I have decided... for now.

My opinion on the matter.


A photo is sometimes the material of a good illustration.
Good illustrations don't necessarily involve photographs, but they always involve the artist being attentive to reality. (just as good litterature and everything else artistic)

Shepard saw that photo, that was property of Associated Press, since the photographer had sold it to them.
I doubt that photographer got an "appropriate" price for it.

After seeing that photo Shepard ought to have
1. gotten a photo himself, using his own equipment and by being in Obamas proximity
2. given the Associated Press some sort of compensation in order to get the rights to use the photo in his art, still caring who the actual person was that took the original photo.
3. actually have redrawn the photo or in some way been certain that Fair Use would be applied... still giving the actual photographer some kind of credit, since that is good manners.

Number 2 is the most... easy option.
I still feel that what the "artist" makes is what is the most essential to the artwork being done.
Still, whether it is a pencil, canvas, oilcolours or any tool you pay for in a shop or a photo you copy and paste into photoshop,
it is material
and it needs to be paid for.

Traditional media have material that cannot be replicated as effortless as the digital media,
but still,
I consider it material,
and whatever profits he made from his work
should have been given in some part to the originator of the photo
-becuase- Shepard chose not to take a picture himself, which is (damn it) really easy to do mostly,
-and- he chose not to just look at the photo and draw his own material by hand or in some such 'artistic' way.


Thus. He wanted the material that someone else had created,
and I do not think that material should consume a major portion of the artworks earnings,
but an -appropriate- part of the earnings.
And it should be a deal that everyone involved are satisfied with, thus stimulating the endeavours of both photographer and illustrator.


I always want to be considered an asset and a nice colleague,
never a thief or a greedy bastard.
I also never want the actual work that is called "illustrating"
to be taken lightly or considered in any way expendable.

Illustraiting and in similar ways editing pictures requires that innermost creativity,
which I do not really feel is expressed in the poster that is cuasing all the fuss.
But just becuase it isn't my cup of tea, just becuase I consider it a bit cheesy and possibly a fraudulent message, exploiting the Americans will to achieve and do 'the right thing',
just becuase... of that...
I cannot say that Shepard Fairey didn't -make- something.

And I can't really say why I am so aversed to the poster,
I love -Hope-, and I don't really mind Barack Obama in any way...
I just feel...
...
Like I in a very sad way don't want people to actually get their hopes up, that he will make a difference.
Not a difference significant enough...

Enough for what?
Well. I just don't trust him. I don't think he or any other politician in the spotlight really cares.

But who knows...? Maybe art like this is a way to make the politicians so self-aware that they become the heroes we want them to be?


Who knows... maybe Fairey's flattering poster is exactly what people in high positions need to see?
They need to feel expectations, poetic expectations on them.
They need not to think too much about their private wealth, but of the majesty of their legend,
what they did, what they voted for,
and how immensly many that looked at their face and felt confident hope.

I don't know.

I am tired of this now.




... will watch the last episodes of "Lovely Complex".
Daisuki dayou...