We DO keep coming back to this, do we?
Perhaps I have been desensitized to modern creations, but many artists have used photos as a base for their art ... or been inspired by a photo ... or took a photo and embellished it in some way.
Here ya go. Recognize this artist?
http://webexhibits.org/colorart/marilyns.htmlIt doesn't make Warhol a lesser artist, or a non-artist. Some think his work is art, some think it garbage. I don't recall Warhol claiming it wasn't his art, or acting the least bit ashamed about it. Perhaps someone here has? I could be wrong.
In the music world? Oh, please. Rolling Stone once called The Beatles "the greatest borrowers in the world", and though a Beatlefreak myself, I acknowledge it. Sure they were! They borrowed from Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, even Elvis. Sgt. Pepper was inspired by the Beach Boys'
Smile. The song
Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite was taken almost word for word from an old circus poster. Lennon admitted it. But I don't recall any of them being ashamed or claiming,"Oh, we shouldn't claim this is our song!"
So many artists sample music now even more blatantly that I would be writing a book if I listed them. So I won't go into that.
Working off a picture, working off a riff ... it's really not uncommon in the arts. I'm surprised that anyone IS surprised. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it exists.
I've been seeing a rash of free-site artist or site-owner scrutiny that concerns me. It's not the mere mention of the alleged transgression that can be problematic ... it is what it is, I guess, and it's silly to hide it ... it's that much of this scrutiny winds up evolving ... can we call it evolving? ... into speculation and a "boil that dust speck" mentality. Should not most of our venom be reserved for sites who blatantly steal free-site ideas and sell these bastardized creations? Isn't this what this board is about? Shouldn't we pick our battles and targets just a bit more carefully?
Then again, I could be mistaken. Perhaps someone can enlighten me if I am.