now that something sort of interesting that has an obvious, explicit meaning and purpose is stupid pretentious modern art stealing from everyone else. It's a protest of Instagram's shitty terms of service. The people suing will lose their case because they agreed to release their pictures on a platform that already told them that by doing so, they're accepting the right of others to copy it.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;47888202]Did nobody catch the part where Instagram's terms of service explicitly say that any content you upload to the service is available for use by anybody else at no charge? [B]There's already been a case where someone sued over stolen instagram pictures, and they lost - because they explicitly agreed to Instagram's terms of service.[/B] This is just making light of how retarded Instagram's TOS is. Seems pretty effective to show that you can literally just take someone else's art and sell it for thousands of dollars. Facepunch regularly derides art that doesn't have a "purpose" or a "meaning" or it's "just splatters on a canvas a baby elephant with downs could make that," and now that something sort of interesting that has an obvious, explicit meaning and purpose is stupid pretentious modern art stealing from everyone else. It's a protest of Instagram's shitty terms of service. The people suing will lose their case because they agreed to release their pictures on a platform that already told them that by doing so, they're accepting the right of others to copy it.[/QUOTE] IIRC Terms of service aren't typically legally binding, so I am unsure about that. Edit: Is this what you meant: [url]https://gigaom.com/2013/07/16/judge-tosses-instagram-lawsuit-over-terms-of-service/[/url] ? To me sounds like the confusion is that instagram isn't claiming copyright or basically making your images public domain, because they can't, but just that they'll be used for advertising purposes.
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;47893542]People keep saying this like it actually matters whether some people on the internet considers something is worth the label of art as if culture itself depends on it.[/QUOTE] Yes?
[QUOTE=itisjuly;47884940]Why? Rich people buying expensive shit is nothing new. They can afford it, why does it make them dumb?[/QUOTE] Because it's not even the guy's own art so you could just get someone else to make the same prints for way less than 90k$. He's basically taking something that's publicly available in unlimited quantities and selling it at an absurdly inflated price. If you don't care that you're paying dozens of time more than what it should cost you're not being very wise with your money. [editline]7th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Jarokwa;47897873]I didn't realize I was generalizing like that when I made the post. I don't believe all art is a fucking joke, there are tons of talented artists whose work I respect, the post I made was directed at this story and others like it, I know people say ''everything is art'' but these kinda things will always be stupid to me and I don't really mind if that makes me ''ignorant''[/QUOTE] Everything can be art but being art doesn't automatically means it's good. Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 is art, but it's still shit.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;47898039]Because it's not even the guy's own art so you could just get someone else to make the same prints for way less than 90k$. He's basically taking something that's publicly available in unlimited quantities and selling it at an absurdly inflated price. If you don't care that you're paying dozens of time more than what it should cost you're not being very wise with your money. [/QUOTE] I don't think you know what art is about. It's more than just something that looks pretty. Good art has an idea and a story behind it. The fact that the artist is doing this to many is very intriguing and worth the money.
richard prince doing what hes been doing for a while now. everybody go home. [quote]While the appropriation artist isn't everyone's cup of tea (see Paddy Johnson On Why Richard Prince Sucks, Again and Johnson's original takedown Richard Prince Sucks), he's certainly a recognizable art world figure who is driving conversations about art, originality, and ownership in the digital age. However, as the artist admitted to Interview, "you know, I'm not an intellectual, I'm not an art historian, I'm not a genius."[/quote] [editline]7th June 2015[/editline] also see: [url]http://www.vulture.com/2015/05/did-richard-prince-steal-from-instagram.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Jarokwa;47884235]art nowadays is a fucking joke[/QUOTE] lmao
I'll admit, the Instagram image viewer looks nice on those panels, but I don't see the $90,000 value.
[QUOTE=NightmareX91;47899253]I'll admit, the Instagram image viewer looks nice on those panels, but I don't see the $90,000 value.[/QUOTE] youre looking at the valuation in a vacuum
[QUOTE=Bradyns;47883319]This is hardly "fair use". I can see the "artist" getting a few phone calls regarding copyright infringement.[/QUOTE] yeah because we are all obviously copyrighted
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;47893542]People keep saying this like it actually matters whether some people on the internet considers something is worth the label of art as if culture itself depends on it.[/QUOTE] You can't dislike modern art or the practices associated with it. You're just edgy or jealous if you claim otherwise.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.