Several years ago I saw this image online and just had to have it and when I went to track it down it had long been sold out since there was only 100 prints of this version ever made. Part of the appeal of this version of The Green Lady was it had been hand silk screened using a method called Split Fountain which is the green/purple colors you see swirling together in the skin areas of the image. It is extremely difficult to keep a consistency using this method because the ink does not like being herded together on the screen or mixing just the way you want and it speaks volumes about the ink slingers experience and knowledge.
Frank Kozik is a smart, irreverent and witty pop artist. I don’t know if the original photographer of this image got any money for Frank using it like he did and I admit I don’t fucking care.
When I look at this to me this art is more than the model or the pose or what the photographer of the underlying image was going for, it is about what the artist contributed to it in techniques and overlays he used and what he did to make it colorful and exuberant and joyful and probably one of the most beautiful rock poster images Frank Kozik ever created.
Despite all this talk of plagiarism and various people using similar artists like Shepard Fairey to argue about how wrong and bad it is in all situations blah blah blah.. it damn was worth all the years online I spent at Expresso Beans finding The Green Lady and then this particular BRY edition and then spending the large amount of money to obtain it. Remember about art, the original artist after a poster like this is created never sees the prices asked for it by the gallery owners even days after the fact.
So yell and accuse me of contributing to bad people doing bad things all you want. Maybe I have a hard time not thinking an artist can simply transform a work by seeing something different in it and interpreting it into something very much his own in the way he frames and treats the image.
I don’t know, I am not an expert but I don’t think the answers are as black or white, right or wrong, as people want to believe they are. All I know is what is beautiful to me and that I see number 31/100 every morning in my house and on my wall and for that I say thank you Frank Kozik.
Tags: eBook Commentary
vein wrote,
I just assume that every honest artist pays for his ink, pays for his paper, and pays for his stock photography. Being honest or not so honest has nothing to do with quality IMHO.
Link | July 14th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
I have seen artist keep clip art files of old magazines and such. I have not seen any artist who does this type of work actually using stock photography so much. I don’t think honesty has much to do with art in either creation or sales.
Andy Warhol used a magazine photo of Marilyn Monroe I don’t think he paid that photographer or got permission from Campbell Soup either for that matter. So honesty, not so much.
Link | July 14th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
vein wrote,
Yeah, well–all I can say is that if a photo is an ingrediant in the final work it is either used legally or stolen. The viewer either cares of they don’t–it doesn’t keep me awake at night exceot in cases where the photo is one of mine. But is seems odd to say stealing from authors is teh ebil and stealing from photographers is totally okay or okay so long as it an artist you personally admire.
Link | July 14th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
I am no expert Emily but I know enough not to simplify arguments over Fair Use by insisting it is black or white because we say it is when we know it is not and never was.
Link | July 14th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
I think what I am trying to say in regards to your assertion that stealing is stealing so nothing the artist does in revision to the image counts is absolutely argued all the time in art.
The question has to be is the image transformed and does it change from photography, to some sort of photography and art commentary that has an entirely different look and feel and most importantly to me a different message.
Frank Kozik, Andy Warhol, and Shepard Fairey are all about the message.
You can still argue with me about the artist using the entire photograph and I am not saying I don’t understand what you are saying.
On the other hand I have to then question what the original purpose of the photo was and was the photographer compensated appropriately for that purpose and could the photographer have the talent to have done something similar to the original piece in order for it to have been considered as valuable artistically as what the artist contributed in his version of the image.
These type of discussions are important in my thinking. I happen to think an artist should be able to grab whatever they want and use it to create with if it means seeing something familiar in a different way. To me there is a difference between simply copying some old photo and the artistic expression unique in style and message to the particular artist we see here.
Joseph Cornell simply assembled little collections of found objects cards and maps and put them together in little boxes. Did he owe the makers of those objects anything for selling them as art since he did not change them physically or seek permission for their use? Or did he change them by changing their artistic value?
Link | July 15th, 2009 at 5:59 am
Double Pedestal Steel Tank Desk | The Naughty Bits wrote,
[...] I have worked at many a desk just like this. It actually sort of fits in my pop art office with our Frank Kozik: The Green Lady and soon the Stanley Mouse: Siouxsie and The Banshees lithograph. I am redoing the top in a sparkly [...]
Link | April 6th, 2010 at 7:30 am