Another Work Of Art

[David Kuchta]

Hi Friends & Members of Slovak-world.
The following is about art. Could be Slovak art.
Since I am only a half-member of S/W, I do hate to think that I may have
been forgotten...so soon? Life is like a membership...so short!
ENJOY

As I get more involved with the art world, I am seeing and hearing many
interesting stories. Some good, some a little controversial.
My wife is the artist in the family, I'm only the observer. Sometimes the
art critic.
Artists are different, no question about that! Maybe because they are
creators. Just like God creates mountains, oceans, lakes and rivers;
artists also create, but there is a difference.
The difference is that artists duplicate or copy all things that are done
by the original creator or at times, artists duplicate or copy things that
were done by other people, such as man made structures or objects.
For an artist own pleasure they can copy, duplicate or whatever, anyone's
art work, for their own personal use or enjoyment, as long as they don't
try to sell or claim that it's their own original work.
Artists can hang their art work on the walls and tell everyone that their
pictures are their own creations, done by them. I guess we can call this a
half truth. The creation at times, may have been someone else's work from
the beginning, but got copied.
The artist isn't lying. They drew or sketched the outlines and then painted
in the colors. Any artist can take their paintings and display them in
public buildings, art galleries or just regular art shows; with one
exception; If the art work is to be jurrered, then it can't be copied or
duplicated from any other art work regardless if its on canvas, postcard,
a picture of the art work in a magazine or for that matter, a picture of
art in a newspaper. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it does get a little mind
boggling.
So no matter how great this painting may be, it can be eliminated from
competition. Why? Because it's not original.
Not being an artist, I tried to unravel this complicated set of rules or
regulations set up by the art world.
It's no wonder that some famous artists commit suicide or cut off an ear.
The art world can be very frustrating at times.
What does all this mean? It means that to have a bona-fide creation, it has
to be an original. If God created it; no problem. If man built it, you can
take a photograph of it and duplicate it on canvas; once again no problem.
But for man built structures, you better have a personal photograph of this
structure to prove that this art work that you created is truly original
and your own.
Now if you go on site to paint a picture of a building or structure, this
is perfectly acceptable ; but you better have a photograph of the building
or structure at the very angle you painted it on canvas or otherwise you
are treading on thin ice.
If the building or structure is famous you can bet the ranch that someone
else has painted it. Case in point; Asa Packer Mansion, certain sea scapes
with lights houses. I think you get the point!
The hardest point of taking the photographs is that every photographer
looks for the best shot, the best angle, the best lighting. So every
picture is almost identical to each and other. This does get confusing at
times.
My wife has a large painting of a wolf and a white tiger. She undoubtedly
took these images from pictures in a magazine or where ever. Now in all
honesty; these pictures can't be accepted in a jurrered art show, because
they aren't originals, taken from true life observations with photographs
as proof.
At this point we know that this is an impossibility. Even if she went up
to Alaska and ventures way back in the boonies, it isn't all that great of
a possibility that she will get some wolf to pose in such a position to let
her get a picture to paint.
How about a white tiger? These are rare in the wild. She could go to a
zoo. This can get a little ridiculous at times.
Just what is wrong with a copy? As long as the artist signs their
creations with their name and not the original painters name. What's wrong
with some painter taking a picture of a famous painting, done by the
masters and painting it exactly as the original.
As long as you aren't trying to sell or have it jurored as an original,
who does it hurt. It proves that you could paint just as well as the
masters themselves. In fact, all the famous paintings done down through the
years by the great painters; Who says that they didn't copy it from someone
else? Think about it!
OK! I know I'm wrong. Original has to be original, but we all have to
admit that it does get out of hand.
Most "Starving Artists," don't have the time or money to go traveling
around the country, or the world for that matter, getting original
photographs of certain scenes that they would like to paint.
Most artists must rely on photographs taken by other people, and inserted
into magazines. But we all know that this is a touchy situation. It's
against all the rules, regulations, and principles of the Jurors of
America, for anyone to copy someone else's work.
How do you prove originality? Obviously its by attaching a photograph
taken by you, and pinned to your canvas that is on display. Someone else
could have taken the photograph and had given it to you. This is perfectly
all right but be sure it isn't a photograph of a painting. Some artists
also have the idea that changing a picture a little bit, makes it an
original. Not so. Maybe you might get away with it, maybe you won't, but
don't complain if your art work is eliminated from competition. .
At times, nature isn't perfect. Some scene might be boring. They may need
some kind of improvement. You are the creature, but changing a picture
might be breaking the rules a bit.
Bottom line is that you are the creator. You are in full control of what
is being created. But that person who is jurying your creation, has the
final say. People who juror art shows are the middle man between God the
creator and man/women the artist.
If the jurors think your picture is a copy or reproduction, you are
eliminated from competition. Some jurors will also eliminate all of your
art work at a show, because of one painting. This, I do think is totally
wrong.
I would imagine that many artists aren't exactly pleased or too happy at
times with the selections of first and second place winners at some art
shows. We do have to remember that "Beauty (ART) is in the eyes of the
beholder. Jurors look at art through a totally different set of eyes.
Sometimes they aren't looking for something great or well done, but rather
something different.
Difference might make you the winner at the next art show. But if your
picture doesn't look too great, step back a couple of feet. At that
distance, every picture looks likes winners. At 10 feet, there are no losers!