Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Wednesday, April 06, 2022
Andy Warhol’s Back in Court, Reminding Us That Creation Is Often Reinvention
Pittsburgh Magazine: Andy Warhol has, as you may know, been dead for 35 years. (If you’d like to confirm this fact, there’s a 24-hour livestream of his grave; it’s typically adorned with Campbell’s Soup cans.) Nevertheless, the iconic artist is still managing to cause controversy.
4 comments:
John Alexander Farrell
said...
I clicked on this article to read an update on Lynn Goldsmith’s claim on Andy Warhol. It seems to be that Warhol’s lawyers have taken the motto “creation is often reinvention.” And I mean, this idea isn’t new. I recall a professor of mine saying “everything is a remix of something already done.” Now, I don’t personally fully agree with this statement. I understand the thought process behind it but am skeptical to wholeheartedly agree for I believe innovation (specifically in regards to technology) is seriously changing the game. That being said, at the time Warhol produced his paintings, this was not necessarily the case. But, just like the article states, “art needs freedom to thrive” and there’s definitely something weird about Lynn Goldsmith bringing this up now. And no, I don’t pretend to know how the Supreme Court will rule on the matter, in large part because I know nothing about copyright laws, but I definitely think there is an argument to be made regarding the nature of Warhol’s work as a whole,
This article stood out to me because hearing that Andy Warhol is on trial, when he has been dead for 35 years, was quite absurd. Being an art student in Pittsburgh, it feels almost responsible to have visited the Andy Warhol museum. Even there, there has been mention of where Andy Warhol has gotten his inspiration, and I completely agree that art is reinvention. Like Alexander, I also agree that it is quite odd that Lynn Goldsmith is bringing up this copyright claim now. It also rubs me the wrong way that this is being taken all the way up to the supreme court. I believe that there are much more pressing and important cases that the supreme court should be spending their time on. Anyways, personally, I think that Lynn Goldsmith should not be reacting at this scale about her copyright claim. Very easily could Andy Warhol have had the same artistic ideas as her, and he may have just taken inspiration from her too. From my opinion, I don't believe that Warhol's art replicates Goldsmith's to the point of plagiarism infringement.
often-reinvention/ Okay for starters: that twenty four hour live stream of Andy Warhol’s grave introduced at the start of the article was really strange. It is not clarified why it is a thing, but either way it makes for a somewhat unsettling art piece to consider. Anyways, this article seems to be mostly focused on defending the “proud Pittsburgh tradition” of creating art through inspiration of other previous creative work, something I do not necessarily agree with. I find that although very common and valid, art is not solely limited to the recreation of someone else’s ideas. Andy Warhol’s work is definitely not “virgin” or entirely brand new material, but still retains the core fundamentals of art. And although the article does not really elaborate on what the details regarding the Supreme Court Case of Andy Warhol’s Prince portraits are, I am interested in seeing what the court ends up ruling.
I know that this article has to do with art and copyright laws which is an extremely important topic, although I truly went down a rabbit hole after reading the first paragraph of this article. I can’t believe that Andy Warhol’s grave has a 24 hour live stream available for the public to see. Apparently the livestream has been up for nearly 10 years now and the purpose is for him to be “plugged in” to the world even after death. I’m not sure I truly understand the reasoning or the intended audience. This whole commemorative project makes me wonder are there daily viewers of the livestream and what have people caught on camera? This is also the catalyst for my plan to travel 12 miles outside of bethel park to go to his grave. I guess I would consider this a really interesting piece of art - maybe even performance art.
4 comments:
I clicked on this article to read an update on Lynn Goldsmith’s claim on Andy Warhol. It seems to be that Warhol’s lawyers have taken the motto “creation is often reinvention.” And I mean, this idea isn’t new. I recall a professor of mine saying “everything is a remix of something already done.” Now, I don’t personally fully agree with this statement. I understand the thought process behind it but am skeptical to wholeheartedly agree for I believe innovation (specifically in regards to technology) is seriously changing the game. That being said, at the time Warhol produced his paintings, this was not necessarily the case. But, just like the article states, “art needs freedom to thrive” and there’s definitely something weird about Lynn Goldsmith bringing this up now. And no, I don’t pretend to know how the Supreme Court will rule on the matter, in large part because I know nothing about copyright laws, but I definitely think there is an argument to be made regarding the nature of Warhol’s work as a whole,
This article stood out to me because hearing that Andy Warhol is on trial, when he has been dead for 35 years, was quite absurd. Being an art student in Pittsburgh, it feels almost responsible to have visited the Andy Warhol museum. Even there, there has been mention of where Andy Warhol has gotten his inspiration, and I completely agree that art is reinvention. Like Alexander, I also agree that it is quite odd that Lynn Goldsmith is bringing up this copyright claim now. It also rubs me the wrong way that this is being taken all the way up to the supreme court. I believe that there are much more pressing and important cases that the supreme court should be spending their time on. Anyways, personally, I think that Lynn Goldsmith should not be reacting at this scale about her copyright claim. Very easily could Andy Warhol have had the same artistic ideas as her, and he may have just taken inspiration from her too. From my opinion, I don't believe that Warhol's art replicates Goldsmith's to the point of plagiarism infringement.
often-reinvention/
Okay for starters: that twenty four hour live stream of Andy Warhol’s grave introduced at the start of the article was really strange. It is not clarified why it is a thing, but either way it makes for a somewhat unsettling art piece to consider. Anyways, this article seems to be mostly focused on defending the “proud Pittsburgh tradition” of creating art through inspiration of other previous creative work, something I do not necessarily agree with. I find that although very common and valid, art is not solely limited to the recreation of someone else’s ideas. Andy Warhol’s work is definitely not “virgin” or entirely brand new material, but still retains the core fundamentals of art. And although the article does not really elaborate on what the details regarding the Supreme Court Case of Andy Warhol’s Prince portraits are, I am interested in seeing what the court ends up ruling.
I know that this article has to do with art and copyright laws which is an extremely important topic, although I truly went down a rabbit hole after reading the first paragraph of this article. I can’t believe that Andy Warhol’s grave has a 24 hour live stream available for the public to see. Apparently the livestream has been up for nearly 10 years now and the purpose is for him to be “plugged in” to the world even after death. I’m not sure I truly understand the reasoning or the intended audience. This whole commemorative project makes me wonder are there daily viewers of the livestream and what have people caught on camera? This is also the catalyst for my plan to travel 12 miles outside of bethel park to go to his grave. I guess I would consider this a really interesting piece of art - maybe even performance art.
Post a Comment